To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies were submitted.

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.

Nil

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

The Rules of Procedure were noted.

Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which sought a review of the licence relating to The Poet, 82-84 Middlesex Street, London, E1 7EZ, as requested by the Council’s Environmental Protection Service and supported by local residents.  He referred to an acoustic assessment and a licensing observation report submitted by the licensees, which had been included in the agenda pack, together with additional suggested conditions that the licensees had tabled at the meeting.

The Chair then invited the case for the Environmental Health Service to be presented.

Mr Iain Pendrigh, Team Leader Environmental Health, indicated that the review had been requested as the premises were considered not to have previously upheld the licensing objective concerning prevention of public nuisance and it was felt that the situation was likely to continue.  The residents of flats above the licensed premises were the primary source of complaints, of which there was a long history comprising 27 since March 2005.  Mr Pendrigh outlined the chronology of events and complaints as contained in his report and indicated that the two main problems arose from noise travelling through the structure of the building and further disturbance caused by patrons of The Poet congregating outside the premises, talking, drinking and smoking.  Noise problems from music were exacerbated when music was played at a higher level than normal background music and at karaoke events, etc.  In particular, noise travelling up through the structure had not been addressed in the acoustics report supplied by the licensees.  At the time of the acoustic assessment, amplified sound had only been played at background level and there had been a feeling that this might have been a measure to avoid unfavourable readings.

Mr Pendrigh added that drinking in the street outside the bar was very frequent and affected residents as people were immediately below their windows laughing, talking using phones and breaking bottles on occasion.  The noise assessment provided by The Poet consultants had described the outside noise in the street as so high that music from the bar would not have a significant effect.  However, he contended that the street was normally a very quiet environment.  He suggested conditions which he urged Members to apply to the licence as well as others put forward by the licensees, and expressed the view that the co-location of the bar in the same building as residents was not suitable for regulated entertainment.

The Chair then invited the comments of residents who had notified their wish to speak.

Mr Adrian Rifkin stated that he lived on the second floor of the premises.  He felt no animosity to the licensees and they got on well personally.  However, quality of life in the building had deteriorated over the years with music particularly audible when visiting DJs were present. There had been further disruption with the advent of the smoking legislation, and there had been a number of instances when people shouting outside the bar had made using his flat intolerable.  The situation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1