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.

Licensing Objectives:

·       Prevention of Public Nuisance

·       Prevention of Crime and Disorder

Representations:

·       Residents

Ward: St Katherine’s & Wapping

This application was withdrawn.

Licensing Objectives:

·       Prevention of Public Nuisance

·       Prevention of Crime and Disorder

Representations:

·       Licensing Authority

Ward: Bethnal Green West

The Licensing Objectives

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:

·       The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;

·       Public Safety;

·       The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and

·       The Protection of Children from Harm.

Consideration

Each application must be considered on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them meeting.

The Sub-Committee noted from the report, that this was an application for a new premises licence for Snack N That, 381 Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0AN, located in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant described the premises as: A grocery shop specialising in American sweets and alcohol, and that the

hours applied for were:-

Sale of alcohol (off sales)

Monday to Sunday 10:00 hours - 23:00 hours

Hours open the public

Monday to Sunday 10:00 hours - 23:00 hours

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was targeting a market in specialist alcoholic drinks, mostly craft beers and American beers, and that he had had feedback from existing customers to specialise in this type of business. The Sub-Committee noted the applicant presenting his shop as a family run business, always manned by two people, against whom there had been no complaints.

The Sub-Committee recognised that the applicant had presented an operating schedule, which would suffice for premises not situated in a cumulative impact zone.

However, the Sub-Committee could not ignore the fact that the premises are in a cumulative impact zone. The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had overlooked the following.

Paragraph 19.6 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Statement of Licensing Policy, which the applicant and the general public could view on the Council’s website says, “The Special Cumulative Impact policy creates a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons against applications within the CIZ zones the application will be refused.”

Paragraph 19.7 of the same says, “Where representations have been received in respect to applications within the CIZ zones the onus is on applicants to adequately rebut the presumption. Applicants will need to demonstrate in their applications why the granting of their application will not negatively add to the cumulative already experience within the CIZ Zones.  Applicants may wish to address the following in their applications:

•         Genuinely exceptional circumstances,

•         Relevant good practices they employ (for example, this could include details of membership of local Pubwatch/other trade groups,

•         Accreditation of Award Schemes (as applicable), and any participation in Police/Council initiatives),

•         Other good operational/practice arrangements in respect of any outside drinking and smoking to control potential impact in the area,

•         Measures used to promote the licensing objectives (for example, any relevant conditions to control noise, dispersal,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.2

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of public nuisance

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

Representations:

·       Metropolitan Police

·       Environmental Protection

Ward: Bow East

In considering this application, the Sub-Committee have regard to the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm, public safety, as well as the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Secretary of State’s guidance.

In particular, the Sub-Committee considered the implications of what was said and written by the parties in relation to the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.

The Sub-Committee appreciated that work had been done in relation to the boat, and that as the police indicated, the police have no current safety concerns.

However, the Sub-Committee were concerned that whilst Mr. Rose had assured them that there will be a security policy and dispersal plan, there was no evidence of these before the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee were therefore not satisfied that there were adequate measures in place to address public safety.

The Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had not produced any evidence of adequate measures to prevent noise breakout, not only in relation to music, but also in relation to a significant number of patrons attending as well as going to and from the event.

The Sub-Committee noted the concerns about this expressed by the police and Environmental Health.

The Sub-Committee noted that according to the police, there was a poor track record in relation to crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance relating to past events.  

Having regard to the oral and written submissions, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that allowing the TEN to proceed would undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and ensuring public safety. The decision of the Sub-Committee is therefore to issue a counter-notice.

The Sub-Committee would ask all the parties to note that although TENs are a light touch regime and the engagement that might be expected in respect of a TEN may often be less than that for a new premises licence application, there have now been a considerable number of TENs sought for these premises, generally all of a similar nature. All of those have attracted objections from the police and environmental health.

The apparent lack of dialogue between the parties potentially means that there is no scope for any compromise because once the application for a counter-notice comes before the Sub-Committee, we can only consider the TEN as given and cannot change any aspect of it.

The Sub-Committee would like to remind the police and Environmental Health of their ability to engage with the premises user in the representations period and modify the TEN as they think appropriate which, if accepted, will result in the withdrawal of their objection. Equally, the premises user has been informed that it may not be the best course of action to give the TEN on the basis of the event being a test, rather than seeking to work with environmental health beforehand so that, for example, appropriate sound levels might be set. The Sub-Committee notes  ...  view the full decision text for item 4.

In considering this application, the Sub-Committee have regard to the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm, public safety, as well as the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Secretary of State’s guidance.

In particular, the Sub-Committee considered the implications of what was said and written by the parties in relation to the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.

The Sub-Committee appreciated that work had been done in relation to the boat, and that as the police indicated, the police have no current safety concerns.

However, the Sub-Committee were concerned that whilst Mr. Rose had assured them that there will be a security policy and dispersal plan, there was no evidence of these before the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee were therefore not satisfied that there were adequate measures in place to address public safety.

The Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had not produced any evidence of adequate measures to prevent noise breakout, not only in relation to music, but also in relation to a significant number of patrons attending as well as going to and from the event.

The Sub-Committee noted the concerns about this expressed by the police and Environmental Health.

The Sub-Committee noted that according to the police, there was a poor track record in relation to crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance relating to past events.  

Having regard to the oral and written submissions, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that allowing the TEN to proceed would undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and ensuring public safety.

The decision of the Sub-Committee is therefore to issue a counter-notice.

The Sub-Committee would ask all the parties to note that although TENs are a light touch regime and the engagement that might be expected in respect of a TEN may often be less than that for a new premises licence application, there have now been a considerable number of TENs sought for these premises, generally all of a similar nature. All of those have attracted objections from the police and environmental health.

The apparent lack of dialogue between the parties potentially means that there is no scope for any compromise because once the application for a counter-notice comes before the Sub-Committee, we can only consider the TEN as given and cannot change any aspect of it.

The Sub-Committee would like to remind the police and Environmental Health of their ability to engage with the premises user in the representations period and modify the TEN as they think appropriate which, if accepted, will result in the withdrawal of their objection.

Equally, the premises user has been informed that it may not be the best course of action to give the TEN on the basis of the event being a test, rather than seeking to work with environmental health beforehand so that, for example, appropriate sound levels might be set. The Sub-Committee notes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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.