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.

Councillor Amina Ali declared an interest on item 4.1, Application for a variation of the premises licence for Milk Float, Sweet Water Trading Mooring, Hackney Wick, London E9 5EN on the basis that the premises was in her ward. However, she confirmed that she had not discussed the application with any interested parties prior to the meeting.

The rules of procedure were noted.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 28^th September and 26^th October 2021.

The minutes of the meetings held on 28^th September and 26^th October 2021 were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

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 Milk Float, Sweet Water Trading Mooring, Hackney Wick, London E9 5EN. It was noted that objections had been made by a local ward councillor and on behalf of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). However, it was noted that the issues of concerns raised by the LLDC had now been addressed and therefore their objection had been withdrawn prior to the hearing.

The Chair stated that any reference to personal home addresses or personal details would be disregarded and any reference would be excluded from the minutes.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Alfie Hatt, Applicant, briefly explained that prior to making the application, the premises had been trading off sales of alcohol successfully for the six months prior to that under the temporary permissions granted to all pubs and bars in the wake of COVID 19. Mr Hatt explained that he had consulted with PC Mark Perry, Metropolitan Police, prior to submitting the application and in line with his advice, the following conditions  had been stipulated: that all takeaway sales of alcohol to be sold in sealed biodegradable containers; no takeaway alcohol shall be consumed in the immediate vicinity of the premises. To support this there wase signage in place, all the staff had been briefed on this and the private security firm engaged by the applicant was also aware to stop anyone loitering or drinking in the immediate area. As well as this another condition was agreed with the police, namely that no off sales of alcohol to be served one hour either side of or during sporting events at the London Stadium. It was noted that the application subsequently received no objections from the Metropolitan Police or Environmental Health.

Mr Hatt explained that the two objections initially focused on concerns relating to the grassy bank which was overlooked directly by Omega works and was adjacent to the premises. As a result of gatherings of people on the bank, he had reached out directly to local residents and other stakeholders to discuss ways in which everyone could all work together to monitor and police the grassy bank area and the site in general and as part of that put in place a protocol for strategic escalation of any incidents or gatherings on that area. As a part of this, Mr Hatt committed to cease take-away trade immediately at the first sign of any group gatherings. In addition, he was also in direct communication with a private security firm and had a link to the Olympic Park headquarters, with a protocol in place that if there was any signs of disruption, the premises would immediately stop off sales trade and notify the relevant authorities. Thus, not only were they responding directly but also assisting in the solution to the problem. He said that this policy had been trialled and tested throughout  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

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 The Medieval Banquet, Ivory House, St Katherine's Dock, East Smithfield, London E1W 1BP. It was noted that objections had been made by local residents.

At this juncture, Mr Leo Charalambides, Legal Representative on behalf of the Friends of St Katherines Dock requested to speak and address the Sub-Committee on points of procedural irregularities.

He referred the Sub Committee to the Section 182 guidance around what is relevant vexatious or frivolous on page 175 of the agenda and questioned why this was positioned right at the beginning of the representations that have been made by the local residents. Mr Jonathan Melnick, Principal Enforcement Lawyer confirmed that there was no suggestion that the representations made by the objectors are said to be irrelevant vexatious or frivolous and referred Mr Charalambides to paragraph 6.7 of the report on page 134 of the agenda which confirmed that all the representations in this report has been considered by the relevant officer and was clear that all of the representations met the required test and were clearly relevant representations in respect to this application.

Mr Charalambides then referred to another matter to which he raised an objection to, he explained that the application was submitted on 2^nd February 2021, there was no tenant in place at the time and due to the number of representations the application was adjourned sine die until such time as a new tenant was identified. He explained that an application must be heard pursuant to regulation 5 of the Hearing Regulations, within 20 working days of the last date for representations. Further, he asserted that under the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 a hearing could be adjourned only once and it must be to a period that is fixed and made public in advance.  He also stated that although the authority had extended a time limit for the application, it must give notice to the parties involved stating the period of the extension and the reasons for it, however his clients were never given a notice. He questioned how the applicant was able to write to the authority and be given such adjournments. Further to these points he urged the Sub-Committee to dismiss the application and invite the applicants to reapply. 

Mr Niall McCann, Legal Representative on behalf of the applicant expressed his discontent by the approach taken by Mr Charalambides. He stated that they had tried to work with the residents and adopt a collegiate approach throughout the application process but have been unsuccessful. He said that he had contacted Mr Charalambides, days prior to the meeting, and was waiting to hear back from him with any concerns/queries etc. however he had not heard back until this meeting today. It was noted that these arguments had been made without allowing him sufficient time to prepare for a response or to deal with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

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.

Nil items.