The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, ensured that introductions were made and then briefly outlined the procedure of the meeting.  

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.

There were no declarations of interests made.

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

The Rules of Procedures were noted.

The order of business was varied at the meeting to allow representatives to attend. However the minutes are in the same order as set out in the published agenda for ease of reference.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Acting Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a review of the premises license for London Food Centre, 407 Roman Road, London E3 5QS. It was noted that the review had been triggered by the Metropolitan Police.

At the request of the Chair, PC Andy Jackson explained that the premises had been reviewed more than any other premises, that the premises was located in a residential area and was a magnet for anti-social behaviour. He referred to his statement on page 27 of the agenda and explained that following a recent review the decision was made to allow the premises to sell alcohol up to 23:00 hours with the condition that the premises be closed between the hours of 01:00 hours to 07:00 hours.

Mr Jackson continued to explain that during a late night visit on 7^th August 2010 at 01:55 hours the shop was open with customers inside purchasing goods. Both Premise License Holders were present and the alcohol display shutters were up. Mr Jackson had asked why they were open outside their trading hours to which they stated they were expecting a delivery of fruit and vegetables. It was noted that on 10^th August 2010 both Mr Tas and Mr Akyol, Premises License Holders attended the Bethnal Green Police Station to discuss the incident and were reminded of their trading hours. They were also sent a letter confirming their trading hours. On 13^th August 2010, Sgt Burke observed several customers leaving the premises with bottles in bags which appeared to be wine bottles and beer cans at 23:40 hours. She then went into the shop and undertook a test purchase, when she went into the store the large shutters were pulled over a wine display but beer cans were displayed at the bottom and both chillier cabinets were not covered and from one of these she selected a can of Strongbow cider, she paid for the drink but was not offered a receipt.      

Mr Jackson concluded by saying that it was the fourth time in two years that the premises had been reviewed and then urged Members to revoke the premise licence. 

At the request of the Chair, Mr Deliver Tas, owner of the premises, explained that he had taken over the premises 9 months ago. He explained that the first incident where the shop was open after 01:00 hours was because staff had been waiting for a delivery of fruit and vegetables. He explained that the deliveries were always made late at night and they had not had a chance to inform suppliers that the operating hours had changed and that they were no longer open 24 hours. 

Mr Tas said that since he had taken over the anti-social behaviour associated with the premises had significantly improved. He believed that there were some residents who had made racial comments against him and felt that they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Acting Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises license forA1 News, 59 Brady Street, London E1 5DW. It was noted that objections had been received by local residents.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Helal Miah, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant Mr Abdul Rab, explained they were applying for a new premises licence for the sale of alcohol. He explained that Mr Rab had been operating the premises for the past 15 years, a local shop, a local service for local people and the local area. He believed that the objections were personally aimed at Mr Rab and not the premises as a whole. Mr Miah acknowledged that there were issues of anti-social behaviour in the area, however believed that by granting the licence would not increase the anti-social behaviour that currently exists. He noted the concerns of local residents but assured the sub committee that appropriate measures would be put in place to deter such problems ie. signage displayed in the premises, identifications checked, operating a challenge 18 policy. He also explained that Mr Rab was not responsible to control the behaviour of youth who congregate around the local area and cause anti-social behaviour.

It was noted that there had been no complaints regarding the premises over the past 15 years and that all objections were allegations made on Mr Rab’s character, no specific complaints about the premises and questioned why all objections were made during the last days of the consultation period and believed that these were instigated by certain individuals.

Councillor Lesley Pavitt spoke on behalf of local residents and as a Ward Member for Bethnal Green South, she explained that she was aware of the particular area which had high levels of anti-social behaviour. It was noted that the particular area was an alcohol free zone and therefore hard to access alcohol. She explained that residents were particularly concerned because the premise was on the route to and from a secondary school and primary school, which may encourage young people to experiment with alcohol. She asked Members to note the number of residents who signed the petition and those who had made individual representations.

The Chair reported that there were no objectors present at the meeting, however, all the written objections would be considered and noted by Members.

In response to questions it was noted that there had been no underage sales of alcohol, as the premises does not have a licence, however on one occasion they were found to sell alcohol without a licence, this was stopped and this incident had occurred one year ago. It was noted that Sainsbury’s was the local supermarket in the area and was approximately 800 yards away from the premises. It was also noted that CCTV cameras had already been purchased and would be installed immediately if the application was to be granted. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Acting Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises license forPoppies Fish & Chips, 6-8 Hanbury Street, London E1 6QR. It was noted that objections had been received by local residents.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Niall McCann, Solicitor for the applicant, Mr Ekrem Hassan, explained that he wised to amend the license application by reducing the hours for licensable activity. Mr McCann explained that the premises would be used as a traditional restaurant selling good quality fish and chips with limited alcohol provision and predicted that the sale of alcohol would generate 10-15% of the overall income. He further explained that during the consultation period they had written to the residents with set conditions and reduced hours. It was noted that the restaurant would have 44 covers and the regulated entertainment would be for background music only. The concern relating to off sales was met, with a condition for no off sales of alcohol. It was further noted that there would be no vertical drinking and that drinks would only be sold with meals.

The Chair then invited residents who wished to address the Committee, Jane Curtis, Juliet and Keith Bowler were among the 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.

In response to questions it was noted that the restaurant had 44 covers, the applicant had agreed to conditions for CCTV cameras, it was noted that the residents who were in objection lived 40-50 metres from the premises. It was noted that other premises closed early to protect local amenity, that it was a busy area and that Brick Lane was very close by. In response to further questions residents felt that this premises would cause an increase in public nuisance and crime and disorder.

In conclusion, Mr McCann stated that they had reduced their hours in line with the Council’s framework hours and that the early hours for sale of alcohol were sought for special occasions ie. champagne breakfast etc. He urged Members to consider the application on its individual merits and believed that it would not impact on the local area and in fact benefit the local community.

The Chair advised that the Sub Committee would at 7.30pm adjourn to consider the evidence presented. The Members reconvened at 8.00pm. The Chair reported that;

Having heard representations from both parties and based on the evidence provided. Members considered the application and made the decision based on the terms of reference and taking into consideration the licensing objectives.

Members also considered residents concerns regarding the impact of the license in the local area and the anti-social behaviour problems that currently existed, however it was decided that many of the concerns raised were not within the remit of the Licensing Sub Committee and therefore should be raised in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

There was no other business.