To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Ms Jankunas, objector to Item 5.1.

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 O. Rahman wished it to be recorded that the applicant for Item 5.3 (83 Redchurch Street) was a resident of his Ward but they had not spoken about this application.

Councillor Haque declared that he was a Ward Member for Weavers but had no knowledge of or interest in the applications being considered.

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

Noted.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 8^th September 2008.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8^th September were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

Ms Randall outlined the application as detailed in the report.

Ms Iantosca, applicant, reported that the premise was a delicatessen and would serve a selection of fine wines mainly to take away but also to drink on the premise. She and her partner lived two doors away and there were also residential properties above the premise. No objections had been received from those residents and the R.A. was supportive of the application.

With regard to the issues raised by the objector; the rear window referred to was a toilet window which was barred and kept closed. No application had been made for music and a contract for trade waste disposal was in place. It was not possible to control those who smoked outside the premise or were congregating on the roadside, especially on a Sunday when the market operated. There was also a restaurant next door which operated longer hours than had been applied for here.

Mr Greeno advised that the application had not identified a DPS for the premise and if granted, no sale of alcohol could take place until a DPS was in place.

The Chair stated that the Sub Committee would now, at 7.18pm, adjourn to consider the evidence presented. The Sub Committee reconvened at 7.25pm and the Chair reported that Members had

RESOLVED

That the application for a new Premises Licence for 95 Columbia Road, London E2 7RG, be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Alcohol for consumption off the premises could only be sold in sealed containers.

The sale of alcohol was not permitted until such time as a DPS was appointed and in place.

Mr Greeno advised that should the applicant at any time in the future be minded to put tables and chairs outside, that this would require a licence that must be applied for.

Mr Greeno advised that the conditions the Environmental Health officer wished to see imposed could be dealt with by other statutory provisions. As the applicant was not present, the application must be considered as submitted.

Members expressed concern as to whether it was in anyone’s interest to consider the application when none of the interested parties were present. Mr Greeno advised that the Sub Committee could defer consideration of the application on the basis that if EH did not respond within 7 days then the application could be granted.

Following a short discussion, the Sub Committee RESOLVED

That the application for a New Premises Licence for Café de London, 507 Hackney Road, London E2 9ED should not be considered at this time as it was not considered in the public interest to do so. The application to be considered, if necessary to do so, within 28 days.

Ms Randall outlined the application as detailed; the applicant wished to open a convenience store open from 07:00 to midnight on all days with the sale of alcohol available from 11:00 on all days. Objections had been received from residents and EH who had also listed a number of possible conditions. In addition, the Police had put forward a number of conditions they would wish to see attached to the licence, should it be granted.

Mr Greeno advised that the comments from EH mainly related to dealing with potential noise nuisance from plant and machinery and that this could be dealt with via the Environmental Protection Act. It was therefore not for the Licensing Sub Committee to impose conditions that could be addressed via other regulatory means.

Mr Miah, on behalf of the applicant, stated that the resident objections mainly related to ASB and that the conditions put forward by the Police were acceptable. Staff would also be given full training with regard to licensing issues. However, there were other similar premises in the immediate area and Mr Miah did not see how this application could be refused on the basis of existing issues.

Mr Cole reported that he had objected to the application as it related to providing an off-licence and there were nine other similar premises within a very short distance. This shop was on a residential street, hence the concern regarding noise nuisance and the cumulative effect in respect to the number of licensed premises within the vicinity.

Mr Cole also drew attention to the photographs submitted as evidence showing alcohol use by pedestrians within local streets. In addition, Mr Cole expressed his concern regarding the footfall of those leaving the premise due to the proximity of bedroom windows.

The increase in licensed premises was a concern in relation to the rising crime levels and general criminal activity that lay hidden behind alcohol abuse.

Ms Wombwell reported the concerns residents had regarding the growing number of licensed premises within the area and that there was a need that this should be capped at some level. There was no wish to deter businesses from starting up in the area but not those that wished to sell alcohol.

The attendant vehicle and pedestrian use was increasingly disturbing those who lived in the area and this included the growing number of emergency vehicles that attended alcohol related incidents. There was also concern regarding the lack of regulation of these premises as a large number did not adhere to the licences that had been granted.

Mr Greeno advised that the lack of planning permission that may relate to a premise was not grounds for refusing a licence and whether planning enforcement was taking place or not was not a matter for the Licensing Committee.

Following some clarification questions from Members, the applicant stated that he would be prepared to accept the framework hours of operation as detailed in the report (Page 178). In working towards ensuring that there was no ASB  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3