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 proceedure were noted.

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of public nuisance

Representations:

·       Licensing Authority

Ward: Bethnal Green West

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Qari Azimi for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Perfetto Pizza, 391 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 9RA (“the Premises”). The application originally sought authorisation for the provision of late night refreshment from 23:00 hours to 05:00 hours seven days per week. Following discussions with the Police and Environmental Health, however, the applicant reduced scope of the application so that authorisation was sought only for Thursday to Sunday and from 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours. Conditions had been agreed with those authorities.

The application attracted one representation opposing it. This was from the Licensing Authority and based on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance and the fact that the Premises were located in the Bethnal Green Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ).

Applicant

The Sub-Committee heard from Abdul Azimi on behalf of the applicant. His brother was the applicant but was presently out of the country. He spoke briefly to the application. In large part he referred to the financial difficulties faced by businesses in the area and the need for later hours to survive. There were often events such as boxing matches, which finished at around 23:00 hours, and without a licence they would not be able to serve those patrons.

It was not clear that Mr. Azimi fully understood the CIZ during questions although once explained to him he was able to set out some measures to be taken to ensure that they did not add to the impact. These included conditions such as CCTV. He also told the Sub0Committee that the Premises used its own delivery drivers because they could exercise more control over them, which they could not do with third-party drivers.

It was also unclear whether he understood the hours sought. When these were clarified by the Legal Adviser, however, it did seem clear that he understood them. He was asked if he could explain why the Premises appeared to have been providing late night refreshment on 6^th May 2023. He told the Sub-Committee that they did not know about the need for a licence and that this happened to be the King’s Coronation weekend. As soon as they had been made aware of the need for a licence, they had ceased to trade without an authorisation. The Legal Adviser confirmed to the Sub-Committee that the extension to licensing hours for the Coronation weekend did not apply to the provision of late night refreshment.

Licensing Authority

The Sub-Committee heard from Corinne Holland on behalf of the Licensing Authority. She referred to the sale on 6^th May 2023 and allegations of noise nuisance (from the same resident) on that evening and on 30^th May, when the Premises had been operating under a Temporary Event Notice (TEN). It was alleged that there had been a large fight on 30^th May around 01:30 hours. Warning letters were sent to the Premises on 30^th May warning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

·       The prevention of public nuisance

Representations:

·       Environmental Protection

·       Metropolitan Police

Ward: Bow East

The Sub-Committee has decided not to issue a counter-notice.

The Sub-Committee has familiarity with the premises, having dealt with a  number of objections to TENs in the last few months. The objections here centred on crime and disorder, public nuisance and public safety. The concerns related to noise breakout from the boat, noise from patrons in the yard, and the potential to cause noise nuisance in nearby properties. The crime and disorder concerns related predominantly to the risk of drug-taking. Although public safety was said to be in issue, nothing was in fact said about that.

Other Party

We heard from Mr. Rose, who had provided a number of documents in advance of the hearing, which included a noise management plan, risk assessment, security plan, acoustic report, and an electrical certificate.

The hours sought in this particular instance were modest, especially compared to previous TENs. The maximum capacity too was reduced. Whilst some patrons would be in the yard, not all would be. The Sub-Committee heard that the capacity of the boat was around fifty or so. There would be no ticket sales so numbers would be easily controlled.

There was no evidence to suggest that the premises were unsafe. Mr. Rose had provided an up-to-date electrical installation certificate. As far as crime and disorder was concerned, whilst there may have been issues with drugs previously, this was not connected with Mr. Rose’s management. The Sub-Committee heard that security would search patrons, patrol the premises and eject people using drugs and, where necessary, confiscate them and notify the police.

Responsible Authority

Ms. Cadzow had expressed concerns about the sound-proofing. However, there was a report which post-dated her last visit and which indicated that there would not be problems with noise from music. The Sub-Committee accepted that sound-proofing work had been carried out both before and after Ms. Cadzow’s visit. Given the modest hours sought and the maximum number of patrons, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that allowing the event to proceed would not give rise to public nuisance.

The Sub-Committee also took account of Mr. Rose’s previous experience and qualifications and was satisfied that he would be able to run this event without problem.

Decision

The Sub-Committee noted that Mr. Rose appeared to have taken on board comments and concerns mentioned previously and that in consequence this TEN was for earlier hours and with fewer patrons, which allayed the Sub-Committee’s concerns.

Having regard to the documentation provided, which is more than would normally be expected to be seen in respect of a TEN, and Mr. Rose’s assurances as to how he would ensure that the premises were properly managed, the Sub-Committee is not satisfied that it is appropriate and proportionate to issue a counter-notice in respect of this TEN.

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.