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 117 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.
|
|
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Additional documents: Minutes: The Rules of Procedure were noted by the Sub-Committee.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 225 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 16th and 30th April and 7th May 2019. Additional documents:
Minutes: The minutes from the 16th April, 30th April and 7th May 2019 were agreed and approved as a correct record of the meetings.
|
|
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Printers and Stationers, 21a Ezra Street, London E2 7RH. The application was for the removal of the condition to allow drinks to be taken outside, by customers whilst seated at tables and chairs immediately in front of the wine bar. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of residents.
At the request of the Chair, the applicant Mr Augustine De La Brosse explained he was the proprietor of the wine bar which he had acquired in 2003. However, he had leased the premises to a tenant from 2013 to June 2018. Mr De La Brosse stated that owing to complaints he had received about the previous tenant, he had now taken control of his premises and wanted to expand his business so he could respond to demand and compete with others in the area; by providing patrons the facility to drink outside.
He said the area was a typical London destination where customers can appreciate the charms of the conservation area and congregate to enjoy a drink. Mr De La Brosse acknowledged the area was a mixture of commercial and residential premises and both needed to co-exist. Mr De La Brosse said his business was the smallest of its neighbours and therefore adding tables and chairs outside the premises would not contribute to the wider noise issues cited by the Objectors, and he intended to comply with the conditions agreed with the responsible authorities, such as the installation of CCTV cameras and planters to clearly define the outside space. Mr De La Brosse said he would not be trading after 9:00 p.m.
Members heard from supporters of Mr De La Brosse, who stated that Mr De La Brosse was a respected and conscientious businessman, whose presence in the community was beneficial to locals and would help to galvanise the area.
The Sub-Committee took into account the objectors’ concerns relating to public nuisance and public safety, in particular the impact of noise nuisance on family life, due to the close proximity of their homes to the street below. The Sub-Committee heard from several objectors who stated the noise nuisance they had experienced in recent years had become intolerable. They feared the area would become a magnet for crowds to come and drink in the street. The objectors provided photographic evidence of what the street looked like on a typical weekend, with crowds congregating in the street outside other premises. They said that due to the design and layout of the street, plus the back of the large Victorian primary school, the noise did not disperse easily, as it acted like an echo chamber, multiplying the noise from the street.
Concern was also raised with regard to Public Safety, as the street is a narrow cobbled street, with passing traffic. The objectors expressed concern about drinkers sitting on the kerbside and the ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Angel and Crown, 170 Roman Road, London E2 0RY, which is currently a disused pub. The application was for the sale of alcohol (on & off sales) and for the provision of regulated entertainment (recorded music), seven days a week. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of residents.
At the request of the Chair, the Applicant, Ms Melise Keogh stated she had applied for a new premises licence in the hope of bringing the pub back into use and reinvigorating the High Street. Ms Keogh said she had spoken to many residents and community organisations which supported her venture. She said she had conducted a survey with the help of the Roman Road Trust which found there was overwhelming support and need for this type of establishment in the community. Ms Keogh said the pub would be a community pub, with a focus of allowing community groups and individuals to meet, socialise and interact with each other. She stated she had worked with the Responsible Authorities to ensure the pub would meet the licensing conditions of any licence granted. Ms Keogh said she had been in dialogue with objectors in an effort to allay their fears and answer their concerns. She said she was aware of the problems caused by the previous licensee. However, she was experienced in pub management and took her responsibilities seriously.
The Sub-Committee noted the concerns of the objectors namely Ms Nia Wheeler and Ms Vasiliki Spanos, who are tenants of the flat directly above the pub. Ms Spanos confirmed the Applicant had been in contact with them, but felt the issues of public nuisance and public safety had not been fully addressed. Ms Spanos stated the cellar hatch was directly at the entry point to the flat, and as such she feared that if the cellar hatch was ever left open, for any reason, this could result in a serious accident. Ms Spanos stated that Ms Keogh had offered entry and egress via the pub, but did not believe this was a good solution, as staff and/or any other person could have access to the private hallway and flats upstairs via the inner door connecting to the pub. Ms Keogh offered the tenants the option of having a key-card entry point and stated she would be happy to discuss this further with the objectors.
The Sub-Committee also noted Ms Spanos’ concern about the later opening times of the pub and the public nuisance this would cause. She said her flatmate and herself feared for their safety especially with regard to drunk patrons of the pub loitering near their doorstep, causing a public nuisance.
In answer to questions from Members the following was noted:
· The applicant had communicated with the objectors and had offered a solution to entry and egress, during times when the cellar hatch ... view the full minutes text for item 4.2 |