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 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 interest.
|
||
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Additional documents: Minutes: The rules of procedure were noted.
|
||
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the new application for Cau Restaurant, (External Cau Restaurant 1) Commodity Quay, St Katherine Dock, London E1W 1AZ. It was noted that objections had been received by local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Gary Grant, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained that Cau was part of a large chain of restaurants, and also part of the Gaucho Group and was professionally run by experienced staff. He said that it was a modest application and that the restaurant had been trading without any complaints.
He referred Members to page 17 of the supplemental agenda which showed the area applied for licensable activities, he said that the Applicant had permission to use this area for customers to dine outside. He said that all representations wrongly made reference to the existing seating area outside the premises and he confirmed that this area was already licenced and therefore not subject to the application.
He said that there were general complaints at St Katharine’s Dock but the premise was 75 metres away from any residential homes. It was noted that there were other premises in the local vicinity which had provisions for outside dining and those premises were located under flats/Ivory House.
Mr Grant acknowledged there may be noise nuisance, as St Katherine Docks was a mixed use area but he stressed the fact that it was not from the premises itself. He emphasised that the hours applied for were below the framework hours. He said that the sale of alcohol would only be available to those who were dinning at the premises and that the area would have a maximum of 34 covers and would be supervised by management.
Members heard from Ms Heather Wilshire and Mr Michael Wilshire, local residents who expressed similar concerns around noise breakout and public nuisance, it was also noted that noise travelled across water and would impact on the residents living in Ivory House. Mr & Mrs Wilshire also stated that they had been assured by the Landlord that they would not allow seating outside the premises.
Members then heard from Mr David Leonard representing the Friends of St Katherine Docks who expressed concerns about sufficient access and egress on the walkway, and the obstruction of fire exits. He acknowledged that the premise was 75 meters away from residents’ homes. However, it was noted that that noise travelled across water and therefore there would be an increase in noise. He said that the other premises had strict conditions and suggested reduced hours of operation, serving of alcohol to cease at 9.00pm and the area closed by 9.30pm.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted;
- The objectors stated that the previous Landlords had promised Ivory House residents that restaurants would have no seating outside. - The Applicant stated that the Landlords said that they would not object to outside dining as long as there ... view the full minutes text for item 3.1 |
||
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the new application for Leyden Gallery, 9-9a Leyden Street, London E1 7LE. It was noted that an objection had been received by a local resident.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Lindsay Moran, Applicant, explained that they had written to the sole objector wishing to mediate however there had been no response from him. He explained that they had been operating as a gallery for the past 2 years, without any problems. It was noted that it was a new business, new way to get art lovers to celebrate art. He said that they have had events previously where they have served wine for free and have had no problems. Mr Moran then listed names of esteemed guests who have used or visited the premises in the past.
Mr Moran said that the application was to simply enable them to serve drinks during events which would also financially help them. He said that they could not envisage an increase in the footfall as it was mostly invite only customers or ticketed events.
Members then heard from Mr Robert Berslin, local resident, who said that not many people were made aware of the application hence why not a lot of people objected. He said his main concerns were noise nuisance and the impact it would have to his living conditions. He said he loved the diversity in the area but was concerned about the noise pollution. He said the premise was only 10 yards away from his home. He also expressed concerns that if the financial circumstances of the Applicants were to change then it could potentially turn into wine bar.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted;
- That the basement had a seating capacity for 12 people. - That in total there was a capacity for 80-90 people on both floors - That current events caused minor problems but the objector was concerned that once alcohol is available there may be problems. - That the Applicants currently offered free alcohol at events and have had no problems. - That there were no other objections from residents or responsible authorities. - That any licence granted would be subject to reviews and enforcement actions. - The Applicants gave assurance that the premises would always remain as an art gallery.
Members retired to consider their decision at 8.10.pm and reconvened at 8.15pm.
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 from both the applicant and objector.
Members noted the resident’s concerns about noise pollution, however also noted the fact that ... view the full minutes text for item 3.2 |
||
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC In view of the contents of the remaining items on the agenda, the Committee is recommended to adopt the following motion:
“That, under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act, 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, 1985, the Press and Public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section Two business on the grounds that it contains information defined as Exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government, Act 1972”.
EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL SECTION (PINK)
Minutes:
Resolved
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section Two business on the grounds that it contained information defined as exempt or confidential in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government, Act 1972.
|
||
EXEMPT / CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION |
||
Application for a Variation of Designated Premises Supervisor for Cinnamon, 134 Brick Lane, London E1 6RU Minutes:
Decision
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously –
RESOLVED
That the application for a Variation of Designated Premises Supervisor for Cinnamon, 134 Brick Lane, London E1 6RU be REFUSED.
|
||
ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT Minutes: There was no other business.
|