Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: The Council Chamber, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Simmi Yesmin, Senior Democratic Services Officer Tel: 020 7364 4120, E-mail: simmi.yesmin@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST PDF 67 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
Minutes: There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Additional documents: Minutes: The rules of procedure were noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 120 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committees held on 31st July, 30th August and 18th September 2018.
Additional documents:
Minutes: The minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee meetings held on 31st July, 30th August and 18th September 2018 were agreed and approved as a correct record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Minutes: The Chair varied the order of business at the meeting, however the minutes are set out in the published agenda order for ease of reference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: This application was withdrawn by the Applicant and therefore no longer required consideration by the Licensing Sub Committee.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report, which detailed the application for a review of the premise licence for Tanim Superstores, 542 Commercial Road, London E1 0HY. It was noted that the Police had triggered the review and was supported by the Licensing Authority. Ms Driver highlighted the fact that the current licence had been in place since 2006 and there had been no changes to the Premise Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor since then.
At the request of the Chair, PC Mark Perry, representing the Metropolitan Police explained that the review had been triggered as a result of large amounts of nitrous oxide canisters found at the premises with the intent to sell for human consumption. He stated that there was currently an on-going investigation regarding this.
It was noted that intelligence had been received that the premise was selling nitrous oxide, and following a visit, 13,488 canisters were found at the premises together with boxes of balloons. It was believed that the only reason for these were to sell to people to use as a drug giving a psychoactive effect and therefore undermining the licensing objective of crime and disorder.
PC Perry referred to pages 138 & 153 of the agenda, witness statements from Officers stating that there were bags made up with canisters and balloons ready for sale. There was also a customer who had been given her money back as she was not able to purchase the nitrous oxide due to the visit made by officers at the premises.
It was noted from intelligence reports that there were clear links to nitrous oxide and the premises and clear evidence that they were selling nitrous oxide to people for effects. PC Perry said that it made local residents feel unsafe and this was contributing to anti-social behaviour in the area.
He stated that the Premises Licence Holder had blatant disregard to his responsibilities as a Premises Licence Holder and failed to uphold licensing objectives and therefore not confident he would abide by any licensing conditions.
He concluded that together with the Police, the Licensing Authority and Public Health were also supporting the review. The Premises Licence Holder clearly demonstrates an inability to be trusted to run a licenced premise and to further protect children from harm, therefore PC Perry asked that the premises licence be revoked.
Members then heard from Ms Corinne Holland, representing the Licensing Authority, she explained that the joint visit documented in the Review to the premises on Friday 22 June 2018 clearly showed that nitrous oxide was blatantly being sold to customers, many of these were young persons. The fact that the nitrous oxide was being sold together with balloons was obviously a very clear indicator that the management had full knowledge of what they were being used for. The Police witness reports showed that many young persons were turning up to purchase these and disappointed when turned away.
She explained that the nitrous oxide was ... view the full minutes text for item 4.2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EXTENSION OF DECISION DEADLINE: LICENSING ACT 2003 The Sub Committee may be requested to extend the decision deadline for applications to be considered at forthcoming meetings due to the volume of applications requiring a hearing. Where necessary, details will be provided at the meeting.
Minutes: The Chair agreed to extend the decision deadlines for the following applications;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report, which detailed the application for a temporary event notice (TEN) for George Tavern, 373 Commercial Road, London E1 0LA. It was noted that an objection had been made by the Police. Ms Driver highlighted that the Premises Licence Holder could apply for a maximum of 15 TENs in a calendar year and they had only applied for one in January 2018.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Pauline Foster, Applicant, explained that she occasionally applies for TENs if she gets requests for parties etc. but this was very rare. She explained that on this occasion they had been asked if they could host a party, customers would be from outside the Borough and would have three live bands playing.
Members then heard from PC Mark Perry, Metropolitan Police who highlighted the fact that since August 2018 there have been four incidents of drunken violence at the premises, he referred to his statement in the supplemental agenda and highlighted the incidents. He explained that the incidents all occurred late at night, and had been the cause of drunken violence and therefore this was an example of management failing to control customers. It was noted that Halloween was a busy period and there would be a high risk that there would be further disorder especially if licensed till 3am and this was a risk the Police could not take.
In response to questions the following was noted:
- That the event would have 2 SIA security staff, 4 bar staff and 1 sound engineer. - That the Applicant has helped the Police on many occasions by providing their CCTV footage for incidents that have happened on the streets. - That the main entrance to the pub was through Jubilee Place. - That a lot of customers have been banned from the premises which will help eliminate any further disturbance. - That Ms Foster has been running the premises for past 15 years with no complaints. - Ms Foster stated that they hadn’t received any correspondence from the Police to provide information regarding the recent incidents. However, whenever she has been contacted in the past for information it has been provided. - That there had been four incidents of disorder in the space of the last couple of months - That PC Perry was meeting with Ms Foster on Thursday this week to discuss the application. - That there was too much of a risk associated with this application, and an option would be to negotiate reduced hours and should Police be satisfied then there was an option for a late TEN. - That the event would also be open to the public. - That two security staff were adequate to cover the size of the venue. - It was noted that it was not a destination pub and did not have a big footfall of customers. - That they employed the same two security staff in order ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |