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

Representations:

·       Environmental Protection

Ward: Spitalfields & Banglatown

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Noodle & Beer Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of 31 Bell Lane, London, E1 7LA (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the Premises from 11:30 hours to 22:30 hours. The closing time of the Premises is 23:00 hours.

Representations against the application were received from the Licensing Authority and from the Environmental Health Service. Their representations were based on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance as well as the Premises’ location within the Brick Lane CIZ.

Applicant

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms. Le Fevre on behalf of the applicant. She briefly explained the nature of the business, which was a specialist noodle restaurant rated as 25^th best in London. They had opened just before the pandemic, in late 2019. The Premises fell within possible exceptions to the CIZ in the Council’s policy, namely less than 50 covers, within framework hours, and was a restaurant. It was also not alcohol-led. There was also evidence that the Premises would not negatively impact on the CIZ as it had been operating already and therefore had a track record of operating in that way. The Premises currently operated a “Bring Your Own” (BYO) policy and that had not given rise to any concerns. There was no evidence that the Premises would have an impact if the licence were to be granted.

The operating schedule conditions were consistent with the Premises being a restaurant. One condition had been agreed with the police, which strengthened the applicant’s original “table meal” condition. The police had not made a representation against the application. There were no representations from residents.

As far as the allegation of previous unlicensed sales was concerned, Ms. Le Fevre told the Sub-Committee her client had explained that he had previously been advised by his solicitors that once the application was made the Premises could sell alcohol. She told the Sub-Committee she had seen that advice in writing, which was clearly wrong. Her client had addressed that issue immediately upon being made aware of it. In relation to the later visit in March 2023, it was accepted that the menu should, ideally, have been covered over so that it was clear that no alcohol was being offered for sale.

Environmental Protection/Licensing Authority

Mr. Olere addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Environmental Health Service. He stated that they were concerned about possible noise break-out and disturbance to residential properties due to increased footfall.

Ms. Miller-Johnson spoke to the Authority’s representation. She accepted the explanation put forward by Ms. Le Fevre in respect of the alleged sale of alcohol previously. She explained that the Authority had been concerned as to the ability of the applicant to uphold the licensing objectives within the CIZ, given that history, and that it was considered to be appropriate for Members to make a decision on the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of crime & disorder

·       The protection of children from harm

Representations:

·       Trading Standards

Ward: Bromley South

Applicant

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Sookun seeking an adjournment on behalf of the premises licence holder as he was out of the country and had only recently received the notice of hearing. There was no question that the notice had been sent out on time.

Mr. Kanzaria contacted Democratic Services last week to seek an adjournment but was told that the application needed to be made to the Sub-Committee.

Mr. Brander and Ms. Holland both expressed a preference to proceed. However, both recognised the potential unfairness by proceeding in the absence of the licence holder. Neither of them vigorously opposed the application to adjourn.

Given what is at stake, the Sub-Committee is satisfied that it is necessary to adjourn pursuant to Regulations 12 and 20 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.

The licence holder must be under no illusion that if he fails to attend, personally or through a representative, on the next occasion, the hearing is likely to proceed in his absence.

Licensing Objectives:

·       The prevention of public nuisance

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

Representations:

·       Metropolitan Police

·       Environmental Protection

Ward: Bow East

This application was withdrawn.

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.