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 64 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. Additional documents: Minutes: The rules of procedure were noted.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 100 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 3rd February 2015.
Minutes: The minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee meeting held on 3rd February were agreed and approved as a correct record.
|
|
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Hub by Premier Inn, 86 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL. It was noted that there had been objections from local residents.
It was noted that the objectors were not present at the meeting and therefore Members noted and considered the written objections contained in the agenda pack.
At the request of the Chair Mr John Gaunt, Legal Representative for the Applicant referred to the supporting documents in the supplementary agenda and stated that the objections were not accurate in relation to off sales. He explained that off sales was applied for to cover any eventuality or issues that may arise if drinks were taken from the restaurant area to the bedrooms. He explained that it was a hotel development and that there were two other Premier Inn hotels in the Borough which had no problems. It was noted that there were 700 Premier Inn hotels nationwide and there 6/7 that were currently under development.
Mr Gaunt explained that Premier Inn would be making an investment of 18 million into this development of 189 bedrooms. It was noted that there was no bar area, drinks would only be served by waiters and served to seated customers. He explained that there would be limited drinks available and the hotel was not a sort of facility for drinking only purposes, as it primarily catered for hotel residents, with the facility to serve non-residents. He explained that licensable activities for regulated entertainment, late night refreshments and sale of alcohol for non-residents had been reduced to 11.30pm and available 24 hours for residents of the hotel.
It was noted that in consultation with the Police, the Applicants had agreed to CCTV conditions. It was also noted that there were no objections from Responsible Authorities. He concluded by asking Members to grant the application.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That previous track record of the Premier Inn hotels gives assurance that the hotel would not add to the cumulative impact in the area. - That there were 700 Premier Inn’s nationwide and there had been no complaints and no reviews of their licences. - That non-residents would have to buzz in through to reception before allowed entry. - Difficult customers would be managed by the 24hour reception team who would always be on the reception desk. - The difference between a Hub by Premier Inn and Premier Inn was that the rooms in Hub by Premier Inns were smaller, more affordable, and more technology based as hotel residents would have the option to operate and control the room via smartphones. - Rooms would cost an average £139 per night. - Main clientele would be families and business clients, and would not attract young persons.
Members retired to consider their decision at 7.05pm and reconvened at 7.20pm.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Spice Hut, 220 Mile End Road, London E1 4LJ. It was noted that there had been an objection from the Metropolitan Police.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Tobais Eaton, Legal Representative for the applicant explained that the applicant was happy to accept the conditions proposed by the Police and would ensure conditions were adhered to.
He believed that the witness statement was generic and had misrepresentations. He explained that reference to anti-social behaviour was raised, however, there has been no anti-social behaviour or complaints/problems linked to the premises.
Mr Eaton explained that the Applicant diligently followed trading hours and directed staff not to serve after hours. He accepted that there may be general anti-social behaviour in the area however this was not linked to the premises. He explained that the food sold was Indian food, rice and curry and mainly sold kebabs. He stated that there were five other premises, literally next door from the premise who predominately sold chicken and therefore chicken boxes which were referred to in the police statement, were more likely to be from one of those premises.
It was noted that the premises was well lit , there was no alcohol sold, no hidden areas around the premises, no over spills from clubs or pubs and was close to the bus route and underground so customers usually come in to take food on the way home etc.
Mr Eaton accepted that there were problems of anti-social behaviour in the area however they were not directly linked to the premises. He explained that the Applicant would continue to uphold the licensing objectives, would have CCTV cameras in place which he was currently operating.
Members then heard from PC Mark Perry, Metropolitan Police, he explained that the area suffered from high levels of anti-social behaviour, particularly around Dragons Yard, Captain Cooks Yard and O’Leary Square which were Borough hotspots for anti-social behaviour etc. He explained that PC Corcoran states in his statement that if the premises was given a licence till 2am, given its close proximity to these areas, it would become a magnet for people who deal in and purchase illegal drugs around the area as well as rise to anti-social behaviour, especially late at night as other venues would be closed.
PC Perry stated that Dragons Yard was a known hotspot for drug dealing and was a 5-10 minute walk from the premises, and these premises and others were places where drug dealers went to eat.
He explained there were three reported issues linked to the premises, theft of mobile phone in 2013, assault on two females outside the premises in 2014 and a theft of a gold tooth. PC Perry concluded that Mile End Road was a hot spot for anti-social behaviour and the statement from PC Corcoran suggested the chicken boxes were ... view the full minutes text for item 4.2 |
|
ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT Minutes: There was no other business considered urgent.
|