Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: MP701, 7th Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Simmi Yesmin, Senior Democratic Services Officer Tel: 020 7364 4120, E-mail: simmi.yesmin@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST PDF 67 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: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were declared.
|
|
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Additional documents: Minutes: The Rules of Procedure were noted by the Sub Committee.
|
|
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Additional documents: Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Samantha Neale, Licensing Officer, introduced the report, which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Lola Hospitality Ltd, 81 Wapping High Street, London E1W 2YN. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of Environmental Health and local residents.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Emma Dring, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant gave a brief summary of the Applicant’s history and experiences, she explained that Mr Peter Kopik, Applicant, was the landlord for the building and had been for the past 27 years and has had a long standing connection with the area. He had previously been in the hotel industry in Ireland for 15 years, had three hotel developments and was also an architect by profession. It was also noted that he previously owned the restaurant Pasha in Wapping High Street between 1999 -2004 and this restaurant was now closed.
Ms Dring explained that if the application was to be granted then Mr Kopik currently named as the Designated Premises Supervisor on the application would be changed to someone more experienced. She explained that the main concerns raised by objectors were the likely possibility of the premises becoming a late night venue. She explained that it would remain and continue as an Italian restaurant but were looking to make it more premium and upmarket.
It was noted that the restaurant would be food led, and drinks would be served with meals only, no music would be played and alcohol would be for on sales only.
She referred Members to page 53 of the agenda, the layout of the premise and explained that the bar area would be the waiting area for customers sit and wait at before being seated rather than have to queue outside if the restaurant were to be busy. She explained that customers would be seated at the bar area and would not be doing anything different from what was in place before, it was noted that the hours and business model were the same as the previous business at the premises. It also noted that the previous licence has had no reviews or problems in the past and was accepted by residents.
Ms Dring explained that the restaurant would be a vibrant addition to the street/area and there was no reason why there would be any additional concerns. It was noted that there was no intention for the premises to become a late night venue, the later hours had been sought to allow flexibility to finish meals. She highlighted the fact that objectors raise issues from experiences relating to the previous business, but this in fact was a new business and had new management.
She highlighted the fact that the premise was in central London and some activity is expected and with it being a vibrant restaurant it would enhance the local area. It was noted that there would be a head waiter/maître d’ who would monitor the noise ... view the full minutes text for item 3.1 |
|
Application for a New Premises Licence for Sketch, 68 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL PDF 125 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
The Applicant was not present at the meeting and there had been no contact made with Licensing Services or Democratic Services to notify his/her attendance. The Democratic Services Officer informed Members that a notification letter was sent out 10 working days before the meeting date and the agenda was sent out 5 working days before the meeting. It was noted that two of the objectors were present at the meeting (Environmental Officer and a local resident representative).
In the absence of the Applicant, Members decided to defer consideration of this application in order to give the applicant another opportunity to attend the meeting. It was noted that if they fail to attend the next meeting that is arranged for them, then it is requested that the next Sub Committee considering the application should go ahead in their absence.
|
|
EXTENSION OF DECISION DEADLINE: LICENSING ACT 2003 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.
Minutes: There were no applications that required an extension for decision deadlines.
|