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, Ms Kathy Driver, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a Section 53A review hearing for Oval Space, 29-32 The Oval, London E2 9DA. It was noted that a review under Section 53A could only be triggered by a senior officer of the Metropolitan Police where there had been a serious incident of crime or disorder. Ms Driver explained that today’s meeting was the full review hearing, with interim steps taken at the expedited review meeting on 8^th September 2022.

At the request of the Chair, PC Mark Perry provided a detailed explanation of the incident which took place on the night of 29/30^th August 2022 and referred to the evidence in the supplemental agenda pack 1. He took Members of the sub-committee through the written witness statements and photographic evidence from CCTV footage explaining the timeline of events (page 70-71), which resulted in the shooting of a patron at the premises. PC Perry stated it was clear from the evidence that the management and security team had not acted responsibly.  He stated they had allowed gang-members to enter the premises, who they were acquainted with, and failed to search or challenge the gang-members when entering the premises. PC Perry stated that due to this failure a firearm had been allowed to enter the premises and had been discharged.

From the CCTV stills, page 132, PC Perry showed how two members of the gang ordered drinks whilst wearing balaclavas, minutes before the shooting. He said it was baffling that bar staff, security staff and management staff had not challenged the gang-members or raised an eyebrow.

Referring to the CCTV still at page 133 of the agenda, PC Perry stated it was clear patrons were panicked after hearing the gunshots and were trying their best to get away from the scene of the shooting. He said the panic and terror was evident from the still on page 135 of the agenda, that it was not a balloon that had burst. He referred Members to the statement on page 88, where the witness describes the shooting stating “I heard five loud bangs that sounded like gunshots. It was a cracking noise similar to the sound of a handgun. I have experience shooting pistols and rifles…I saw a group of 4-5 females.. running away from the direction of Hackney Road. They were shouting “gunshots”, “gunshots”.

PC Perry continued stating the evidence from security staff corroborated that the assailant was known to the venue. He referred Members of the Sub-Committee to page 80 and cited the following. “I do not know the male by name, but I have seen him attend the venue previously with other members of the events team. I have exchanged conversations with him previously and know he is from the local area (Hackney). I do not know any further details about him.”  PC Perry concluded that the gang-member was not only acquainted with the security staff  ...  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 Jaipur, 74 Brick Lane London E1 6RL. It was noted that objections had been received from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, Health & Safety, the Police and residents.

The Sub-Committee noted the sale of alcohol was for ‘on sales’ only and not has stated in the report on page 60 of the agenda.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr David Dadds, legal representative for the applicant Mr Shams Uddin. Mr Dadds explained his client wanted to amend his application and reduce the hours for sale of alcohol on Thursday, Friday, Saturday to 1:00 hours. He said members were aware of the historical and cultural importance of Brick Lane and said it was important to keep its identity. He said over the last fifteen years there had been a decline in the number of curry restaurants, with only 23 restaurants in operation.

He said whilst the new premises was in the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and the onus was on the applicant to rebut the presumption that the restaurant would not add to the saturation of the area and would uphold the licensing objectives, it was equally essential for the objectors to produce evidence of how the new premises would contribute to the saturation. Mr Dadds said his client operated another restaurant two-doors down, Monsoon 78 Brick Lane and this had operated since 2004. He said there were no complaints about drunkenness or disturbance and as such it was clear that restaurants, being a food-led business did not give rise to anti-social behaviour or crime and disorder.

Mr Dadds said the proposed conditions that had been tabled along with the dispersal policy would ensure the premises did not add to the CIZ. He said although the business did not meet the criteria of being an exceptional circumstance usually there would be fewer than fifty patrons after midnight and they’d be dispersed gradually so not to case a nuisance. 

The Sub-Committee then heard from the objectors. Ms Kathy Driver, Senior Licensing Officer stated the Licensing Authority had objected to the application on the basis the premises was in the CIZ and the hours of operation were beyond the legal framework hours. She said the initial concern was the use of the rooftop terrace but noted this had not been removed from the plan. She referred members to her representation on page 121 of the agenda and said there were concerns about touting. There had been a complaint as recent as March 2022. She said the applicant had previously been prosecuted for touting in 2013. Ms Driver added that the dispersal policy had not been shared with the Licensing Authority.

PC Mark Perry from Metropolitan Police, Licensing Unit said the proposed conditions did address some of the concerns however anti-social behaviour was a problem in the area. He said it would be beneficial for the new premises to operate to  ...  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.