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.

Councillors Hussain, Islam and Ahmed all declared a personal interest in item 3.1, Carwash, 1 Quaker Street, London E1 on the basis that they knew of Dr Halima Begum, one if the resident objectors to the application in her capacity as a community activist. However, all three Councillors confirmed that they had not had any discussions regarding this application prior to the meeting.

The rules of procedure were noted.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Ibrahim Hussain, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application by Damon Borley for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Carwash, 1 Quaker Street, London, E1 6SZ (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the Premises. The hours sought were 11:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and from 11:00 hours to 22:00 hours on Sunday, with drinking-up time of thirty minutes each day.

The application had received representations in objection. These were from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, SPIRE, and two local residents, one of whom had submitted a petition with their representation. The representations were based predominantly on the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder and because of the Premises’ location within the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ).

At the request of the Chair, The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Christoper Rees-Gay, Legal Representative on behalf of the applicant, who reminded the Sub-Committee that a similar application had been made in November 2023 and refused by the Sub-Committee in January 2024. This application had therefore been made in order to address the specific concerns noted by the Sub-Committee on the previous application and with a view to ensuring that the Premises would not add to the problems already experienced within the Brick Lane CIZ.

Mr. Rees-Gay explained that the Premises were not intended to operate as a bar or a club. The Premises would be used as an event hire space for a variety of events. It was noted that several events had already taken place under Temporary Event Notices and there had been no complaints arising from the events held so far. He also explained that not all events would have music or alcohol nor would they all be for the maximum capacity. A noise report had been commissioned at a recent “Pirate radio showcase” which had been used as a worst case scenario.

It was noted that the applicant had sought to engage with the responsible authorities. The police had no concerns over crime and disorder. In addition, they had engaged with those local residents who had raised concerns with respect to the previous application. With the exception of SPIRE, none of those residents was now objecting to this application.

Mr. Rees-Gay addressed the conditions which he said would address the concerns of the CIZ, among them were many that had been agreed with the police. Some had been agreed with SPIRE and the Environmental Health Service, albeit that their objections remained. The key conditions meant that the Premises could only operate on six occasions each month and only three could take place on Fridays and Saturdays. Alcohol could only be sold at an event and be ancillary to it and all events would be pre-booked.

Mr. Rees-Gay briefly commented on the representations, which comments were in line with his speaking note.

At  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

At the request of the Chair, Mr Ibrahim Hussain, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed the application by Kenan Balli for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Fabwick, Unit 4a Queen’s Yard, 43 White Post Lane, London, E9 5EN (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for: regulated entertainment (plays, films, live and recorded music, and performance of dance from 10:00 hours to midnight seven days per week; the provision of late night refreshment from 23:00 hours to midnight Sunday to Wednesday and to 01:00 hours Thursday to Saturday; the sale by retail of alcohol (on sales only) from 10:00 hours to midnight Snday to Wednesday and to 01:00 hours Thursday to Saturday. The premises would be open to the public from 10:00 hours to midnight Sunday to Wednesday and to 01:00 hours Thursday to Saturday.

In advance of the hearing, conditions had been agreed with the responsible authorities. Performances of plays and films had been removed from the scope of the application. The applicant’s agent had clarified that the Premises would operate as a restaurant.

It was noted that two representations were received against the application, both from local residents. These related to crime and disorder and noise nuisance from a number of licensed premises within the area. Both representations made specific reference to noise disturbance from various premises due to a lack of soundproofing.

Neither the applicant nor those making representations attended the hearing. It was noted that the applicant had informed Democratic Services of the intention to attend in person. However, there had been no contact prior to the hearing to explain the lack of attendance. Those making representations had not indicated in advance that they would or would not be attending. The Sub-Committee was given legal advice as to the options available to the Sub Committee. Under Regulation 20(2)(b) of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, the Sub-Committee determined to proceed with the application. The Sub Committee did not consider it to be necessary in the public interest to adjourn the application.

Decision

The Sub-Committee noted the clarification by the applicant that the Premises would operate as a restaurant. It further noted that a number of conditions had been agreed with the police and the Noise Service which would help to mitigate concerns relating to public nuisance and crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee considered that the clarification as to the operation of the Premises, and that it would not be a bar or nightclub, meant that there was likely to be less impact on the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted the provision in the reports pack of nearby premises, many of which were open much later and were of a different nature to these Premises.

The Sub-Committee nonetheless had some concern over the retention of live and recorded music and performances of dance given the intention to operate as a restaurant. It was noted that regulated entertainment was to be ancillary to the operation as a restaurant. The Sub-Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.2

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 applications that required decision deadline extensions.