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: Councillors Peter Golds, Rajib Ahmed and Ansar Mustaquim asked it to be noted that the Applicant for Item 4.3 Application for a Variation of the Premises Licence for Preem, 118-122 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL, was known to them. However, they confirmed that this would not influence their decisions and they had not discussed this application prior to the hearing.
|
|
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Additional documents: Minutes: The rules of procedure was noted.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 74 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 14 July 2015.
Minutes: The minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee held on 14th July 2015 were agreed as a correct record.
|
|
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Truck Shop, West India Quay, Hertsmere Road, London E14 4AE. It was noted that objections had been received from the Metropolitan Police. It was noted that Environmental Health had also objected but had withdrawn their representation as conditions had been agreed.
At the request of the Chair Ms Sarah Le Ferve, Legal Representative explained that this was a time limited premises application and would only be in use between the months of May to October each year. There would be no music beyond background music and wanted an alcohol licence till 10pm.
She explained that the Applicants were operators, creators and drivers of street food in London. It was noted that the Applicant had experience of operating licences as they were doing the same in areas such as Hackney, Lewisham, and Battersea.
It was reported that there had been no incidents of serious disorder at any of the sites, and this was due to careful operational provisions, good management and having robust security in place. Ms Le Ferve explained that an average spend at the food stall would be approximately £10 each and £3.50pm for alcohol.
It was noted that the food operators have been asked to come in by the Landlord. It was noted that they have been trading this summer and have had around 13/14,000 customers over the past months and this was without the sale of alcohol. It was noted that if a licence was granted then they would start using the licence from May next year. Mr Henry Dimbleby, Applicant, concluded by highlighting the experiences of traders, explaining how they would manage the area, and manage the role of security staff and marshals.
Members then heard from PC Mark Perry, Metropolitan Police, who stated that there haven’t been any issues with the company and there was no doubt that they were reputable. However the main concern was the location, it was noted that there had been no consultation with the local Pub Watch organisers or other licensed premises in the area and how this would impact on them, nor had there been any details on how the security would manage the open area.
PC Perry explained that there was potential for disorder, as there was no place for people to consume their food as it was a very narrow place. He questioned how security would manage inebriated people and anti-social behaviour caused to local residents and therefore concluded that the location was inappropriate and was not satisfied with the management of the security.
In response to Members questions the following was noted;
- That the consultation process/application was advertised according to the statutory deadlines. - That Environmental Health object due to concerns of local residents but they have withdrawn their representations and had agreed conditions. - That the Applicants had been working closely with Landlord. - As for CCTV, it ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Real Taste, 185 East India Dock Road, London E14 0EA. It was noted that objections had been received by two local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Graham Hopkins, Licensing Representative on behalf of the Applicant said that the premise was a fast food take away, providing home delivery and was catering for local residents and for passing by trade.
It was noted that the premises had a car pack for delivery staff, it was also noted that the premise was under a block of flats and that no objections had been received from residents living above the premises. Mr Hopkins explained that they were only applying for the provision of late night refreshments to meet customer demands and improve the viability of the business.
Mr Hopkins explained that they kept CCTV footage for 31 days, did regular staff training and kept an incident book. It was noted that no alcohol would be permitted on the premises and that last orders for the restaurant would be taken 30 minutes before closing and 15 minutes for delivery or takeaway. It was also noted that phone numbers for management would be available to residents if they have any problems.
Mr Hopkins asked Members to note that no objections had been received by responsible authorities or residents directly above the premises and asked them to note the distance between the objectors houses and the premises.
In response to questions it was noted that there would be no seating area outside the premises and that there had been no incidents in the past 8 years whilst the premises had been open.
The objectors were not present at the meeting, therefore Members noted and considered their written objections.
Members retired to consider their decision at 3.40pm and reconvened at 3.45pm.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits and the Chair stated that the Sub Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and had heard representation on behalf of the applicant and noted the written objections from two local residents.
Members welcomed the proposed conditions offered by the applicant and noted the conscious effort to help alleviate the concerns of local residents. Therefore Members decided to grant the application and impose conditions in conjunction with the operating schedule to help promote the licensing objectives.
Decision
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously –
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for the Real Taste, 185 East India Dock Road, London E14 0EA be GRANTED with conditions.
The Provision for Late Night Refreshments
Monday to Wednesday from 23:00 hours to 00:30 hours (the following day) Thursday to Saturday from ... view the full minutes text for item 4.2 |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Preem Restaurant, 118-122 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL. It was noted that objections had been received by the Metropolitan Police, Environmental Health, Licensing Authority and Local Residents.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Philip Howarth, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained that the application was to extend the hours for sale of alcohol and late night refreshments from 11pm to 3am. It was noted that the Applicant currently had a licence for sale of alcohol and regulated entertainment.
It was noted that they weren’t applying for regulated entertainment and would only have background music and therefore not adding to the noise levels in the area. Mr Howarth said that they meet the licensing objectives as they currently have a licence and would not cause a negative impact in the area as there were a number of restaurants in Brick Lane with later hours.
He stated that alcohol would be ancillary to a meal as the main sales would be of food, he acknowledged that anti-social behaviour was a serious problem in the area. He mentioned a number of conditions to control the premises such as discouraging people to stand outside the premise, having CCTV cameras, that there were six toilets at the premises which were adequate facilities for the capacity of the premises. Mr Howarth explained that the Applicant was working with the Council to stop curry touting as they were now doing digital marketing via the website, phone apps etc. taking a more modern approach to advertising.
It was noted that the Applicant’s other premise on 124-126 Brick Lane had been closed for the past 5 months and would be changing into a chocolate shop and therefore the impact in the area would be reduced.
Members then heard from PC Mark Perry, representing the Metropolitan Police, he explained that there were serious concerns about the premises. He said that that alcohol should be ancillary to a meal as late night hours would attract more people to come to the area to drink. He questioned why there would be an SIA door staff if it was only a restaurant. PC Perry also made reference to the premise being in the cumulative impact zone, and therefore increasing the number of people coming into the Brick Lane area to consume alcohol and potentially causing disorder.
He then highlighted the lack of trust the Police had in the Applicant, as the Applicant has been accepting breaches of licensing conditions on a regular basis. He believed that by granting the variation there would be a risk of increasing anti-social behaviour, continuous mismanagement of the premises and a potential risk that the restaurant might turn into a bar.
Members then heard from Kathy Driver, representing the Licensing Authority who referred to her representation and detailed the previous history of the premises, the number of breaches made, ... view the full minutes text for item 4.3 |
|
ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT Minutes: There was no other business.
|