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: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were declared by members.
|
|
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Additional documents: Minutes: The Rules of Procedure were noted by the Sub Committee.
|
|
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Application for a premises licence variation for Preem, 118-122 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL PDF 136 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Principal Licensing Officer introduced the application stating that the Applicant was seeking to extend the hours of operation plus remove some of the conditions on the licence. Mr Ali referred Members to page 22 of the agenda which stated the current opening hours and the new hours being applied for. Mr Ali referred Members to the site plan appended at Appendix 3 and the representations of the Responsible Authorities. Mr Ali said these could be found at pages 75 to 84 of the agenda. Several objections had also been received from local residents and Housing Associations in the vicinity and these were documented on pages 86 to 111 in the agenda pack.
Members heard from the Applicant’s Solicitor, Mr Anthony Edwards who stated his Client had been operating in Brick Lane for more than 20 years and, in a tough trading environment, was seeking an extension of opening hours and a relaxation of the condition to have SIA accredited door supervisors throughout the week. Mr Edwards referred Members to the supplementary agenda and the proposed amendment to the extension of hours, seeking extended hours to 02:00 hours in respect of only 120-122 Brick Lane rather than for the whole restaurant, so as not to add to the cumulative impact. Mr Edwards referred to the objections raised by residents, and said these were not specific to the restaurant, but complaints in relation to the general neighbourhood. Mr Edwards referred to the objections of the Responsible Authorities and said that whilst it is clear there are issues with touting in Brick Lane, his client would ask all employees to sign the restaurant’s customer service policy, which states that they will not engage in touting or offer reductions or special deals.
Mr Edwards continued, stating that the need to have SIA accredited door supervisors for the whole week was excessive and expensive, and his Client was seeking variation of the related condition to apply only to Thursday to Saturday.
The Members also considered the objections of the Responsible Authorities who said touting had been a significant issue in Brick Lane and there had been on-going and historic breaches. Kathy Driver referred Members to page 76 of the agenda, paragraph 5, stating that as recently as the 22nd July 2018, Mr Hussain’s employees were touting for business. PC Mark Perry added that it was a question of trust when considering the application which sought more than what was provided in the existing premises licence: could Mr Hussain be trusted to abide by the variations sought given the history of compliance at the premises showed issues had arisen regarding compliance with what was already required in the premises licence as it stood? PC Perry said that the restaurant’s history showed a flagrant abuse of licensing requirements, which did not uphold the licensing objectives. PC Perry said anti-touting requirements had been contravened, and there was an increased risk of anti-social behaviour and public nuisance as a ... view the full minutes text for item 3.1 |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Before hearing this application, the Members of the Sub-Committee having noted there were two apparently conflicting applications in respect of the same premises, sought to establish who the Applicant was in each instance and the respective relation to the business of each applicant in relation to these premises – Mr Suhelur Rahman and Mr. Catalin Lonita.
The Chair of the Sub-Committee asked Mr Anthony Edwards who appeared as solicitor for both applicants, whether he wanted to withdraw one of the two applications before the Sub-Committee. Mr Edwards was reluctant to withdraw either application, and said he would prefer if the Members heard both applications before deciding on which should be granted. Mr Edwards explained that one Applicant, Mr Suhelur Rahman was applying for a premises licence on behalf of Interlagos Holdings Limited. Interlagos Holdings Limited had won the franchise rights to operate a German Doner Kebab in Tower Hamlets. Interlagos Holdings Limited was a family run company, who had several business interests in Tower Hamlets but who had never run a food business before. The Company Director for Interlagos Holdings Limited is not the Applicant, but his father, Khalisur Rahman, whilst the Applicant is the leaseholder of the premises.
Mr Edwards said the breaches cited by the Responsible Authorities on page 181-183, were due to the Applicant’s brother, Amanur Rahman who was responsible for the day to day running of the shop at 207 Mile End Road, London E1 4AA. Due to the family having never run a food business before, they were ignorant of the fact that a late night refreshment licence would be required. Mr Edwards said Amanur Rahman acknowledged the mistakes were his responsibility. However since becoming aware that a licence is needed the business has traded for five weekends under a Temporary Events Notice Licence (TENs) with no issues whatsoever.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted:
– It was stated Mr Suhelur Rahman was the leaseholder of the premises, and Mr Catalin Loan Lonita was the manager employed to manage the business.
– In response to why the company was applying for the licence, Mr Edwards stated it was a family run business.
– Mr Suhelur Rehman was asked if he was a manager or employee of the company or was he one of the directors of the Company? Mr Suhelur Rahman said he was a salaried employee of Interlagos Holdings Ltd.
– Mr Mohshin Ali, Senior Licensing Officer confirmed the Company House search did not show Mr Suhelur Rahman as a Director of the company.
– Mr Suhelur Rahman reiterated he was a leaseholder of the building and his father was the director of the company. Mr Suhelur Rahman stated that he was responsible for the day to day decisions in relation to the business and Mr Lonita was employed to oversee the operation of the business.
The Members of the Sub-Committee heard from their legal advisor that it was a concern that two apparently conflicting applications relating to the ... view the full minutes text for item 3.2 |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Principal Licensing Officer introduced the application, stating that the Applicant was seeking a late night refreshment licence for German Doner Kebab, 207 Mile End Road, London E1 1AA. Mr Ali stated a copy of the application was appended at Appendix 1, the site plan at Appendix 2 and the Home Office guidelines at Appendix 5. Mr Ali said the representations against the application could be found in Appendices 6 and 7.
Members of the Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant’s Solicitor Mr Anthony Edwards, who confirmed that the Applicant was Mr Catalin Loan Lonita and that German Doner Kebab was a franchise business looking to operate in the United Kingdom. Mr Edwards stated Mr Lonita had no responsibility for previous failings in relation to the premises having previously sold hot food during hours in which it was unlawful to do so without a late night refreshment licence. Mr Edwards also said Mr Lonita was an experienced business manager, and had been a manager since March 2018. The business had previously successfully operated late night refreshments under Temporary Events Notices (TEN’s) on five weekends without problems at all. Mr Edwards said the licence sought was essential if the business was to ensure its longevity and success, as profit was being lost by the business being unable to serve late night refreshment.
The Members considered the objections of the Licensing Authority, and Kathy Driver referred Members to page 242 of the agenda. Ms Driver said the main cause of concern was who was responsible for the business and who would be making day to day decisions.
It was unclear from discussion between the applicant, Mr Edwards, and the Members as to who was in charge of the business. Mr. Lonita presented as a manager, but one of his party who attended the Sub-Committee hearing presented as the owner/leaseholder yet was not the applicant, and there was a limited company, Interlagos Limited involved in the business, but Mr. Lonita was not an officer of that company. There were inconsistencies between the application of Mr. Lonita and the application regarding the same premises which comprised item 3.2 of the agenda.
Following an adjournment at 20:35 p.m. for members to consider this confused state of affairs, the Members returned at 20:53 p.m., after which the other application in respect of the same premises (item 3.2 of the agenda above) was withdrawn by Mr Edwards, and the Members continued proceedings by proceeding to hear the application by Mr. Lonita. Members had considered during their adjournment whether both applications comprising agenda items 3.2 and 3.3 ought to be deferred in light of the confusion as to who was responsible for the business, to give the applicants and their solicitor time to reconsider and revise the respective applications regarding the same premises. However, this was no longer necessary when Mr Edwards withdrew the application comprising agenda item 3.2.
Kathy Driver, Senior Licensing Officer stated an adjournment would not have ... view the full minutes text for item 3.3 |
|
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: There were no applications requiring extensions.
|