Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Online 'Virtual' Meeting - https://towerhamlets.public-i.tv/core/portal/home. View directions
Contact: Farhana Zia, Senior Democratic Services Officer Tel: 020 7364 0842, E-mail: farhana.zia@towerhamlets.gov.uk
Media
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 214 KB Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest, identified in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine: whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
Members are also reminded to declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it is the Members’ responsibility to identify any interests and also update their register of interest form as required by the Code.
If in doubt as to the nature of an interest, you are advised to seek advice prior the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of interests made.
|
|||||||||
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 224 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 25th February, 23rd June and 14th July 2020. Additional documents:
Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on 25th February, 23rd June and 14th July 2020 were agreed and approved as a correct record.
|
|||||||||
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Additional documents: |
|||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Wombats Hostel, 7 Dock Street, London E1 8LL. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of Environmental Health as well as from local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Philip Dayle, legal representative on behalf of the Applicant, explained that the variation of the premises licence was being sought to allow the sale of alcohol to non-guests until 01:30 a.m. and to permit the playing of non-amplified music outdoors until not later than 11:00 p.m. Mr Dayle referred to the Applicant’s written submissions and the witness statement of Ms Carolin Paarmann. He stated that the concerns raised by the Environmental Health Officer and residents had been addressed in these documents. Mr Dayle referred to paragraphs 3 to 8 of his own submissions and paragraph 22 of Ms Carolin Paarmann’s statement. Mr Dayle said he noted that SIA security staff were already in place to ensure the dispersal of patrons leaving the hostel; this measure would assist in the monitoring of non-hostel guests. He said that the hostel would ensure the number of guests did not exceed the hostel’s capacity which had been reviewed in light of the pandemic guidelines.
Environmental Health Officer Nicola Cadzow and local residents Mr Daniel Gleeson and Ms Megan Raven expressed concern at the risk of public nuisance as a result of the hostel being open to non-guests and playing music outdoors. Mr Gleeson said that residents facing the courtyard would be particularly affected by the noise nuisance and that an earlier closing time of the courtyard would be appropriate to limit the risk of noise nuisance to local residents.
In response to Members’ questions, the following was noted:
1. The Applicant believed there would be less hostel bar patrons than pre-COVID19 when the Premises had a greater number of beds available for use. Ms Paarmann said that the capacity of the bar was being reviewed and the hostel would monitor the number of people entering the Premises. The Premises would not allow members of the public to enter once full capacity had been reached. 2. The Applicant said that she was not aware of public nuisance complaints made to the hostel, other than the objections to the application to vary the licence. Upon further questioning, Ms Paarmann acknowledged that further complaints had been received from neighbours regarding noise nuisance from the Premises. 3. In respect to the courtyard, Ms Paarmann said that the hostel usually closed this area at 10:00 p.m. Smokers use the front of the building after 10:00 p.m. Large groups are broken up if there is too much noise outside the front of the building. 4. The Applicant confirmed that she would accept a condition to limit the use of the courtyard area until 9:00 p.m.
Both parties made closing remarks.
The Chair advised all parties that a decision would ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for an Adult Gaming Centre for Future Leisure, 10 Brick Lane, London E1 6RF. It was noted objections had been received from Officers representing the Licensing Authority and the Metropolitan Police.
The Applicant’s Legal Representative confirmed that the Applicant had taken over the premises of a former betting shop which it wished to convert into an Adult Gaming Centre. The Adult Gaming Centre would have slot machines, with stakes ranging from 10p to £200, which would be supervised by staff on the premises floor. The Applicant’s representative referred to the conditions put forward in appendix 2 of the supplement agenda and stated that the measures proposed were in consistent with industry standards and the Gambling Commission guidance. The Applicant’s representative stated that the documentation in the second supplement demonstrated how the Applicant would uphold the licensing objectives of ensuring crime and disorder was prevented and protecting vulnerable people from the harm of gambling. The Applicant’s representative stated that Mr Tresidder was an experienced operator with seven to eight other gambling premises in north and east London. He noted that the decision to grant a licence should be based on the Applicant satisfying the criteria and not be based on subjective opinions on the mores of gambling. He referred members to page 67 of the bundle and submitted that the objections raised by the Responsible Authorities were based on concerns that were not specific to the premises in question. He believed the documentation provided to the Sub-Committee would satisfy the concerns raised by the objectors.
The Sub-Committee noted the concerns expressed by the Responsible Authorities that the area had a high level of anti-social behaviour and the premises was located in a highly populated area close to several homeless centres and shelters, with many vulnerable people living in the locality. The police expressed concern about the premises operating for 24 hours and being a magnet for vulnerable people. The close proximity of the homeless shelters, whose residents would be drawn to gambling, was a particular concern. The Responsible Authorities noted the high number of incidences of violence and disorder in the area and the likelihood of further violence and disorder by vulnerable people who have lost money in gambling establishments. PC Perry accepted that the Applicant was an appropriate person to hold a licence but the application was unsuitable given the location of the premises. He said that despite the policies and procedures in place, such as the Challenge 25 policy, there was insufficient measures to protect vulnerable people. The Sub-Committee explored if a condition on having a security presence at the premises for 24 hours would be acquiesced, however, the Applicant noted that this was unlikely to be viable; security requirements would be subject to risk assessments.
In response to questions from Members, the following was noted:
· The Applicant reassured the Sub-Committee that people under 18 would ... 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.
Additional documents: Minutes: Members agreed to extend the decision deadlines for the following applications:
|