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 Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for The Vault, Ivory House, St Katherine’s Dock, East Smithfield, London E1W 1BP. It was noted that objections had been received from local residents in relation to all four licensing objectives, but predominantly with regard to the prevention of public nuisance. It was also noted that conditions had been agreed with responsible authorities.

Ms Miller-Johnson explained that the premises was previously licensed until that licence lapsed on 9 November 2020 due to the insolvency of the licence holder. It was noted that the premises would be operating as an event venue including a bar and restaurant and hosting various events, including, but not limited to: art exhibitions, immersive theatre, corporate events, comedy nights, computer gaming competitions, product launches and indoor markets.

Prior to the hearing the Sub-Committee had been provided with a number of supplemental documents. These included a dispersal policy, a set of conditions that had been agreed with Friends of St Katherines Dock (FOSKD), and an acoustic report.

At the outset of the hearing the Sub-Committee was given an indication by the applicant that FOSKD had expressed agreement to a reduction in the hours sought by the applicant and, as a result, FOSKD were no longer seeking refusal of the application.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Alun Thomas, Legal Representative on behalf the Applicant, explained that the premises had been previously licensed which had lapsed in 2020 due to insolvency and therefore a new application was being sought to replicate the previous hours with a more robust set of conditions agreed with FOSKD. However, upon further consultation prior to the hearing the hours had been amended, which brought them in line with the Council’s framework hours with 30 minutes drinking up time. Mr Thomas gave a brief history of the applicant’s experiences to date and stated that he had met with the FOSKD to appease their concerns relating to this application.

It was noted that a detailed acoustic report had been undertaken and was part of the supplemental agenda pack, its findings were that the premises would not give rise to nuisance from the venue or persons leaving the venue during the times applied for.

Mr. Thomas drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the fact that no responsible authorities had made representations against the application and referred the Sub Committee to 9.13 of the Section 182 Guidance , which states that responsible authorities are the experts in their field, and he emphasised that they had agreed to the hours and conditions that was initially applied for without any objection.

It was noted that the premise was close to good public transport links, that the premises had been in use since 1970’s with a far greater capacity than 450 persons. Mr Thomas concluded that the applicant has delivered a robust and acceptable set of enforceable conditions, hours had been agreed and reduced to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

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 Ona’s Bento & Sushi, 486 Roman Road, London E3 5LU. It was noted that objections had been received from residents. Ms Miller-Johnson explained that the application had been deemed granted on 24^th December 2021, but that it later transpired that a valid representation had been made and sent in time on 22^nd December 2021. It had not been received by the Licensing Team until 19^th January 2022 due to an administrative error and therefore a hearing was required. It was also noted that conditions had been agreed with responsible authorities.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Graham Hopkins, Licensing Agent on behalf the applicant confirmed that the applicant Ms Oyun Sukhbaatar, had now obtained a personal licence qualification and that an application had been made for a personal licence and that she would then be the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) for the premises.

He confirmed that the seasonal non-standard times would apply to the months of June, July and August for licensable activities between the hours of 11:00 hours to 23:00 hours. Non-standard times were also applied for Christmas Eve, and the lunar new year. 

Mr. Hopkins referred to the representation from local residents, which suggested that there was a lack of suitable toilet facilities. However, the Premises was a very small restaurant and had only fifteen covers and the toilet facilities were therefore suitable. The hours were modest and there was a Turkish restaurant next door which closed at midnight. In addition to the agreed conditions, Mr. Hopkins confirmed that his client was willing to agree to a condition that alcohol would not be sold to persons aged under eighteen, notwithstanding that s.149(5) of the Licensing Act 2003 provided that this was lawful in certain circumstances.

It was noted that there was good public transport links, with a bus stop outside the premises, and a public car park and cab office opposite the premises. It was also noted that the premises has been open for 3 weeks with no issues or complaints. There would be no live music at the premises, only background music playing via a television screen.

Mr Hopkins concluded that conditions had been agreed with the responsible authorities, none of whom had made representations against the application. That the applicant had proposed a robust set of conditions to help allivate the concerns of the residents and uphold the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee noted that the residents had given their apologies and were not present for the meeting and therefore their written submissions contained in the agenda pack were noted and considered.

Clarification was sought on which specific lunar days related to the non-standard timings that had been applied for and the Sub-Committee indicated that this could be clarified further between the legal adviser and the agent. There were no further questions from Members

The Licensing Objectives

In considering  ...  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.

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, it was in the public interest to do so, and did not require representation from parties to the applications.

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, it was in the public interest to do so, and did not require representation from parties to the applications.