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.

Councillor Haque advised that he was a resident of Spitalfields & Banglatown Ward but did not have an interest in the application (Item 4.1).

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

Noted.

At the request of officers, the Chair agreed to vary the order of business and take Item 4.2 first.

Mr Greeno advised that there had been discussion between the parties before the meeting resulting in one area of dispute remaining: the terminal hour of the premises on Friday and Saturday. The applicant sought to close at 2am whilst residents wished to see the premises close no later than 1am.

A minor variation had also been agreed; that refreshment would be provided indoors only. No off-sales were proposed and there would be no public access to the roof terrace at the rear. The sale of alcohol would only be with food and the premises licence covered the ground floor and basement area only.

Mr Greeno also confirmed that the hours for the sale of alcohol were until 11pm on Monday to Thursday with the premises closing 30 minutes later. The remaining concern of Environmental Health and residents was therefore the potential nuisance to residents by the proposed terminal hour on Friday and Saturday.

Mr Cruse drew Members attention to Appendix 2, which detailed the observations of the Police and conditions proposed by them, also that the application had substantially reduced the weekend opening hours proposed in the original application. Police conditions should be considered in the context of the original proposal.

Mrs Curtis reported that the terminal hour was considered too late due to the potential noise nuisance to residential properties which were located in close proximity to the premises. Noise nuisance to these properties was well documented through other licensing hearings and the problem was the licensee’s inability to manage the behaviour of patrons once they had left a premise. The bar opposite closed at 11pm throughout the week in order to protect resident’s amenity and there was no other premise in the immediate locality that opened as late as proposed by this application.

Mr Tamba, Environmental Health, concurred with Mrs Curtis’ comments. Concern remained as to the noise and disturbance caused by patrons dispersing at a time when background noise levels were lower. There was also residential property directly above the premises.

Members were advised that the capacity of the premises was 50 covers and that it had previously operated as a café that had not been open in the evening. Mr Greeno outlined the original application that had been submitted and which had included regulated entertainment. He advised that following negotiations with the Police and EH, the application had been revised as detailed in the report.

Mr Greeno also advised that the condition clause ‘no nudity’ referred to the change in the Licensing Policy; where no adult entertainment was specified but regulated entertainment was sought; a no nudity clause would be a condition of the licence.

There being no further questions, the Chair reported that the Sub Committee would now, at 7.50pm, adjourn to consider the evidence presented.

The Sub Committee reconvened at 8.05pm and the Chair reported that Members had resolved:

That the application for a new Premises Licence for Rosa Restaurant, 12 Hanbury Street, London E1 6QR, be GRANTED subject to amendment and the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Mr Greeno, Legal Officer, advised that he and Mr Cruse had spoken to both the applicant and objectors as there appeared to be a misunderstanding as to the nature of the variation applied for. The application sought to tidy up the licence but also included two potential operational changes:

1. To allow alcohol to be sold between the hour of 11pm and 12am without the person needing to eat a meal, and
2.  allow alcohol and late night refreshment to be sold for an extra 30 minutes to 12am on Sundays.

Following discussion, the applicant had agreed to withdraw the second point detailed and had confirmed agreement on the first condition that alcohol could only be sold when the person is consuming food.

A further condition referred to in the report and relating to the tidying up process, referred to capacity which was a matter now dealt by the LFEPA. The applicant had confirmed that this had been raised with the LFEPA and no objections had been raised by them. It would not be possible to increase the capacity of a premise beyond the LFEPA limits.

Mr Moore, representing the applicant, confirmed Mr Greeno’s summary of the application and the applicant’s agreement.

Mr Greeno further reported that he had advised the residents who were present as to the availability of the review process if there were operational issues with the premises and that as the variation application did not relate to hours or nuisance, their objections could not have been taken. The applicant and objectors had been speaking and were now aware that no practical operational change was proposed.

The residents present confirmed to the Chair that they now understood the nature of the variation that had been applied for and the agreement that had been reached. They also confirmed that they were aware of the ability to seek a review should this be the case at some point in the future.

In light of the above, the Sub Committee resolved:

That the application for a Variation of the Premises Licence for Beefeater at The Tower, Ivory House, St. Katharine’s Dock, London E1 1LB be GRANTED as amended:

Between the hour of 23:00 and 00:00 the retail sale of alcohol will only be to customers who are having late night refreshment.

Capacity of the premises remains unchanged.

It was noted that the variation for the extra 30 minutes on a Sunday had been withdrawn.