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 made.

The rules of procedure were noted.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Sainsbury’s Supermarket Limited for a premises licence in respect of Sainsbury’s, 409-413 Mile End Road, London E3 4PB. The application sought to allow the sale by retail of alcohol (off sales only) on Monday – Sunday from 07:00 hours to 23:00 hours.

It was noted that representations were received against the application from residents on the basis of preventing public nuisance, promoting public safety, and the protection of children from harm.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Robert Botkai, Legal Representative on behalf of the applicant presented the application as being a “seven to eleven” application for sale of alcohol. He explained that they did not seek to operate for 24 hours. It was noted that they had consulted with the responsible authorities and had agreed to conditions with the Police. Following this, there were no objections from any responsible authorities.

Mr Botkai referred to the objections made, and explained that they had control of the frontage of the premises which would be always kept tidy and free of litter whilst the premises was in operation. The Sainsburys delivery truck has been trialling deliveries, which have not presented any issues or traffic problems. He explained that most customers frequenting the store would be on foot minimising any addition to traffic. It was noted that the applicant had no control over the behaviour of individuals outside beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises, that the premises was not in a cumulative impact zone, that the hours applied for were within the Council’s framework hours,and that the premises were presented as being for the convenience of the community especially the local residents.

Members then heard from Mr Oliver Rouseau (on behalf of John White), Ms Gail Stevens and Mr David Berridge, resident objectors, who expressed similar concerns about the impact of licensed premises on a heavily residential area. Concerns were expressed that delivery lorries would impact public safety, and that the resultant increased footfall would lead to a rise in public urination. Objectors were concerned that limited parking was available for customers, except by vehicles stopping in the street outside and adjacent streets. Objectors feared increased drunkenness – there had been incidents in Rhondda Grove, including fights, which were frightening particularly for children. Objectors also queried the necessity for the purchase of alcohol at 07:00 hours.

Members also heard from Cllr. Natalie Bienfait who also shared similar concerns as the residents, and expressed how readily accessible alcohol was in the area, the traffic overflow that would lead onto residential streets causing public nuisance to residents.

In response to questions the following was noted: -

·       That there would be one lorry delivery a day which would not be in the early morning, with goods taken straight into the store over smooth surface reducing noise.

·       Lorry engines would not be left running during deliveries, and music would not be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence by Vittoria’s Secret Limited for a premises licence in respect of Vittoria Wharf Studio, 10 Stour Road, London E3 2NT. The application sought to allow the sale by retail of alcohol (on sales only) as follows:

Monday to Wednesday from 11:00 hours to 23:00 hours

Thursday from 11:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Friday & Saturday from 11:00 hours to 01:00 hours

Sunday from 10:00 hours to 23:00 hours

The application also sought to allow regulated entertainment by way of recorded music indoors as follows: -

Thursday from 23:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Friday & Saturday from 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours

It was noted that representations were received against the application from the police on the basis of preventing crime and disorder, promoting public safety, and preventing public nuisance. Representations against the application were also received from the Environmental Health Service on the basis of the prevention of public nuisance and objections were received from a resident on the basis of public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.   

Mr Rhys Rose, on behalf of the applicant gave the context for the application: the premises provides a private hire event space, which had been operating for four years, and the application was to obtain a licence, so that it can lawfully provide the licensable activities of the retail of alcohol and provision of recorded music. The applicant had commissioned an acoustic report and had a noise management plan. Concerns had been raised in relation to safety on a staircase and remedial works had been carried out in relation to the steps which had had high visibility paint applied. A visit from Mr. James Doherty, a Tower Hamlets Health & Safety Officer, had led to confirmation that there were now no safety issues regarding the stairs. The applicant clarified that the recorded music would not be background music.  

Members heard from PC Mark Perry, who acknowledged that their previous concerns about the stairs had been resolved. The police appreciated the conditions offered in the application, and were happy to have those put in place, if the application were granted. The police remained concerned, however, about the noise of over 150 people in high spirits leaving at night. Whilst not objecting to the application altogether, it was the impact of this which remained a concern. The police proposed that striking a balance between the applicant and the residents would be achieved by a reduction in all the hours sought to 23:00 hours, and then if no problems emerged, the applicant could apply for additional hours beyond 23:00 hours. 

Members also heard from Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer, who acknowledged the applicant’s noise management plan, which she had briefly seen. She mentioned previous noise disturbance complaints, although they were a year ago, and there were none more recently. She mentioned a noise abatement notice having been served, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.2

This item was resolved prior to the meeting.

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.

The following application decision deadlines were extended to 30^th September 2024;

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, introduced the report which detailed the application by Environmental Health for a counter-notice against a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) given by Mr. Nathaniel Williams in respect of Colour Factory, Unit 8a Queens Yard, 43 Whitepost Lane, London E1 1BJ.

The TEN provides for the sale by retail of alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainmentas follows: -

Friday 28th June 2024 - 09:00 hours– 01:00 hours

Saturday 29th June 2024 - 09:00 hours– 01:00 hours

Sunday 30th June 2024 - 09:00 hours – 22:00 hours

At the request of the Chair, Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer provided reasons to the Sub-Committee as to why the TEN should not be permitted to proceed. The objections focused on the external area. She invited the Sub-Committee to consider adding the following to the TEN, if it was to be accepted: -

(1) reducing the hours for use of external area

(2) limiting the numbers of patrons outside after such time and

(3) not allowing regulated entertainment in the external areas at any time.

Ms Cadzow said that whilst no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance had been established, there had been complaints of noise regarding Colour Factory as recently as 18^th May 2024 and 13^th June 2024. Ms Cadzow expressed concern on behalf of residents at nearby premises including those at Omega Works, 4 Roach Road. Concerns about noise disturbance which included noise from patrons leaving in high spirits.

Mr Williams said that he had operated for four years without complaints from neighbours about noise. He did not anticipate that the TEN, if allowed, would result in a break from that track record. There were other residential premises closer to his premises than Omega Works. The residents at those other premises had not complained to him about noise.

Decision

This application engages the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.

The options are to issue a counter-notice, or to refuse to issue a counter-notice, or refuse to issue a counter-notice and add conditions to the premises licence. The Sub-Committee does not have the power to modify the alter a TEN in any way. 

There was a conflict of evidence between the Environmental Health Officer saying that there had been two recent instances of noise disturbance emanating from the premises; and the applicant saying that he had had no complaints of noise disturbance over the past 4 years.

The onus was on the Environmental Health Officer to satisfy the Sub-Committee, on the balance of probabilities, that the licensing objectives are likely to be undermined if the event proceeds. The Environmental Health Officer presented no evidence to support her assertions of recent noise complaints. No statutory noise nuisance had been witnessed and so no abatement notice had been served or was being considered. There was no evidence to contradict the applicant’s assertion that he had had a four-year period of operating so far without issues. One would expect that if the premises had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.