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.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 11^th January 2022 and 25^th January 2022.

The minutes of the meetings held on 11^th and 25^th January were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Oval Café, The Oval, London E2 9DU. It was noted that objections had been received from the Metropolitan Police in relation to the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Paddy Whur, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained the premises did have a premises licence which dissolved on 1^st October 2020 due to an administrative error. Therefore, a new licence was being sought for the same hours as the previous licence, by the same owners who also own the building which is part of the Pickle Factory (a licensed venue). It was noted that the premises were licensed in 2014 and variations were applied for during 2015 and 2018 which were not objected to.

Mr Whur referred to appendix 1 of the report on page 50 of the agenda which detailed the previous licence and explained that an identical licence was being sought. He explained that the premises are very small with a capacity of 50 people, and was adjoined The Pickle Factory which was a licensed venue and had the same licensable hours as applied in the application. It was noted that an application would not have been required had there not been an administrative lapse in the licence.

He said the venue would be used for corporate events offering food and drinks. It was stated that six years of successful trading with the same management and same conditions should demonstrate to the Sub-Committee that granting a premises licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. He expressed his disappointment that objections were made as there was no evidence of breaches of conditions, and the statistics of crime and disorder that were referred to by the police related to area and ward statistics and did not relate specifically to the premises.

Mr Whur corrected the representation made by the Police by insisting that the application was not in respect of additional premises but an application in respect of existing premises. He believed that the objection made by the Police was unsubstantiated as there was no evidence of crime and disorder linked to the premises. He concluded that there have been no issues whilst trading over the past years, an administrative error was the reason why a new licence was being sought, and it was the same operators and same hours as in relation to the previous licence. It was noted that as requested by Trading Standards Services, the Applicant was happy to operate a Challenge 25 policy in place of the Challenge 21 policy, a historic condition on the previous licence.

Members then heard from PC Barry Leban, Metropolitan Police, who explained that he was objecting on the grounds of crime and disorder, public nuisance and public safety. He stated that the premises was a night club and would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Gopuff, 89 Hemming Street, London E1 5BW. It was noted that objections had been received from local residents in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Marcus Lavell, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicants explained that they were seeking a 24-hour sale of alcohol licence for an online delivery only, app based business selling groceries to a specific catchment area.

He acknowledged the concerns raised by residents, and said that the external activities and observations made by residents from other delivery companies should not be used against these premises. It was noted that the current premises were 6000sqft, with an adequate delivery collection space, and an internal waiting lobby area for delivery drivers. He explained that the delivery drivers were directly employed by the company, and therefore assurances could be given that drivers would be under direct control by the business and would work and adhere to company policies.

It was noted that the premises would gererate 24 hours activity and would be operating with an electric fleet of bikes which would not generate noise nuisance. It was also noted that the sale of alcohol would accompany some of the orders placed. He said that there would  be no negative impact, but a positive effect as there would be more control over operation of the premises by way of conditions offered.

Members then heard from Mr Gurkan Oluc, Mr Rory Malone, Mr Luke Houston and Mr Hugh Lungmuss, local residents who expressed concerns around public nuisance and issues of public safety arising from delivery drivers. Particular examples were given of bad behaviour, littering and noise nuisance. It was noted that the premises were situated near a densely populated residential area and in close proximity to properties designed for disabled residents, wheelchair users etc and young families.

Experiences were shared about occasions where delivery drivers have blocked pavements not allowing wheelchair users and people with buggies the access to the pavement. It was also mentioned that the same operators operated from another site in Dunbridge Street, where similar concerns were experienced too. Residents also described occasions when there has been gridlocked traffic at nights with delivery mopeds and bikes using the pavements to drive through causing a danger to local residents.

It was noted that the area was a residential area, with young families, and disabled residents, and if a licence was granted, there was a likely risk that there would be trouble with access and egress, increase in traffic flow, congestion and public nuisance in particular noise nuisance. In general, the residents believed that the premises were not the appropriate location for the nature of the type of business in question.

In response to questions the following was noted;

-       That the premises could continue operating a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

This application was withdrawn by the Applicant prior to the meeting.

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.