Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 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
Media
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 214 KB Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest, identified in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine: whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
Members are also reminded to declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it is the Members’ responsibility to identify any interests and also update their register of interest form as required by the Code.
If in doubt as to the nature of an interest, you are advised to seek advice prior the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of interest made.
|
|||||||||
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: |
|||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Pasha’s Peri Peri, 637 Commercial Road, London E14 7NT. It was noted that objections had been received by Officers on behalf of the Licensing Authority and the Police.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Graham Hopkins, Licensing Agent, on behalf of the Applicant, explained that the application was for a variation and the premises was not in the cumulative impact zone. He explained that the premises had been operating for 20 years, 15 of which had been managed by the applicant, who had considerable experience of operating a late-night premises.
It was highlighted that complaints were made during May - June 2020 and prior to that there had been no problems or complaints. He said the complaints raised were not substantiated as there was no evidence provided. Mr Hopkins said that he had spoken to the Applicant and he had denied that the alleged incidents took place with the Police.
Mr Hopkins explained that staff would clean the street up to 25 metres either side of the premises at the start and end of each day.
He said that deliveries would be made by Just Eat and UberEats and that the applicant had contacted the different websites and the hours of operation had been amended. It was noted that the police were of the view the premises had been operating beyond trading hours on Thursdays as advertised as it was incorrectly advertised on the online delivery platform but Mr Hopkins pointed out that there was no evidence that the premises had been operating beyond its operating hours. In addition, the police had not formally interviewed the licence holder about the alleged breach, there were no details as to which member of staff the police had spoken to, , no request for CCTV images were made and therefore there was no evidence to support the allegations.
Mr. Chaudry, applicant, stated that he had spoken to Just Eats to correct the website but that this was over the telephone. He had no record of it. He told members that if an order came in after 02:00, it would not be delivered until the next day. He told the Sub-Committee that they would limit the number of drivers in the Premises to two at any one time and that the Premises did not have its own drivers.
Members then heard from Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer. She explained that in May 2020, a resident made a complaint that the premises was trading beyond licensable hours and reported issues of noise nuisance and litter on streets. She said that operating hours advertised on-line were for later hours than on the premises licence. She believed that the hours applied for the variation were far too excessive and would not be acceptable for residents to endure public nuisance at such late hours. She also raised concerns as to why ... view the full minutes text for item 3.1 |
|||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London E1 6LS. It was noted that objections had been received by the Environmental Health Officer. It was also noted that the hours had been reduced.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Whitney Warren, Events Manager for Toynbee Hall, explained that she would be the designated premises supervisor if the application were to be granted. She gave a brief history of the venue and its mission to support charity organisations to help break down socioeconomic barriers. She explained that the venue currently hosted general events, product launches and weddings to generate income for the running of the venue and for charitable organisations. It was noted that currently promotors or venue hirers bring their own drinks to the venue, and they therefore wanted the opportunity to sell alcohol and generate more revenue to put towards their charitable objectives.
Ms Warren stated that she aware that the premises was in the cumulative impact zone (CIZ) but claimed that the venue was not alcohol-led and the nature of the venue would mitigate any impact of granting a premises licence in the CIZ. She said that the clients were currently able to being alcohol into the venue and therefore there would not be an additional impact, nor was there any impact currently. She said in order to address concerns of public nuisance, they had agreed to conditions to have no loud speakers and would manage noise emanating from the premises, there would be no off sales of alcohol to customers or members of the public and that staff were aware of the list of attendees attending any events at the venue.
Members then heard from Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer who referred to her objection on page 137 and explained that when she received the application, she considered the licensing objective of public nuisance. Whilst asking for lesser hours which were within the Council’s framework hours the applicants had not liased with her and there was insufficient information in the application to demonstrate how another licensed premises would not negatively impact on the area. She did not consider that the application had properly addressed issues of noise disturbance from ingress and egress or to prevent people loitering outside the Premises. In respect of further conditions offered by the applicant (at Page 139 of the report pack) Ms. Cadzow suggested some amendments in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That the garden area outside the premise was a public place and could not be managed by staff at the venue. - Concerns were raised about a local primary school being very close to the premises. However, it was confirmed that the school was behind the estate in which the venue was in. - That a security team would be onsite ... view the full minutes text for item 3.2 |
|||||||||
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.
Additional documents: Minutes: Members agreed to extend the decision deadlines for the applications below to the dates stated; Licensing applications were extended due to the impact of the pandemic, and were adjourned under regulation 11 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, it was in the public interest to do so, and did not require representation from parties to the applications.
|
|||||||||
Application for a Temporary Event Notice for 93 Feet East, 150 Brick Lane, London E1 6QL PDF 125 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for 93 Feet East, 150 Brick Lane, London E1 6QL. It was noted that an objection had been received by the metropolitan police. It was noted that the applicant had offered to reduce the hours as detailed in the supporting documents to 03:00 hours on Sunday morning and 23:00 on Sunday evening.
PC Mark Perry explained that Halloween was one of the busiest nights of the year and this caused a strain on police resources as there are high reports of crime and disorder such as violence against women, alcohol fuelled anti-social behaviour etc, he explained that the area attracted high numbers of nitrous oxide canister users and suppliers but this was an on-going issue.
He said management were previously reluctant to engage or report issues to police, but now it was accepted that they were reporting incidents. He also raised concerns relating to the lack of late-night transport links at the time of closing and questioned how customers would be getting home safely. He also highlighted that there would be an extra hour of drinking as the clocks go back that weekend. There would be a likely increase in alcohol related crime and disorder as well as this there had not been sufficient information in the application but do note the policies attached in the supplemental agenda, he said they were good operators and were a member of the Pubwatch scheme, but mainly the concern was the lack of transport links at that hour.
Mr Jason Zeelof, Applicant, stated that he noted and shared concerns of the use and supply of NOX canisters in the area but said that they were not directly associated with the premises. He said there was a zero drug policy the premises and customers are thoroughly security check upon entry and police are called if sellers are seen. He said there was no crime and disorder associated with the premises and the 233 crimes reported in the objection by police refer to general crimes in the area and do not specifically relate to the premises itself. He referred to the reduced hours proposed and the condition on the existing premises licence that could be imposed on the TEN application. He explained that the premises regularly underwent mystery shops and Michael Watson, Licensing Consultant, confirmed that the operators demonstrated clear commitment and adopted best practices.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- The premises had been operating since 2000 and had run regular events and improvements had been made over the years such as sound proofing, having a noise limiter etc to minimise noise nuisance. - Only play low level background music. - Clean outside the premises on regular basis and no bottles of alcohol are taken outside the premisses except for soft drinks. - That staff were trained on a regular basis, and adhere to policies, staff ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for 96 Whitepost Lane, London E9 5EN. An objection had been made by the Metropolitan Police.
PC Mark Perry explained that Halloween was one of the busiest night of the year, and this caused a strain on police resources as there are high reports of crime and disorder. He questioned what measures were in place for the temporary event notice and questioned how 100 people would leave at the early hours of the morning from a residential area. He did say that there were buses but they were a 10 minute walk away, there would be shortage of taxi drivers during this busy night and wait times would be high. There would be no background noise to absorb the sounds of egress as it was a relatively residential area. PC Perry concluded that this TEN was for a large number of customers for excessive hours, with no satisfactory dispersal policy and therefore would be a likely increase in crime and disorder and public nuisance if it were to be granted.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Sacha Henry, Manager of the premises, explained that there would be two security staff on duty and the event had a guest list for 100 people for dinner and drinks, it was a private event and all attendees would be known to the staff. It was noted that a TEN had been granted for the premises on 17th September for another event and there were no problems or complaints. Mr Henry explained that they would stop serving drinks at 2.30am allowing a half an hour drinking up time. He said that taxis and uber drivers this would be managed by the security officers and that the premises was situated in a yard which was secured and the premises was the only business operating from there.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted;
- That the premises was a restaurant, the TEN was for a private event for the owners family and friends. - That the event would include dinner, dance and cocktails. - The event would start at 8pm. - Concerns that the additional hours would lead to noise nuisance and alcohol related crime and disorder.
Concluding remarks were made by both parties.
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 and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licensing objectives:
Consideration
The Sub Committee heard from PC Mark Perry who explained that Halloween was one of the busiest nights of the year with limited police resources and transport links and ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |