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 Peter Golds declared a personal interest in item 3.2, Application for a new premises licence for Brussels Wharf Market, Wapping Wall, London E1W 3SG on the basis that he has visited the market in the past but confirmed he had not discussed this application prior to the meeting.

To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information.

The rules of procedure were noted.

At the onset of the meeting, Ms Simmi Yesmin, Democratic Services Officer informed the Sub Committee that no interested parties had registered to speak at the meeting and that all parties had been written to with the notification of the meeting and agenda within the agreed timescales. The applicant had confirmed that she would not be attending the meeting and did not wish to take part in the meeting virtually due to work commitments. However, she had sent in a statement for the Sub Committee to note – this was circulated to the Sub Committee.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for The Space Spitalfields, 44 Commercial Street, London E1 6LT. It was noted that objections had been received from a local resident and on behalf of a resident association in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

The Chair stated that as sufficient notification of the meeting was given and since the Applicant had confirmed that they would not be attending, the meeting would go ahead in the  absence of the Applicant and objectors, the merits of the case to be considered on the basis of  the Applicant’s and objectors’ respective written submissions within the agenda pack when the Sub-Committee retired to deliberate upon the applications on the agenda for tonight’s Sub-Committee meeting..

In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licensing objectives:

1. The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
2. Public Safety;
3. The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
4. The Protection of Children from Harm.

Each application must be considered on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that as no interested party to the application was present at the meeting the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the written evidence before them, including the application, the representations made and the general advice and guidance contained in the agenda pack with particular regard to the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of public disorder.    

The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ), and so, the effect of a premises subject to a licensing application being in a CIZ is that there is a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons objecting to the application, the application will be refused.

The Sub-Committee noted that under the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Applicant can rebut the above presumption if they can demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives by not adding to the cumulative impact of licensed premises already in the CIZ.

The Sub-Committee considered that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Brussels Wharf Market, Wapping Wall, London E1W 3SG. It was noted that objections had initially been received on behalf of officers from Environmental Health and the Licensing Authority in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. However, the Sub Committee were informed that prior to the meeting, the Environmental Health Officer had withdrawn their objection and had agreed to a condition. Ms Holland also referred the Sub Committee to the supplemental agenda circulated, which included supporting documents from the Applicant and from the Licensing Authority objecting to the licence.

At this point of the hearing, because the Applicant was facing an ongoing investigation into alleged offences in relation to the Licensing Act 2003, and bearing in mind the Applicant’s legal rights in that regard, Ms Holland read out to the Applicant from page 3 of the Supplemental agenda, the caution that he did not have to say anything, but it may harm his defence if he did not mention, when questioned, something which he may later  rely on in court and that anything he did say may be given in evidence.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Julian Overton, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained that the market was a weekly run market operating on Saturdays, it was a popular market and had support from local businesses and residents. The market was not alcohol led, any non-regulated music and regulated entertainment was ancillary to the market trade, and that there had been no reported public nuisance or issues since they had been trading. He then referred Members to the supplemental agenda at pages 9-17 which included character references for the Applicant.

Mr Overton pointed out that there had been no representations against the granting of the application from the Police or local residents during the consultation period. It was noted that representations received from Environmental Health relating to noise nuisance were no longer being pursued, as the Applicant had agreed to the condition proposed by Environmental Protection.

Mr Overton suggested that the Licensing Authority’s objection related to crime, rather than crime and disorder, and that it related to the conduct of the Applicant in the way that they applied themselves to the market and the temporary events notices (TEN) process. Mr Overton presented the Applicant as having found the temporary event notice application process extremely difficult tp understand, so that he had not got things right, and found the process and rules confusing, with applications being rejected. Mr Overton further presented that the Applicant was therefore now seeking a premises licence because he had found that the temporary events notice process clearly had not worked well with the way in which he was conducting business, as was evident from the emails from the Licensing Authority and the inadvertent commission of an offence of trading without  ...  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.