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 confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee.

The minutes of the meeting were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

Licensing Objectives:

·       Prevention of public nuisance

·       Prevention of crime and disorder

Representations:

·       Environmental Protection

·       Licensing Authority

Ward: Weavers

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Pasta Evangelists Ltd. to vary the premises licence held in respect of Pasta Evangelists, 148 Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 6DG (“the Premises”). The Premises are currently licensed for the sale of alcohol by retail for consumption off the Premises from 12:00 hours to 23:00 hours seven days per week. The Premises are not open to the public. The variation sought the addition of the provision of late-night refreshment from 23:00 hours to 02:00 hours seven days per week. This would be by way of delivery only.

The application attracted two representations. These were from the Licensing Authority and the Environmental Health service. The objections were based on the fact that the Premises are located within the Bethnal Green Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and that the application did not address that or explain how the Premises would avoid adding to the problems already experienced in that area.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Lisi. He spoke very briefly to the application. He understood the purpose of the CIZ but reiterated that the Premises were not open to the public, that there was no variation sought in respect of alcohol sales and that there was no realistic possibility of the Premises adding to any disorder. They were located on a busy road with lots of traffic and no additional noise would be generated.

Mr. Lisi did not recall the letter from the Licensing Authority earlier in the year but said it was likely to relate to another business in the same address because they did not admit members of the public.

Ms. Miller-Johnson addressed the Sub-Committee. She confirmed that several businesses operated out of the address and that it had not been possible to determine which specific business the complaint related to. She told the Sub-Committee she had spoken to Mr. Lisi by phone subsequent to the letter and he had explained that it was not connected to his business. The main thrust of her concern was the lack of reference to the CIZ, how additional impact would be prevented, and how alcohol sales would be prevented as there was a risk of orders being filled which included alcohol.

Tim Hung read the Noise Service’s representation. This referred to noise breakout from the venue and the potential for noise created by delivery drivers.

Ms. Miller-Johnson confirmed that there had been no further investigation into the complaint as far as she was aware. There was only one licensed premises at the address, which was the applicant. Kathy Driver confirmed that the address appeared to be what was known as a “dark kitchen” whereby several food businesses operated from one address.

Ms. Miller-Johnson also confirmed, in response to a question from the Legal Adviser, that the reference to the plan being non-compliant with the legislative requirements was likely to be erroneous.

Mr. Lisi was asked how he could ensure that alcohol was not sold outside of permitted hours. He explained that it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

Representations:

·       Environmental Protection

·       Licensing Authority

·       Residents

Ward: Whitechapel

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Hungry Cow Limited for a new premises licence to be held in respect of the Hungry Cow, 111a Commercial Road, London, E1 1RD (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the provision of late-night refreshment from 23:00 hours to 02:00 hours seven days per week.

The application attracted three representations against it, from the Planning Authority, the Environmental Health Service, and a local resident. Two representations were received in support. The Sub-Committee was given legal advice that these were not relevant representations as they could not reasonably be interpreted as referring to the likely impact upon the licensing objectives if the application were to be granted. Rather, the writers referred to the quality of the food and the convenience of the Premises’ location to their place of work. However, they might nonetheless be relied upon by the applicant as supporting information.

The Sub-Committee heard from Aziz Rahman, one of the owners of the business, and the business’s representative, Mr. Daly. He told the Sub-Committee that this was the fifth store being opened by the company and that although some mistakes might have happened in the past, as referenced in the representation of Mr. Miah, the Premises was legally compliant. Attempts had been made to engage with both the responsible authorities who had made representations, but to no avail.

Mr. Daly stated that the residents were generally content with the application. The Premises were located on the corner of Commercial Road and Parfett Street and cars could not enter Parfett Street, which was gated at one end and had bollards at the other end. Local residents had told them that the Premises had assisted in reducing crime and disorder in the immediate vicinity as the Premises being open had deterred people such as drug dealers.

Delivery drivers would be directed to park in Commercial Road and walk down Parfett Street. There was no other option. Drivers would not be hanging about; they would be told shortly beforehand when an order would be ready for collection so that the food would be ready when the driver attended to collect.

With respect to the representations from the responsible authorities, an application for retrospective planning permission had been made and there had been no noise complaints in respect of the Premises. This demonstrated that the Premises could operate in a way that did not impact upon the local community.

The photos from the Noise Team showed the location of the Premises. One of the pictures showed a driver on the phone. He was not one of the drivers for the Hungry Cow. The applicant was willing to do what it could to stop their drivers from parking in that location, including notices on third-party delivery platforms that drivers need to park in Commercial Road and not Parfett Street. Mr. Daly confirmed that the business did not employ any drivers directly.

Mr. Hung spoke to the representation on behalf of the Noise Service. The other persons  ...  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.

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

The rules of procedure were noted.