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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The rules of procedure were noted.

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of Public Nuisance

·       The prevention of Crime and Disorder

Representations:

·       Resident

·       Environmental Protection

Spitalfields & Banglatown Ward

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence to be held by Brick Lane Chai Ltd. in respect of Chaiiwala, 55 Brick Lane, London, E1 6PU (“the Premises”). The application originally sought authorisation for the provision of late night refreshment from 23:00 hours to 23:30 hours Monday to Thursday and from 23:00 hours to midnight on Friday and Saturday. Non-standard timings to 02:00 hours during Ramadan and on Eid were also sought.

Following discissions with the Licensing Authority, the application was amended so as to apply on Friday and Saturday only, with the non-standard timings to remain.

Objections were received from the Environmental Health Service and from a local resident. These were based on the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance.

Applicant

The Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant’s agent, Mr. Rathore, who said that there was no logical basis on which to refuse the application. The application was only for late night refreshment and the Premises catered to people who might want to socialise later but without alcohol. The operator was a franchisee, who operated several other branches in London, including one in Bethnal Green, without any problems. The capacity was around 50 patrons and the hours sought had been significantly reduced as a result of the representations. The Applicant had tried to engage with the Noise Service, without success, and would accept their proposed conditions if the Sub-Committee saw fit to impose them. Mr. Rathore suggested that the resident making a representation was speculating and there was no evidential basis for suggesting there would be problems.

The Sub-Committee heard from Ibraheem Elias, who spoke briefly to the representation from his service. The resident was not in attendance.

During questions the Applicant explained that there was demand for the later opening times during Ramadan. They had experience of this in their other premises and had never had problems with the police or other responsible authorities. The Sub-Committee was told that people did not tend to congregate outside late at night; they were more likely to be inside the Premises. To ensure adequate control over younger people, especially during Ramadan, they ensured that the store manager was on duty for the evening shifts.

This application engaged the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises were located in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and thus it was for the applicant to rebut the presumption that the grant of the licence would impact on the CIZ. Whilst the applicant asserted that they fell within an exception, that was not entirely correct. The Policy indicated what may justify an exception rather than what will justify an exception. Similarly, that the application was for late night refreshment did not justify an exception given that the policy specifically applies to premises selling alcohol and premises providing late night refreshment.

Furthermore, new licence applications invariably require a degree of speculation given that the focus is on the likely impact. This is reflected in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of Public Nuisance

·       The prevention of Crime and Disorder

Representations:

·       Licensing Authority

·       Environmental Protection

·       Metropolitan Police

Bethnal Green West Ward

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence to be held by Hamlet Pizza Ltd. in respect of Hamlet Pizza, 479 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 9BU (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the provision of late night refreshment from 23:00 hours to 04:00 hours seven days per week. A number of conditions were offered by the Applicant on the operating schedule.

Representations objecting to the application were made by the Licensing Authority, the Police, Environmental Health, and a local resident. These were based on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

Applicant

The Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant’s agent, Mr. Mangrio. He said that the director of the company, Mr. Hamidi, had been in business for five years with no complaints or issues. The agent asserted that the concerns raised by the responsible authorities were historic and associated with previous operators. The Applicant assured the Sub-Committee that he would comply with any conditions imposed. The Applicant proposed to have SIA-staff on duty to assist with any problems.

Mr. Mangrio confirmed that Mr. Hamidi was the brother of the previous owner. He addressed the residential objection briefly by asserting that no objections had been raised previously and that as the extractor fan in question was by the resident’s kitchen window it should not be an issue.

Licensing Authority/objectors

Kathy Driver, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, outlined her objections. In short, there was a long history of the Premises providing late night refreshment outside of the permitted hours when the Premises had been licensed. This included a time when Mr. Hamidi’s brother was the licence holder. Various other individuals had been linked to the Premises. Numerous complaints had been made to the Licensing Authority suggesting that the Premises operated almost 24 hours per day. Test purchases and visits in 2021 and 2022 demonstrated this.

The previous licence had been revoked in October 2022 following a review. Mr. Hamidi had applied for a new licence in November 2022. That application had been invalid. Two applications were made in December 2022, neither of which were valid. Mr. Hamidi had been warned of the issues at the Premises on 1^st September 2022, when he had taken over the business. In spite of that, a test purchase on 18^th December 2022 showed the Premises operating without a licence, Complaints from residents, which went up to January 2023, also indicated that this was not a one-off incident. Mr. Hamidi had been present on 18^th December 2022, when the last test purchase had been carried out. On that occasion, staff became aggressive and confrontational. The Premises’ website shows them being open for the supply of hot food until 04:30 hours. Ms. Driver had no confidence in the licence holder complying with any conditions, if the licence were to be granted.

PC Perry echoed Ms. Driver’s concerns and commented that the Premises caused noise nuisance as a result of its patrons.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.2

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of Public Nuisance

·       The prevention of Crime and Disorder

Representations:

·       Licensing Authority

Bromley South Ward

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a review of the premises licence held by Cem Yesil in respect of Bow Supermarket, 163-167 Devons Road, London, E3 3QX (“the Premises”). The licence authorises the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises. The application was brought by the Licensing Authority and was triggered by sales being made from out of hours.

Applicant

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms. Holland, who set out the history. There had been out-of-hours sales in December 2021 and April 2022. Following the second purchase the Licensing Authority asked Mr. Yesil to add conditions to the licence as those on the licence, which had been “grandfathered” over when the Licensing Act 2003 came in to force, were not suitable. A minor variation had been submitted in August 2022 but contained an application to extend the hours, which cannot be achieved by way of a minor variation. When Mr. Yesil was advised of this, he was informed that a review would be brought to add conditions if a minor variation was not sought.

In November 2022, the variation had still not been sought. Ms. Holland contacted Mr. Yesil on 9^th November, who explained he had had some family issues. He was again warned of the risk of a review. He told Ms. Holland that his solicitors would apply within the next couple of weeks. There had been no further contact.

Ms. Holland told the Sub-Committee that the applicant had now agreed the proposed conditions, albeit that there was an amendment being sought to one condition. That was to proposed condition 1, which required a personal licence holder to be present at all times; Mr. Yesil sought to have that apply from 15:00 hours. Ms. Holland had no objection.

Premises Licence Holder

Mr. Sutherland addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of Mr. Yesil. He apologised for this review having been brought. He told the Sub-Committee that Mr. Yesil had instructed solicitors in August to deal with the variation and that they had let him down. Prior to that he had been in Turkey in June and July as his father had been very ill. It was only after the review application had been lodged that he realised his solicitors had let him down, following which he had instructed Mr. Sutherland. He agreed to the imposition of the conditions suggested, with a minor modification to condition 1 proposed by the Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee.

Decision

The application engages the four licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was content, given the agreed position, to adopt the course requested by both parties. The Sub-Committee considered that it would be disproportionate to take any stronger action when neither party suggested that was warranted in the circumstances and given that there were no further issues arising since April 2022. The Sub-Committee therefore grants the application for review and modifies the conditions of the premises licence as follows:

1.    There shall be a personal licence holder on duty on the premises from 15:00 hours and at all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.3

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.