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.

The rules of procedure were noted.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for The Hungry Tummy, 24a Wentworth Street, London E1 7TF. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of the Licensing Authority, the Environmental Protection team, SPIRE Residents Association and local residents.  Concerns relating to all four licensing objectives had been raised in their representations.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Liliana Martins, the Applicant’s friend explained the restaurant covered a small square footage, with 10 covers inside and 4 outside. She said at the time the application was submitted by Mr Zoltan Posztor he did not fully appreciate the detail required for the application. Ms Martins explained English was not Mr Posztor’s first language and he hadn’t grasped the requirements of the Cumulative Impact Zone. She explained the café was a small canteen/deli-type premises serving Hungarian snacks and alcohol. She referred to the written submission appended in supplement 4 and said Mr Posztor would comply with the licensing objectives. She said in view of the objections the Applicant was looking to reduce the time for the sale of alcohol and would not be opening on a Sunday. Ms Martins said whilst the premises was in the cumulative impact zone it was in the ‘yellow’ coloured zone and not in the ‘red’ zone. She said the music played would be background music which would not disturb neighbours.

Ms Lavine-Miller, Licensing Officer then addressed the Sub-Committee. She referred members to her representation on page 67 of the agenda and said the Licensing Authority were concerned with the lack of evidence in the application to show how Mr Posztor would comply with the Licensing objectives particularly as the premises is in the Cumulative Impact Zone. She said it was unclear if the sale of alcohol would be with food or if vertical drinking would also be allowed. She said there was a risk of the premises becoming a bar and said that if the sub-committee were minded to grant the application then the conditions set out pages 71-72 should be considered by the members.

Mr Yale Sherlock, from the Environmental Protection team added they were concerned about noise emanating from the premises and disturbing the neighbours and the number of people entering and egressing the premises for smoking. Mr Sherlock said if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the application then the conditions set out on pages 74-75 should be considered by members.

In response to questions the following was noted:

-       The music played would be background music to disguise kitchen noise and would not be audible to neighbours so as to cause a disturbance.

-       The capacity of the premises is very small with ten people inside and four outside. The seating area outside allows for people to eat and converse with each other. 

-       With respect to footfall, large numbers of people were not expected, as the premises is serving specialised Hungarian  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for variation for a premises licence for Studio Spaces Ltd / E1, 110 Pennington Street, London E1W 2BB. It was noted that an objection had been received on behalf of the Licensing Authority, who had raised concerns relating to the crime and disorder objective and public safety objective.

The Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee stated that he had been told before the hearing that the parties had had the opportunity to discuss how best to manage the hearing, given the numbers of people who had made representations and wished to speak. Mr. Charalambides would speak for about fifteen minutes on behalf of his client and then for about the same time for those making representations and had attended and indicated a wish to speak. Mr. Grant, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, would address the Sub-Committee for about fifteen minutes. He confirmed his assent and all those present physically and virtually were given the opportunity to respond or object if the Legal Adviser’s understanding of the position was incorrect. None did so and the Sub-Committee agreed to proceed as suggested.

The Sub-Committee was asked to consider if the condition in Annex 2, condition 1 should be removed from the premises licence.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Leo Charalambides, Counsel for the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee. He referred members to his submission in supplemental agenda 2 and stated that the condition “No nudity or semi nudity permitted” should be removed from the licence, as the condition was vague and unenforceable. Mr Charalambides argued this was a historical imposition on the licence and said that under the current licensing legislation this would not be a condition that would be considered or imposed.

Mr Charalambides referred to Tower Hamlets being a diverse and welcoming borough for various communities and said the ‘queer’ community had a long- standing connection with the borough, with many other venues offering a haven for the queer and LGBTQ+ communities. Mr Charalambides referred to Backstreet and Crossbreed as clubs which operated in Tower Hamlets which were facing an uncertain future.

Mr Charalambides then referred to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and said the licensing policy had not been updated in accordance with this duty and said the Licensing Authority had not undertaken an equalities impact assessment (EIA). Mr Charalambides said the Applicant had provided a draft EIA which members could adopt if they chose.

Referring to the allegation arising from the incident of 12^th February 2022, Mr Charalambides said it was clear this was a one-off incident which had not led to a prosecution by the Police. Mr Charalambides pointed out the Police had not objected to the application and said all events were risk assessed before being held at the premises. He said the information was shared with the police and the licensing authority. The authorities were fully aware of the types of events that  ...  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.