The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, ensured that introductions were made and then briefly outlined the procedure of the meeting.  

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

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 Zara Davis declared a personal interest in agenda item 4.1, application for a new premises licence for Café Pont, Block D, Unit 5, 14 Hertsmere Road, London E14 4AF on the basis that the premises was in her ward, however she confirmed that she had not had any discussions regarding this application prior to the hearing.

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

The Rules of Procedures were noted.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Nick Kemp, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises license for Café Pont, Block D, Unit 5, 14 Hertsmere Road, London E14 4AF. It was noted that an objection had been received by a local resident.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Peter Glazebrook, Counsel for the applicant explained that they were applying for the same terms as a previous licence which was granted for the premises when trading as Café Beluga. 

He explained that Café Pont would be different and independent from other café bars, It would be food driven with alcohol as an ancillary and had 40/50 covers. He also mentioned that there may have been some confusion as the objector may have felt that the entertainment license would be used to play music in outside area of the café, however he confirmed that the regulated entertainment would only be used for background music inside the premises.

Mr Glazebrook then introduced Tomas Haworth, the Designated Premises Supervisor for Café Pont, he explained that he had 10 years of experience in the restaurant trade. It was highlighted that no regulated body had objected to the application or raised any concerns or complaints.

It was noted that the times of the opening hours, sale of alcohol and regulated entertainment was incorrectly detailed in the licensing report on page 16 of the agenda. The applicant confirmed that the times should reflect what was detailed in the original application in appendix 1 of the report.

The Chair reported that the objector was not present at the meeting and therefore Members noted and considered the written objection detailed on page 51 of the agenda.

In response to questions, the following was noted, that very light background music would be played during breakfast hours, that windows and doors would be shut however during the summer these might be left open, that background music would not be used for the seating area outside the premises and it was confirmed the outside area associated with the premises would be used for dining as is done currently.

In response to a question, Mr Haworth stated that he did not want to restrict customers from using the outside area associated with the premises area, he explained the bar next door to the premises, did have a sign up asking customers not to use the outside area after 23:30 hours, however this was a voluntary agreement without any conditions/restrictions on the license. It was noted that the applicant would like the background music to remain playing until the closing time. Mr Haworth did not feel that premises being opened till the hours applied for would cause great disturbance to local residents. 

Mr Glazebrook explained that the applicant would operate the same terms as his predecessor and had strong stringent measures in place to prevent the concerns of local residents in terms of public nuisance.

The Chair advised that the Sub Committee would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The application was resolved prior to the hearing as conditions were agreed with the applicant. Therefore this application did not require consideration by the Licensing Sub Committee.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Nick Kemp, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises license for 118 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL. It was noted that an objections had been received by the Metropolitan Police, Environmental Protection, Planning Enforcement and local residents.

At the request of the Chair Mr Azmal Hussain, applicant explained that the license had elapsed and wanted a like to like license as previously granted. He explained that there were a couple of off licenses in the area which had sale of alcohol licenses until 03:00 hours in the morning and other restaurants on Brick Lane had licenses until 02:00 hours and therefore requested that the sub-committee grant the license. He also stated that he was happy for conditions to be imposed to help promote the licensing objectives.

Mr Alan Cruickshank, Metropolitan Police, referred to his statement on page 135 of the agenda and explained that Brick Lane was already a very busy area, one which would be suitable for a saturation policy. He highlighted that the night time economy was important, however needed to be balanced between the needs of the residents and those of the local businesses. He explained that the hours were excessive and the hours exceeded the vast majority of other restaurants in Brick Lane. He believed that if the license was to be granted in its entirety there would be a number of other restaurants that would apply for similar hours and this would have a detrimental effect on the lives of the local residents.

Mr Cain Duncan, Planning Enforcement, referred to his statement on page 141 of the agenda and explained that planning enforcement did not support the application to supply alcohol until 02:00 hours, as this would cause serious public nuisance to surrounding residential occupiers later into the evening then what currently occurs. He stated that Brick Lane had reached a point where the late night economy is drawing uncontrollable large volumes of people to the area, late at night especially in weekends and is causing serious late night noise and disturbance issues to residents who live in the area. He explained that the granting of the premises license will not maintain a balance between commercial activities and residential amenity.

He also explained that the hours being applied for could not legally be implemented as the premises did not have planning permission nor was planning permission likely to be granted. It was noted that he would support the application if the hours of operation were restricted to midnight in accordance with the granting of planning permission.

Derrick Harrington, Environmental Protection referred to his statement on page 147 of the agenda and stated that the applicant had told him that he had sent in an application with amended hours, however this had not been received and therefore Environmental Protection was still in objection the application. He explained that the hours are both excessive and unreasonable and lacked managerial control. 

Mr Harrington  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This item was withdrawn by the applicant at the meeting. Therefore the application did not require consideration by the Licensing Sub Committee.