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.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Khales Ahmed for whom Councillor Kabir Ahmed substituted for.

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 Rajib Ahmed, declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.1, application for a new premises license for Perfect Fried Chicken, 197 East India Dock Road, London E14 0ED on the basis that the premises was in his ward. 

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

The Rules of Procedures were noted.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committees held on 6^th July, 13^th July & 20^th July 2010.

The unrestricted minutes of the Licensing Sub Committee meetings held on 6^th July, 13^th July and 20^th July were agreed as a correct record of proceedings. 

At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Acting Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the new application for Perfect Fried Chicken, 197 East India Dock Road, London E14 0ED. It was noted that objections had been received by the Metropolitan Police, Environmental Protection, Planning Enforcement and local residents.

A tabled document was produced at the meeting which included a petition supporting the application to extend trading hours, the Chair allowed the opportunity for all interested parties to familiarise themselves with the document.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Nasar Mohammed, Counsel for the applicant explained that the applicant had been trading for the past 14 years, without any complaints, and that it was a successful and established business. He responded to concerns raised by interested parties and highlighted that it was accepted that the area was more commercial than residential, that residents living above the premises supported the extension of hours as it would benefit families by providing food during late hours. It was noted that the applicant would revisit the situation with the extractor fan to help reduce the noise. 

Concerns were raised in relation to the contents of the petition submitted on behalf of Fusion residents. Ms Mohammed explained there had been no complaints about the premises, that the premises had CCTV cameras in operation, and had recently undergone refurbishment, at this point the Sub Committee and interested parties were shown photos of the premises. He concluded by stating that there was no evidential information that the premises has been directly involved in or the cause of any disturbance or anti-social behaviour, nor has there been any complaints about the premises. He also highlighted that the applicants were willing to be flexible and offered a reduction in the hours they had applied for to 02:00 hours everyday.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Ian Wareing, Environmental Protection, referred to his statement in the agenda on page 89 and highlighted that the opening hours were not completed in the application form. He explained that complaints would be received, if opened after 11pm and that the extractor fan would cause disturbance to residents. He concluded that there were eleven other similar food establishments in the area so there was no need to extend beyond midnight.

Mr Thomas Doyle, Planning Enforcement, refereed to his statement on page 93 of the agenda and explained that Planning Enforcement did not support the application to extend opening hours  as this would cause serious public nuisance to surrounding residential occupiers far later into the night and morning then what currently occurs. He explained that the hours applied for were unreasonable and would not maintain a balance between commercial activities and residential amenity in an area where this was clearly required.

Mr Andy Jackson, Metropolitan Police also refereed to his objection on page 85 of the agenda. He also questioned the petition that was submitted on behalf of the applicants and stated that it wasn’t clear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Acting Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the variation application for Liberty Lounge, 1a Bell Lane, London E1 7LA. It was that objections had been received by Metropolitan Police, and Planning Enforcement.

It was noted that Environmental Health and the applicant had reached an agreement with new hours and conditions which were detailed on page 177 of the agenda, however the both the responsible authorities still wished to object to the variation application.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Rachid Radi, the applicant explained that the bar was in the basement, noise level was minimum, the shop above the premises was closed, and explained that there were a few residential properties across the road, where there were other bar’s and restaurants. He explained that they had been trading for 6 months and during this period had not had any complaints. It was also noted that they currently had a minicab system already operating which worked well and did not cause any disturbance to residents.

It was noted that staff were fully trained on health and safety, fire safety etc. and that the lobby system stopped noise from emanating outside the premises. Mr Radi explained that the bar had a capacity of 25 people, and wanted an entertainment licence to have low background music, and to be able to provide live music mainly jazz music in the evenings. It was noted that his clientele were mainly city workers and that no drinks were allowed to be taken outside the premises.

At the request of the Chair Mr Alan Cruickshank explained that the Bell Lane area was slowly attracting more shops, cafes and licensed premises. He explained that although these benefits the local business community, the needs of local residents should also be taken into consideration. He explained that the times applied for were too excessive and felt that there may be a danger of anti-social behaviour with people leaving the premises probably in high sprits or by just remaining around in the street, causing public nuisance in the early hours of the morning.

Mr Thomas Doyle, Planning Enforcement explained that they did not support the application to extend opening hours, as this would cause serious public nuisance to surrounding residential occupiers far later into the evening then what currently occurs. He explained that the extension of the Premises License hours would not maintain a balance between commercial activities and residential amenity, in an area where this is clearly required. He also mentioned that the hours applied for could not legally be implemented as the premises did not have planning permission for the hours requested nor was planning permission likely to be granted.

Members asked questions about the licensed premises in the local area, and the make up of the local area. It was noted that there had not been any complaint since the bar had been open. 

The Chair advised that the Sub Committee would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

In view of the remaining items on the Agenda, the Sub Committee is recommended to adopt the following motion:

“That, under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act, 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, 1985, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that it contains information defined as exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.”

The Sub Committee RESOLVED

That, under the provision of Section 100A of the Local Government Act, 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that it contains information defined as exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Members noted the concerns on whether the applicant was the same person who had relevant convictions as specified by the Police. It was noted that the Police had tried to contact the applicant to clarify whether he was the same person in question but had had no success in getting in contact with him.

Members noted that the applicant was not present at the meeting and had made no contact with Democratic Services or any interested parties and therefore on balance, Members considered that the applicant was also the person with the relevant convictions and therefore the application was Refused on the basis of the prevention of crime and disorder.  

Members noted the concerns on whether the applicant was the same person who had relevant convictions as specified by the Police. It was noted that the Police had tried to contact the applicant to clarify whether he was the same person in question but had had no success in getting in contact with him.

Members noted that the applicant was not present at the meeting and had made no contact with Democratic Services or any interested parties and therefore on balance, Members considered that the applicant was also the person with the relevant convictions and therefore the application was Refused on the basis of the prevention of crime and disorder.  

There was no other business considered urgent by the Chair.