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.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committees held on 23^rd April and 14^th May 2024.

The minutes of the meetings held on 23^rd April and 14^th May were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application by Hatton Garden Properties Ltd. for a new premises licence for The Yard Theatre, Unit 2a Queens Yard, 43 White Post Lane, London, E9 5EN (“the Premises”).

The Premises are already licensed and the application was made by the landlord of the Premises for a “shadow licence” which was identical in all respects to the existing licence.

The application attracted representations from three residents, all of which were based on the prevention of public nuisance.

At the request of the Chair, the Sub-Committee heard from Holly McColgan, Legal Representative on behalf of the applicant as to the rationale for the application, which was simply in order to protect their interests as the landlord. It was uncommon for such an application to come before a Sub-Committee and it was entirely normal for landlords to seek to protect their interests given the ways in which premises licences can end.

The Sub-Committee was told that the representations misunderstood the nature of the application. Nothing would change to the current operation, there were no responsible authority representations, and nothing in the representations made actually referred to issues caused by the operation of the Premises.

The Council’s licensing policy did not address shadow licences. However, the venue is a theatre and although the hours sought were outside of framework hours, the policy recognised that venues such as theatres tended not to give rise to problems and therefore took a more “low-key” approach.   

During questions from members, it was accepted that more could have been done to engage with residents and explain the rationale behind the application. This was the first such application by the applicant and they intended to do this across their whole estate, and so they would learn from this experience for future applications. The Sub-Committee was also told that the tenant was an exemplary tenant and had just been granted a new thirty-year lease of the Premises, which indicated that the Premises would continue to operate without a problem.

The residents who had made representations had not attended. One person had nominated another person to speak for them. However, that nominee had failed to attend and purported to nominate a third party. The Sub-Committee was given legal advice that it was not possible for a nominee to nominate somebody else to speak; any nomination had to have been made by the person making the representation. The Sub-Committee had read and noted the representations.

Decision

The Sub-Committee accepted that the representations were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what was being south. All three representations were identical, save for the third one which included an additional paragraph about noise nuisance from nearby building work at a different premises, which was not a relevant consideration for the Sub-Committee. It dd aster that noise could be heard from the venue although no more detail was given. All the representations seemed to think this would be a new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

This item was resolved prior to the meeting.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application by Studio Spaces Ltd. to vary the premises licence for Studio Spaces/E1, 110 Pennington Street, London, E1W 2BB (“the Premises”). The application sought to vary the plans to reflect an updated layout and to extend the permitted hours for licensable activity on Mondays. The variation sought was to allow the sale of alcohol from midnight to 07:00 hours on Monday, late-night refreshment from midnight until 05:00 hours, and regulated entertainment from midnight until 06:00 hours. This effectively extended the operating hours over the entire weekend period. An amendment to the opening times on Monday was also sought, from midnight until 07:00 hours.

The application received representations against it from the Licensing Authority and the Environmental Health service on the basis that the application was outside of policy and would adversely impact upon the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

At the request of the Chair, Ms. Clover addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the applicant. She told the Sub-Committee that the hours had been trialled through the existing non-standard timings on the Sunday preceding a bank holiday and by way of Temporary Event Notices (TENs). None of the TENs had been objected to by the responsible authorities. Acoustic reports had been given to the responsible authorities, who had not engaged in any way, and the police had been content for them to operate until this time. Ms. Clover asserted that the police had specifically suggested the proposed closing time as it would allow dispersing patrons to merge with people going to work around that time and that it would be less likely to cause problems than an earlier finishing time.

Ms. Clover stated that the application had been advertised twice due to an error. The DPS had a WhatsApp chat group on his phone with 138 residents. The blue notice had been posted on there and there had been no objections from residents.

Environmental Health’s objection to the variation of the plan was unclear to Ms. Clover. Additional conditions had been proposed, which included notifying the police and Licensing in advance of events. Egress and dispersal were already well managed and the venue had comprehensive management plans and the venue was well served by public transport.

Ms. Clover noted that the venue was already an exception to our policy and therefore granting this application would not be going against the policy. Ms. Clover also suggested that that it was not possible for the responsible authorities to go outside of the licensing objectives within their remit. It was not for Ms. Driver to say what the police would want. Finally, Ms. Clover pointed to the lack of complaints from residents.

Ms. Driver addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that she had no objection to the varied plans. She accepted that notification of events to the authorities was useful but that there was no power to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

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.

There were no extensions for decision deadlines.

This item was withdrawn by the Applicant.