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 were noted.

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of public nuisance

Representations:

·       Licensing Authority

·       Environmental Protection

Ward: Spitalfields & Banglatown

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Bar 104 Ltd. to vary the premises licence held in respect of Bar 104, 104 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL (“the Premises”). The licence currently authorises the sale by retail of alcohol (on-sales) and recorded music from 11:00 hours to midnight seven days per week and late-night refreshment from 23:00 hours to midnight every day. The application sought to vary the terminal hour for the provision of late night refreshment to 02:00 hours on Fridays and Saturdays.

Representations against the application were received from the Licensing Authority and from the Environmental Health Service. The representations referred to the fact that the Premises are located in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), which was not referenced in any way in the application, and that the applicant offered no conditions to address the potential impact of the proposed variation on the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

Carlos Tituana, the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and Federico Benatti. Mr. Tituana explained that the variation was sought as the Premises currently closed early and they were catering to the local Bolognese community. Conditions had been agreed with the police and he apologised for not having offered any conditions in the application. He explained that the Premises could hold only a small number of people and there was no proposal to vary the hours for the sale of alcohol or music. They also indicated that they would have a dispersal policy in place.

Mr. Benatti explained that they operated premises in other similar locations and that staff were trained to handle complaints and dispersal.

During questions from Members, Mr. Tituana confirmed that they were not aware of the CIZ at the time of making the application and that they only became aware of it afterward. He also informed the Sub-Committee that he had not checked this beforehand. He said that he was not aware that he needed to suggest conditions himself but that he had since agreed conditions with the Police. He suggested that they would be willing to arrange for a manager to be SIA-trained and if there were to be queues outside, they would consider the use of security.

Mr. Tituana confirmed that he had taken over the Premises in August 2023 and that they had been operating since October 2023. There were two staff on duty at all times. .Mr. Tituana, in response to a question from the Legal Adviser to the Sub- Committee,  agreed that if the variation was granted he was content for there to be a condition requiring alcohol consumption to cease at 00:30 hours i.e. thirty minutes “drinking-up time.” Otherwise, patrons could potentially buy large quantities of alcohol just before midnight and continue to consume it.

Ms. Cadzow of the Environmental Health Service addressed the Sub-Committee and spoke to her representation. She was concerned about the lack of any conditions proposed to promote the licensing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

·       The prevention of public nuisance

·       Public Safety

Representations:

·       Licensing Authority

·       Metropolitan Police

·       Health & Safety

·       Resident

·       Environmental Protection

·       London Legacy Development Corporation

Ward: Bow East

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Boat Live Works Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Boat Live, 90 White Post Lane, London, E9 5EN (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for licensable activities as follows:

The sale by retail of alcohol (on-sales)

· 10:00 hours to 23:30 hours Monday to Thursday;

· 10:00 hours to 00:00 hours Friday and Saturday;

· 10:00 hours to 22:30 hours Sunday

Regulated entertainment (recorded music – indoors)

· 08:00 hours to 22:30 hours Sunday to Thursday;

· 08:00 hours to 00:00 hours Friday and Saturday

Provision of late night refreshment

· 23:00 hours to 23:30 hours Monday to Thursday;

· 23:00 hours to 00:00 hours Friday and Saturday.

The premises would be open to the public from 08:00 hours every day until thirty minutes after licensable activities cease.

Representations were received against the application from the Police, the Environmental Health service, the Health & Safety service, the Licensing Authority, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and a local resident. The representations were concerned with the impact of the application, if granted, on the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.

Representations were also received in support of the application from three local residents. These related to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

The Sub-Committee heard from Antonio Miranda, director of the applicant company, and Rhys Rose, the proposed designated premises supervisor (DPS). Mr. Miranda told the Sub-Committee that some of the properties nearby were commercial properties rather than residential. He asserted that there were no residential leases in that area.

He said the Premises were not likely to be there permanently. He suggested that the venue would probably only be there for about two years and would then move on. He said that they would be promoting co-working, that the Premises would be soundproofed, and that they intended having up to four SIA-accredited staff, which would create jobs. With respect to the representation from the LLDC, Mr. Miranda asserted that the planning regime allowed for “pop-ups”, which was what they were doing and that there was no contravention of planning control.

Mr. Rose added to Mr. Miranda’s submissions to explain that they had scaled the application back following the rejection of a previous application. They had provided, detailed operating procedures and a detailed suite of conditions. His ability to manage the event space was not in question; the Premises had operated under 26 days of temporary event notices (TENs). To the best of his knowledge, no problems had arisen as a result.

PC Perry addressed the Sub-Committee. He told the Sub-Committee that there were two internal areas in the Premises as well as the outside space. The Premises were very close to residential properties and that meant that the venue had to operate to complete efficiency if it were not to cause problems to those neighbouring properties.

He noted that it would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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.