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.

There were no declarations of interest made.

The rules of procedure were noted.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Corrine Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Tondo Pizza Ltd, Unit 2 Hermitage Court, London E1W 1NR. It was noted that objections had been received from local residents in relation to the prevention of public nuisance. It was also noted that conditions had been agreed with responsible authorities and those agreed with Licensing Services had been omitted from the report and were therefore circulated at the meeting for reference.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Shelia Esposito, Proposed Designated Supervisor addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Applicant and explained that the premises had been opened since 16^th December 2021 with no complaints or issues at the premises. She said she had personally emailed all the objectors to try and address their concerns by explaining that there would be no drinks allowed outside the premises, and all alcoholic drinks would only be served to customers seated at a table and ancillary to a meal. It was noted that in order to appease the objectors they would stop the sale of alcohol one hour before closing time and there would be no deliveries of goods late in the evening.

Ms Esposito told the Sub-Committee that there were 24 covers at the restaurant and there would be no increased footfall in the area as the customers were local residents. She said they currently did not offer a takeaway delivery service and if they were to consider this in the future this would be done using bicycles to avoid causing noise nuisance. She highlighted that the CCTV conditions as proposed by the responsible authorities would be adhered to and she as the DPS would be in charge of training staff and the premises would operate the Challenge 25 policy. It was noted that they had installed a new oven which did not generate noise or smoke, the premises was fully insulated and therefore noise or smell would not emanate from the premises. 

Ms Esposito explained that there had been one complaint made since opening, where there had been a hole in the wall, and this had been rectified immediately by the applicant. Other than this she confirmed that there had been no complaints regarding the premises. In conclusion, Ms Esposito said that it was a family run business mainly attracting local residents and families and that the premises would be closing at 11pm seven days a week and did not envisage serving alcohol would not negatively affect the area.

Members then heard from Mr Howard Redgwell, local resident, who expressed his concerns around the likely increase in noise and public nuisance if a licence were to be granted. He also raised concerns about the terms of the lease and questioned whether the applicant was operating within the terms of his lease. He believed that the applicant was sub-leasing the premises and therefore without direct contact with the company for commercial units there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

At the request of the Chair, Ms Corrine Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a review of the premises licence for Old Ford Mini Market, 389 Old Ford Road, London, E3 2LU. It was noted that the review had been brought by Trading Standards and was based on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. Ms Holland brought the Sub-Committee’s attention to an error in the report and confirmed that during the inspection of the premises 260 Benson & Hedges cigarettes and 80 Marlboro cigarettes were suspected of being counterfeit and not 260/80 packs as detailed in the report. It was also noted that the premises had had a licence since 2005 and that the premises licence holder and DPS, Mr Raj Jani, took over the licence in 2019.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Alex Brander explained that the grounds of review concerned the storage and supply of illegal tobacco products on the premises contrary to the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder, as well as the supply of alcohol after licensable hours.

Mr. Brander told the Sub-Committee that on 19^th October 2021 a routine inspection had been caried out at the Premises. Under the counter were found 260 Benson and Hedges cigarettes, which were suspected of being counterfeit, and 80 Marlboro Gold cigarettes which were suspected of being illicit due to non-compliance with certain packaging and labelling requirements. Mr. Jani was present at the time of the inspection and admitted during the inspection that he knew the cigarettes were counterfeit. 

It was noted that during the course of the inspection one of the officers was accosted by a member of the public. The member of the public appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. During the inspection Mr. Jani took a can of beer and gave it to another member of the public outside the premises.

Ten days later, on 29^th October 2021, Licensing Officers carried out a test purchase at the Premises and a can of Carlsberg lager was sold at 23:12 hours. The sale was made outside licensable hours, which ceased at 23:00 hours and therefore this was a breach of licensing conditions.

Mr Brander concluded that the premises licence holder had a blatant disregard for complying with the law or the conditions of the licence and therefore Trading Standards were seeking a revocation of the premises licence for failing to uphold the licensing objectives of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

Members then heard from Mr Surenda Panchal, Licensing Agent on behalf of the premises licence holder. He told the Sub-Committee that the premises had been licensed since 2005 and that Mr. Jani had taken over the Premises in 2019 as the premise licence holder and DPS. He explained that there had been no problems at the premises prior to these incidents. Mr. Jani was said to have been running licensed premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.2

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.