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.

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

The rules of procedure as set out in the agenda pack were noted.

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of public nuisance and

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

Representations:

·       Residents

Ward: Canary Wharf

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Café Brera, 31 Westferry Circus, London, E14 8RR (“the Premises”) for a new Premise Licence. Representations on this application had been received from local residents.

The Sub-Committee then heard representations from

• Kevin Bell (resident)
• Kamal Gardiner (resident)
• Jonathan Alvin (resident)
• Arlene Auf Der Mauer on behalf of the Premises.

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms. Auf der Mauer on behalf of the applicant. She explained that regulated entertainment should not have been sought as music would be played at background levels only. She had attended the Premises and carried out noise measurements and the maximum level recorded had been 70dB. The applicant had sought to mediate with local residents and arranged a meeting, although only six or seven of them attended.

Ms. Auf der Mauer indicated the possibility that patrons of other premises were being mistaken as patrons of Café Brera and referred to Royal China, which operated until about 23:00 and Gaucho which operated to midnight. She also queried whether the police had been called to the Premises under the previous management and, if not, why it should be assumed that there would be problems in this case.

During questions Ms. Auf der Mauer confirmed that the Premises intended to operate as a restaurant and not as a bar. The applicant was amenable to a condition prohibiting vertical drinking, should the licence be granted. This would be the case both inside and outside the Premises. The management were aware of the need to render unusable the tables and chairs outside and that they had been advised to start doing that earlier than the 21:00 hours cut-off. The tables and chairs would be taken off display and stacked away from the area. Ms. Auf der Mauer confirmed to the Legal Adviser that amended plans could be submitted, if the application were granted, so as to make clear the area where licensable activity would take place. At present, the only red line

Mr. Bell addressed the Sub-Committee in respect of his representation. He informed the Sub-Committee that the other premises nearby did not form part of the fabric of the building in which he lived, whereas Café Brera did. He expressed concerns as to what the applicant was seeking to do and whether it intended to operate as a bar or a restaurant. He referred to an advert for two-for-one cocktails. He expressed concern about the provision of off-sales of alcohol. He noted that some progress had been made as a result of the negotiations with  the police and environmental health but this did not allay his concerns.

Ms. Gardiner spoke to her representation and that her and her husband had bought their flat twenty-three years ago when Café Brera first opened. Their daughter now lived there and worked a lot from home and therefore needed peace and quiet.

Mr. Alvin echoed the sentiments of Mr. Bell and Ms. Gardiner. He told the Sub-Committee that there was a speaker outside which had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

Licensing Objectives:

·       The protection of children from harm

Representations:

·       Trading Standards

·       Licensing Authority (in support)

Ward: Lansbury

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Alex Brander on behalf of Trading Standards and is the Applicant, for the review of the premises licence held by (Denni’s News) 103 Brabazon Street London E14 6BL (“the Premises”). The application followed a test purchase by Trading Standards resulting in sale of alcohol to a person under the age of 18 which constitutes an offence under Licensing Act 2003. The application was supported by the Licensing Authority and the Metropolitan Police.

The Sub-Committee then heard representations from

• PC Mark Perry, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.
• Moshin Ali, Licensing Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority LBTH.
• Preti Kanzaria and Oisin Daly on behalf of the Premises.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Brander, who explained that the sale had been made by a Jigneshkumar Patel. He was not a personal licence holder. The premises licence holder and DPS at that time was Dinesh Kanzaria. The business was run by a company, Denni’s Poplar Ltd. of which Mr. Kanzaria and his daughter were directors.

On 6^th March 2023, after the review application was made, applications were made to transfer the licence to Ms. Kanzaria and to vary the DPS to her.

Mr. Brander explained that he sought revocation of the premises licence. There was a long history. There had been a written warning to Mr. Kanzaria in September 2009 following an under-age sale of alcohol. In January 2012 Mr. Kanzaria and his wife were convicted of trade mark offences relating to counterfeit Jacob’s Creek wine being sold in the shop.

In addition, in August 2022 there had been another failed test purchase of alcohol in a business owned by Mr. Kanzaria. That was at premises at 15 Swaton Road. Mr. Kanzaria was the licence holder at that time and another of his companies was operating the business. The sale had been made by someone who could not be identified but had Mr. Kanzaria’s phone number. He and the company pleaded guilty to a number of offences. That licence was reviewed and the Sub-Committee revoked it.

Mr. Brander stated that Mr. Kanzaria was asked to explain his age-verification policy and refused to do so. In his view this showed a total disregard for the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm. There were no condition on the premises licence. Mr. Kanzaria could have sought to add conditions at any time. There was no evidence of measures to prevent under-age sales.

The business is a family-run business. This gave Mr. Brander no confidence in the management of the Premises. Whilst there was scope to add conditions to the licence, Mr. Brander considered that the failings identified justified a revocation of the premises licence.

PC Perry spoke to the Licensing Authority’s representation and advised that the police supported the application but had no additional information. He commented that there had been a refusal register on the premises at the date of the sale, which contained  ...  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.