Murder at Mile End: Have your say 2

IMPORTANT MESSAGE – We have emails from the Licensing Services Manager at LBTH that all personal information from any submission to the the committee will be redacted (ie deleted). So no personal information from comments will be in the public domain. LBTH say this policy has been in place for just over eight months.

The notice below has appeared on a couple of lamp posts on the corner of Mile End Road and Burdett Road. This means that the Boheme Club (formerly Broke London) has now had its license suspended pending a review. The Police believe the premises are associated with serious crime and disorder. As residents we have until Friday 8th April to make our opinions known to the The Licensing Department at London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Tower Hamlets Council (the licensing authority) refused the licence application for this club in August 2009. Ben Wilson (the applicant) appealed this decision to Thames Magistrates Court at Bow Road before district judge Jacqueline Comyms

The music policy of the past had been an influence in the disturbances associated with the previous club licence. She stated that she was persuaded that the proposed change in music policy would be effective.

If you do wish to make your views known, whether to support the club or to oppose it, this may be done by means of a letter addressed to The Licensing Department, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Licensing Section, Mulberry Place (AH) PO Box 55739, London E14 1BY. (to arrive there by this Friday) The letter may also be sent as an attachment to an email to

Note that any representation must be related to the four objectives of the licensing act. These are:
a) the prevention of crime and disorder.
b) public safety
c) the prevention of public nuisance
d) the protection of children from harm.
Any comments not related to these objectives will be disregarded.

For more information on how to make a represntation please visit the MERA News blog.

For your information you can find the license details here (link to Google Docs).

We are currently trying to find out the date, time and location of the review and we will circulate this as soon as the information becomes available. This will be a public meeting and local people will be able to attend, although not many will be able to speak.



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 thoughts on “Murder at Mile End: Have your say

  • resident

    Thanks for the reminder of the Council decision to the licence for the club BROKE (later Boheme) in August 2009. The Minutes of that Committee (abridged) may be useful to recall in the upcoming licence review:

    Application for a new premises licence for Former Club E3, 562a Mile End Road, London E3 4PH (LSC016/910). The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, ensured that introductions were made and then briefly outlined the procedure of the meeting. At the request of the Chair, Kathy Butler, Acting Principal Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premise licence for 562a Mile End Road, London E3 4PH for the sale of alcohol, the provision of Regulated Entertainment and the provision of Late Night Refreshments.
    It was noted that objections had been received by Environmental Protection, Resident Association, the Mile End SNT Ward Panel and local residents. The Chair invited Stephen Walsh, Counsel to present on behalf of the applicant, Mr Walsh briefly explained the purpose of the club, the prospective clientele of the club, and the style of operation it set to maintain. He confirmed that Broke London had no connection with the former clubs at the premises, such as Benjys, Purple E3 and Club E3, and stated that the new Club would not cause the same level of disturbance as done previously by former clubs. Mr Walsh informed the Committee that the applicant wished to vary the days and hours of operation to only Thursday – Saturday terminal 03:00 hrs and to close at 03:30 hrs….It was noted that previous events, style of music, and dress code had largely contributed to the nuisance caused to local residents as it attracted gang culture, weapons, violence etc. Mr Walsh stated that the club would not have outside promoters, would have a formal dress code and the capacity of the club would be reduced from 700 to 500. It was further noted that the police had made no representation in objection to this application. Mr Walsh expressed his sympathy with local residents and explained that the primary element of concern was the noise breakout from access and egress to the club which they wished to address by way of introducing free valet service, taxi service, and the introduction of Marshals, who’s roles would be to direct customers to the valet service and to deter those from parking in residential areas. These new services were then explained in detail…Mr Walsh concluded that if the Committee granted the licence the applicant would adhere to all the conditions set out in the agenda which included provision for CCTV, dress code, style of music, introduction of the taxi service, valet service, parking facilities, Marshals etc
    …The Chair then invited Councillor Joshua Peck, to speak on behalf of residents in the local area. Councillor Peck stated that he was speaking on behalf of residents who lived towards the north of the club and was also representing Councillors Ali, Jackson, Saunders and Uz-Zaman.
    Councillor Peck addressed the points which Mr Walsh made in relation to valet service, marshals, and exit routes. He then underlined the key issues of public nuisance the club would cause and has caused in the past, explaining the types of nuisance caused and the problems residents have had to experience. He stated that the reduction in the number of days open and the reduction in opening hours would still not be satisfactory in relation to the public nuisance the club would be likely to cause. He strongly believed that a capacity of 500 people was still a large number of people considering the club is situated in a residential area. Councillor Peck also highlighted that since the closure of the former clubs, there had been a significant reduction in public nuisance, anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder and drug activity. Concerns were also raised in relation to the applicant’s previous record of management style in Greenwich Council, and why the acoustic report was not made available earlier and additional materials presented at the last minute.
    …residents who spoke in objection to the application, each addressing similar concerns in relation to noise nuisance, public disorder, anti-social behaviour, drug activity and crime and disorder. Residents also raised concerns in relation to the additional information submitted by the applicant especially the petition* which seemed to support the opening of the club. Mr Nadir Ahmed…challenged the validity of the petition by stating that one of the named petition was his sister in law who had not signed the petition in the intention to support the club as she had been told that it was to support the prevention of anti-social behaviour in the local area…
    The Chair then opened up for questions…In response to a question the applicant stated that the only relationship he had with the previous licence holder was one of landlord and leaseholder and therefore only had a financial relationship. However it was confirmed that the previous licence holder would have no involvement in the club. The applicant confirmed that he had no knowledge of the Purple E3 and Club E3 reunion posters which had been posted around the local area. Members asked questions about the smoking facilities, the applicant’s previous history in Greenwich Council and reasons for the late supporting petition. The Chair…reported that the Sub Committee had unanimously; RESOLVED That the application for a new premises licence for 562a Mile End Road, London E3 4PH be REFUSED

    *this petition was discredited. Broke’s petitioner was a Mr Happy. (Spelling unsure as the petitioner’s name does not appear in the Minutes.)

    Full Minutes should be here: //