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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for variation of the Premises Licence for Studio Space Ltd, 110 Pennington Street, Wapping London E1W 2BB.It was noted that objections had been received from local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Sarah Clover, the Applicant’s legal representative, presented the application. She stated that this was a relatively modest variation concerning the use of the outdoor space adjacent to the existing premises. For background, Ms Clover explained the current licence related to the nightclub, which had been in operation since 2011 and was managed by Studio Space Limited. She said the application had been put together by Mr Murkett, a licensing and acoustic consultant, and referred Members to page 67 of the agenda, which provided a written summary of the application. Ms Clover said the granting of the licence would result in the positive reuse of a derelict piece of land which had previously attracted anti-social behaviour. She explained her client, Mr Yuval Hen, wanted to use the outdoor space as a garden to serve alcohol, refreshments and regulated entertainment.
Ms Clover described the outdoor space as a glorified beer garden with planters, flower beds, foliage and acoustic barrier. She said freelancers such as street and food traders were invited to use the space, which had a bohemian ambiance. Ms Clover said Mr Yuval Hen had been creative during the pandemic crisis, especially as the nightclub had been out of use for about nine months. She said under the Business and Planning Act 2020, Mr Yuval Hen did not require a licence, however, in order for the Licensing Authority to have some control, he had submitted the present variation application. Mr Hen had successfully demonstrated through the TENs applications, over the summer, that the outdoor space could be used positively. She said her client Mr Hen was seeking to make this a permanent fixture and was applying to have a licence with conditions attached, which unified the space for the betterment of the community.
Ms Clover said the application had attracted a huge amount of support with over 500 supporters, 120-130 of which had representations included in the agenda pack. She said some people were asked not to make formal submissions as the amount of written submissions crashed the Council’s website and created additional work for the licensing officers who were required to verify each submission. She said a modest 9:00 p.m. licence for the outdoor space was being sought, even though the Home Office guidance and the Council’s framework hours recognised 11:00 p.m. as the watershed. Ms Clover continued stating it was noteworthy the absence of any representations from the Responsible Authorities. She said the issues raised by some of the objectors and the Residents Association were known to the Responsible Authorities, yet they’d resisted making objections to the application. Ms Clover said the Responsible Authorities had collaborated and offered conditions for the licence.
Ms Clover stated ... view the full minutes text for item 3.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for variation of the Premises Licence for Discount Suit Company Ltd, 1a Bell Lane, London E1 7LA. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Andrew Kerr, the Applicant presented his application to vary the premises licence. He said he had been trading for the past seven years until 1:00 a.m. and wanted to extend the hours of operation until 2:00 a.m. for Thursday to Saturday. Mr Kerr said he had not incurred a single complaint about noise or drunken behaviour and said his cocktail bar was unique in that it is a high-end cocktail bar with a capacity of sixty people. The staff to customers ratio was high with five members of staff to eight tables and doorman on duty between Wednesday and Saturday, even though Wednesday was not a requirement under the current licence. Mr Kerr said the cocktail bar was a neighbourhood cocktail bar with many local customers. He said the timings of people leaving the venue would be staggered and said after such a terrible year, he wanted the opportunity to increase the hours of trading. Mr Kerr said he would be happy to accept a condition of no entry after 1:00 a.m. and said although he understood why there was a cumulative impact zone in the area, he did not believe this would impact on the local area in a negative way.
Members then heard from Corrine Holland, Licensing Officer, who stated the Licensing Authority were objecting to the application on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance as the premises is in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone. She said the application to extend the hours of operation ought to be refused in the first instance, unless the Applicant could rebut the presumption and show how the licensing objectives would be upheld. Ms Holland stated that the premises was in a residential area and presently operated beyond the Council’s framework hours. She said on the balance of probabilities, the Licensing Authority was concerned that the increased timings to 2:00 a.m. would cause public nuisance with high spirited customers leaving the bar adding to the issues already experienced in the area. She requested the application be refused on this basis.
Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer, added that the application failed to satisfy the objective of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to public nuisance, as the noise breakout from the venue would affect neighbouring residents and patrons leaving the premises in high spirits would cause disturbance to residents at the noise sensitive hours being sought. She said whilst she acknowledged the impact the pandemic has had on local businesses Members were urged to consider the licensing objectives as per the Council Licensing policy and the protection of the public from public nuisance rather than the financial impact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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 applications below to the dates stated; Licensing applications were extended due to the impact of the pandemic, and were adjourned under regulation 11 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, and was in the public interest to do so and did not require representation from parties of the application.
|