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.

Cllr Hussain, Cllr Khan and Cllr Uddin all declared a personal interest in item 3.1 on the basis that the knew the objector present at the meeting as local constituent.

The rules of procedure were noted.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed an application by Bocca Bocca Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Rotunda Café, Island Gardens, Saunders Ness Road, London, E14 3EA (“the Premises”). The application originally sought authorisation for the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises from 08:00 hours to 23:00 hours seven days per week. The application attracted representations against it from two local residents on the basis of all four licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee was informed in advance that the proposed hours for licensable activity had been reduced following agreement with the police to 08:00 hours to 17:00 hours. A number of conditions had also been agreed between the applicant and the responsible authorities prior to the meeting.

At the request of the Chair, Mr. Gianluca Colini addressed the Sub-Committee by explaining that he was surprised by the objections and that the intention was simply to allow for people to enjoy a glass of wine or a beer with their meals. He confirmed that alcohol would be kept behind the counter at all times.

Members then heard from one of the objectors who had made a representation, Mr. Ralph Hardwick. He expressed concerns about whether the outside area was part of the lease and whether or not the lease prohibited the sale of alcohol as a coffee house was not a venue where one usually expected alcohol to be sold. He had no issue with on-sales; but he was concerned more with the off-sales. He explained that children from the nearby school and college used the park in their break times and therefore could potentially give rise to public nuisance.

Mr. Hardwick also asserted that the application risked conflict with the Council’s borough-wide Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) which prohibited anti-social drinking.

The Legal Adviser clarified that whether or not the lease included the outside area or allowed for the sale of alcohol was not a relevant consideration for the Sub-Committee. If the lease did not permit the sale of alcohol, that was a matter between the landlord and the tenant under the lease. The PSPO did not prohibit drinking in public spaces; it required people to surrender alcohol when asked to do so and prohibited them from continuing to drink after being asked not to do so.

In response to questions the following was noted;

-       That it was made clear that off-sales were sought in order to be able to make use of the outside area, which was not part of the licensed premises.

-       The applicant confirmed that he was willing for off-sales to be limited to consumption within the external area only.

-       The applicant also confirmed that he was willing to place signage to inform customers that alcohol was not to be taken away from the premises and external area.

-       Mr. Hardwick confirmed that he was not opposed to the application entirely nor was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer introduced the report which detailed an application by Solid Floor Ltd. for a new premises licence to be held in respect of Solid Floor, 7a Ezra Street, London, E2 7RA (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for licensable activities as follows:

Sale by retail of alcohol (on-sales only)

Monday to Thursday                    09:00 hours to 22:30 hours

Friday and Saturday                     09:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Sunday                              09:00 hours to 19:30 hours

Late night refreshment

Friday and Saturday                     23:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Non-standard timings were also sought on days preceding bank holidays, namely a terminal hour of 23:30 hours. The Premises would close to the public thirty minutes after licensable activity ceased, again with non-standard timings sought on the day preceding a bank holiday.

The application attracted a number of representations, which included residents and a business. The representations asserted that all four licensing objectives would be undermined if the application is to be granted. However, there was no consensus between the residents; some were content for the application to be granted subject to additional conditions, whereas others weren’t. 

At the request of the Chair, The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Peter Conisbee on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the concept behind the application was to provide a high-end dining experience. He suggested that the representations were not against the sale of alcohol but against the restaurant. He commented that the Premises are not in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ); nonetheless they had proposed a robust operating schedule as if they were in a CIZ in order to try to mitigate all concerns.

With respect to noise from the Premises, there was no-one realistically affected by that. Noise from patrons dining outside was not realistic, as the nearest residential premises were some 50 metres away. Various conditions had been agreed in response to the representations and the Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to his letter appearing at Pages 7 to 14 of the second supplementary agenda.

He explained that parking would not be an issue. Statistics suggested that some 67% of people going out in London would use public transport, cycle or walk. The external area would be closed by 21:00 hours. With respect to the petition submitted by one of the residents, he said that the nearest was 200 metres away and the furthest was about 8km away.

It was noted that none of the responsible authorities had made a representation in respect of the Premises.

The Sub-Committee then heard from a number of those making representations. Mr Charles Garrad asserted that adding up to 1,000 users a day was “a terrible idea.” He expressed concern that the premises licence could be transferred to another person who could expand the number of covers. The street already experienced a great deal of traffic disruption and deliveries would be made by vans that would inevitably block the highway, a problem already occurring, which would be made far worse.

Mr Adrian Heathfield  ...  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.

Nil items.