Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: The Council Chamber, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Simmi Yesmin, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4120, E-mail: simmi.yesmin@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST PDF 56 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
Minutes: There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.
|
|
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Minutes: The rules of procedure were noted.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 87 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 28th January 2014.
Minutes: The minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee meeting held on 28th January 2014 were agreed and approved as a correct record.
|
|
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Alex Lisowski. Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Coborn Arms, 6-8 Coborn Road, LondonE3 2DA. It was noted that there had been objections from local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Mr James Anderson, Legal Representative for the Applicant briefly summarised the nature of the application, and the history of the premises. He stated that this was this was a pub in need of investment, and Youngs wanted to invest to refurbish and extend the premises. It was noted that a meeting with residents had taken place and as a result they had amended the plans/proposed layout of the premises and have reduced the size of the extension.
Mr Anderson explained that the extension would be using unused space to make into a dining area, the washrooms would be moved to the back of the premises and the kitchen area would be increased. It was noted that the bar area would remain the same and where it was.
It was further noted that the capacity of the premises would increase from 95 to 140 people. It would still remain a pub subject to refurbishment. Rear of the premises would be used for dinning however patrons could eat anywhere in the premises. Mr Anderson stated that the Applicants were mindful of the concerns raised by local residents and believe to have addressed them by reducing the proposed extension applied for.
It was further noted that there would be no change to the licensable hours or the front of the premises. Mr Anderson concluded that the Applicants were aiming to provide a better community pub bringing people to into the pub which has been lost over the years. It was noted that the majority of the concerns raised by local residents were in relation to the size of the extension which had now been reduced by half.
Members then head from Mr Hugo Lane, Roy Sully, Toby Bennett and Councillor Joshua Peck (on behalf of Shirley Day) who all expressed similar concerns of public nuisance, anti-social behaviour and crime and disorder, and parking issues. They all paid particular attention to the likely increase in smokers standing outside the premises causing noise nuisance into the early hours of the morning. There were concerns over the lack of consultation on the amended plans/application.
Residents welcomed the changes however requested that the hearing be adjourned in order for the residents to consider the new proposal made by the Applicant.
Mr Anderson stated that the application process had been made since July 2013 and there had been a reduction not an increase and therefore did not believe that the hearing should be adjourned.
At this point Mr Paul Greeno, Senior Advocate, advised Members if they were to defer consideration of this application they would have to demonstrate that it was in the public interest to do so.It was noted that a variation application is open for the ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Alex Lisowski. Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Preem, 118-111 Brick Lane, LondonE1 6RL. It was noted that there had been objections from the Metropolitan Police, Trading Standards, Licensing Authority and local residents. It was noted that the Licensing Authority had given their apologies for the meeting but wanted their representation on page 148 – 151 to be noted and considered.
Mr Greeno advised Members that the Special Cumulative Impact Policy was subject to a rebuttable presumption and it was for the applicant to satisfy Members through the operating schedule how they would promote the licensing objectives and not add to the existing concerns in the area.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Seema Kansal, Legal Representative for the applicant stated that the Special Cumulative Impact Policy was a rebuttable presumption. She highlighted the nature of the business and stated that customers would be coming into the premises, will be seated and will be dining inside and therefore anti-social behaviour would be minimised as alcohol would servedinside the premises.
Ms Kansal stated that there was no direct evidence of anti-social behaviour linking to the premises. It was noted that toilet facilities were available on the premises and therefore this would address concerns of urination. She concluded that the applicant was an experienced licence holder, and had assisted the Police on a number of occasions with CCTV footage.
At the request of the Chair PC Cruickshank referred to his statement on 154-157 and stated that by staying open until 03:00 would cause anti-social behaviour and public nuisance. He made reference to the cumulative impact zone and the crime statistics in the area. He concluded that the hours applied for were excessive and the hours exceed the vast majority of other restaurants hours in Brick Lane. That more people in the cumulative impact zone during late hours would increase the likelihood of for ASB and disorder.
Members then heard from Ian Moseley, Trading Standards Officer, who explained that the premises had been reviewed previously and there had been breaches of touting and insufficient management of the premises. He stated that the managerial control at the premises was not adequate. The erection of an illegal extension the use of fake blue notices and sales of alcohol during suspension indicated a disregard for legal requirements. The extension of capacity and hours compared to the existing licence represents a risk of additional strain on the management resulting in further breaches of the law and an increase in public nuisance in the area.
Members also heard from Ms Sandy Critchley and James Imrie, local residents who also expressed concerns about the anti-social behaviour in the area, the applicant’s mismanagement, breaches of existing conditions and the effect on the cumulative impact zone.
In response to questions, the Applicant stated he would not be touting anymore and would take positive steps to promote ... view the full minutes text for item 4.2 |
|
ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT Minutes: There was no other business.
|