To receive any apologies for absence.

None.

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Chief Executive.

Councillors M.S. Ali and A. Ali declared a personal interest in that they had both been contacted by the applicant regarding his application but had informed that applicant that they could not discuss the application as they were Members of the Licensing Sub committee that was to consider the application.

Mr Paul Greeno, Councils legal advisor, stated that these declarations did not preclude the Councillors from hearing the applications.

To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information.

The Rules of Procedure were noted.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 2^nd April 2008.

The minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee meeting held on 2^nd April 2008, were agreed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Mr Greeno commented that as the two applications were for the same premise the Sub Committee would consider both applications at the same time. Therefore the review procedure would be used whereby the objectors would present their case first followed by the applicants/premise holder.

Both the Police and the applicants/premise holder wanted to table papers. With the permission of all parties these were duly circulated.

At the request of the Chair Mr Mohshin Ali introduced the first report which sought a variation of a premises licence for Laughing Buddha, 653 Commercial Road, London E14 7LW. The applicants had changed their application and now the days and hours sought for regulated entertainment of recorded music, provision of facilities for making music and provision of facilities for dancing were those of Friday to Saturday 00.00 until 02.00. Although the application made reference to non standard timings for New Years Eve these had not been specified on the notice and therefore could only remain as those currently on the premises licence.

Appropriate consultation had been carried out with objections received from local residents, Environmental Protection and the Metropolitan Police. The objections were on the grounds that granting the application would cause crime and disorder, public nuisance and threaten public safety.

In relation to the second report this sought a review of the premises licence for Laughing Buddha, 653 Commercial Road, London E14 7LW. The review had been triggered by Environmental Protection and was supported by the Councils Planning Department and a local resident. The grounds for review were that the crime and disorder and public nuisance objectives of the Licensing Act had been breached.

As there were no questions for the officers the Chair asked those objecting to

the variation application only to present their case.

PC Louise Allen reported that the Metropolitan Police were objecting under

the crime and disorder, public nuisance and public safety licensing objectives.

The premise was currently licensed to operate as a restaurant. However they

had recently being using external promoters to promote the premise as a club.

The Police had to attend an incident at the premise on 23^rd February 2008 at

3.01am as they were informed that there was a fight in the premises between

two different gangs. The CCTV did not record the incident as the hard drive

was broken. However windows in the premise had been broken by using a

table. The suspects of the incident had been drinking in the premise prior to

the offence being committed. The Police were concerned that the licence

holder did not control promoters using the premise or have adequate

management measures in place at the premise. They had tried to interview

him prior to this hearing but he had failed to attend an interview. There was a

list of conditions that the Police wanted in place if the Sub Committee were

minded to agree to the variation of the licence, but concerns remained that he

could not address the aforementioned licensing objectives.

The resident objectors commented that the main problems were with noise nuisance from egress and patrons congregating outside the premise, often till the early hours. They had been complaining to the premise for some time as residents were disturbed and woken by noise nuisance and those working/studying at home could not concentrate because of these problems. There was anti social behaviour with windows broken and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2