The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, ensured that introductions were made and then briefly outlined the procedure of the meeting. He announced that at 7.53pm he would adjourn the meeting for a comfort break.  

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

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 Chief Executive.

Councillor Ohid Ahmed, declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.1, application for review of the premises license for Cost Cut, 219 East India Dock Road, London E14 0ED on the basis that the premises was in his ward. 

To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information.

The Rules of Procedures were noted.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 3^rd August 2010.

The unrestricted minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee meeting held on 3^rd August 2010 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings. 

The application was ADJOURNED at the request of the Premises License Holder. Neither the applicant nor the person making representations in support of the application objected to the request.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Nick Kemp, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the review application for Mile End Food & Wine, 93 Burdett Road, London E3 4JN. It was noted that the review had been triggered by the Metropolitan Police.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Andy Jackson, Metropolitan Police explained that the review related to a series of operations run jointly between the Police, Trading Standards and Customs & Excises. It was noted that Mile End Food & Wine was visited on 21^st April 2010 and on entry to the premise, a total of 38.5 litres (55 bottles) of counterfeit mixed spirits and 136 bottles of non duty paid mixed wine were found on the premises these were then seized. There had been no receipts produced for the goods at the time of seizure and when the Premises Licence Holder was questioned about where he had brought the goods from, he confirmed that he had brought the goods from a door to door salesman who came to the shop in a white van.

It was noted that the goods seized amounted to a total duty evaded of £826.32. Mr Jackson referred Members to the DCMS guidance which stated that the sale of smuggled tobacco and alcohol should be treated particularly seriously. He urged members to revoke the license in this instance in order to send a powerful message to the premises and to all other off licenses in the area.

Mr Ian Moseley, Trading Standards, explained that having examined records held by Trading Standards Services, that there were three allegations received between 09/01/2008 to 27/05/2009 that underage sales of alcohol was taking place from the premises however five test purchase attempts had been correctly refused from 2008 to date. He explained that counterfeit and non duty paid alcohol not only represented a loss to the national revenue from the failure to pay duty, that it also introduced a health risk as the goods may have been defective or contain contaminates. He then detailed some conditions to restrict the purchase of alcohol if Members were not minded to revoke the license.  

Mr Ibrahim Aytec, legal representative for the Premises License Holder urged Members not to grant revocation of the licence. He explained that there had never been any complaints or problems since the shop was opened in 2007 and had five test purchases which were correctly refused. Mr Aytec stated that the Premises Licence Holder acknowledged his mistake for purchasing the goods and welcomed the conditions suggested by Trading Standards. Mr Aytec concluded by highlighting the financial effects the business would have if revocation was granted. 

In response to questions it was noted that all the alcohol was bought in one purchase, the Premises Licence Holder did have a receipt for the goods, however can no longer find it. In response to further questions, the Premises License Holder explained that since the review application he had changed his purchasing methods and was now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

At the request of the Chair, Mr Nick Kemp, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the review application for the premises licence for the Urban Bar, 27 Three Colt Street, E14 8HH.  It was noted that the review had been triggered by the police and Environmental Health.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Andy Jackson of the Metropolitan Police explained that there had been complaints to the Environmental Health Section from residents.    Mr Slankard (the licensee) was in contact with Mr Wareing from Environmental Protection, and therefore was aware of the problems.

Anti-social behaviour had been observed outside the bar, this included a patron urinating in the street, and shouting; measures discussed to reduce this were:

• Adequate door staff
• Control over the numbers of smokers
• Control over taxis collecting home going patrons

Mr Slankard disputes that there is noise caused by his patrons.

Mr Jackson continued, stating that police officers had undertaken observation of the premises.  Mr Jackson opposed ‘drinking up’ time, in his opinion patrons would merely order larger drinks to extend the time of drinking. 

Mr Wareing said that he felt a sound limiter was required in the bar.

One of the applicants, Mr Matysik, said he had moved to Three Colts Street in August 2009.  That there were problems with the Urban Bar was evident from the start.  Nightly loud music was both heard and the vibrations of it felt.  The landlord appeared in breach of his licensing hours.  Mr Matysik finally complained to Environmental Protection.  Since the last review, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights were sheer hell.

Mr Mullis, another applicant, said there was evidence of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour in what was a residential street.  The licence was applied for in 2005, and was badly drawn up.  Mr Mullis sought a mutually agreeable consensus.  At present the Urban Bar attracts patrons from 11pm to 1 am, and Mr Mullis understood that 50% of the takings were derived from Friday and Saturday nights from 12 midnight to 2 am.  Mr Mullis felt there was irresponsible sale of alcohol, and late night customers were noisy arriving and leaving.

Mr Mullis felt that Mr Slankard was only just coming round to dealing with the noise.  Initially a banner was put up warning or threatening that there was licensed premises.  Since then there were always glasses and bottles, vomiting, slamming of taxi doors until the early hours of the morning.  The Bar was surrounded by residential blocks.

Mr Green, another applicant, said the Urban Bar was a community asset; the issue was with late night noise (loud noise, screaming and violence), not the existence of the bar.

Mr Glazebrook, solicitor for the objector, said that Mr Slankard had been running the public house for 14 years, and the surroundings had changed more that the Bar.  The Urban Bar was converted in 2005, and there had been no problems with John Lauder House.  Unfortunately, the newly built Gateway House was cheek by jowel with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

There was no other business considered urgent by the Chair.