Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: C1 & Council Chamber, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Farhana Zia, Senior Democratic Services Officer Tel: 020 7364 0842, E-mail: farhana.zia@towerhamlets.gov.uk
Media
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 215 KB Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest, identified in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine: whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
Members are also reminded to declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it is the Members’ responsibility to identify any interests and also update their register of interest form as required by the Code.
If in doubt as to the nature of an interest, you are advised to seek advice prior the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of interests made.
|
|||||||
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Additional documents: Minutes: The rules of procedure were noted.
|
|||||||
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 396 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 29th June 2021. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes from the 29th June 2021 were agreed to be an accurate record of the meeting.
|
|||||||
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Additional documents: |
|||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, the Applicant’s Solicitor, Mr Suraj Desor stated that Weezy operated several grocery centres in London, where grocery is delivered directly to local customers. He said customers placed orders via the online website or the app, and as such there was no public access to the premises. Deliveries to customers were made by staff using electric vehicles to ensure noise and pollution was kept to a minimal. Mr Desor said the grocery centre offered a variety of food produce and alcohol and had operated under TENs for the past few weeks without any issues to note. He said although alcohol was sold and was an important part of the overall offer, it made up a small portion of the goods ordered. Mr Desor stated less than 24% of orders placed contained the sale of alcohol with groceries and only 3% for just alcohol. He said this clearly showed the business was not alcohol-led, like an off-licence. Regarding deliveries there were robust conditions offered in the application, which had been agreed with the Police and the Licensing Authority. He said the hours applied were until midnight, which were slightly more than the framework hours. However, the Licensing Policy stated that these should not be rigidly applied. Mr Desor said the hours applied are appropriate for the business. Addressing the concerns raised by the ward councillor, Mr Desor said they had written to Councillor Khan and had not received a reply. He said the concerns raised in the objection were general to the area as opposed to the premises. Mr Desor said the conditions offered mitigated against the concerns, as the business would not increase public nuisance or give rise to anti-social behaviour. In relation to the petition, Mr Desor said it was unclear what the petitioners were concerned about. He said there was a likelihood that they had not understood the nature of the business and that it would not be open to the public. The Sub-Committee noted the concerns raised by the ward councillor and the petitioners, who were not in attendance at the meeting. In response to questions from Members the following was noted:
|
|||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for (Lofthouse Square Ltd) Lanterna Building, Fish Island Village, Wyke Road, London E3 3PL. It was noted that the application had received both support and objection to it.
At the request of the Chair, the Applicant’s Counsel, Mr Michael Rogers presented his submission and referred to the supplementary pack, page 13 and said this set out what was being proposed for the premises. He said the premises would be used as a restaurant and bar, with workspaces and would operate as an all-day delicatessen during the daytime. He said the floor plan on page 14 of the supplementary agenda and Appendix 2 of the main agenda pack, pages 190 onwards, showed how the space would be used. He said there were two entrances, one at the rear to the delicatessen and another which led to the Square.
Mr Rogers said the Applicant hoped to attract both young professionals living locally, families and other people in the locality, to use the facility as a meet and eat, and hot desking space. He said the Applicant was not seeking to attract people after football matches and wanted local people to use the space as a community hub. Mr Rogers said the Applicant had met with local residents and had listened to their concerns. He said the main concern of the objectors, related to nuisance which had been constructively addressed by the applicant. Mr Rogers said there had been considerable support for the premises, with over a hundred supporters expressing their positive support.
Mr Rogers stated the premises was part of a new development and had been granted an A5 licence when the building was constructed. He said it was always anticipated that the premises would be used as a restaurant. He informed the Sub-Committee, that the Applicant Mr Declan Perkins was an experienced Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) who ran four other premises licences. Mr Rogers referred members to page 16 of the supplemental agenda which detailed Mr Perkins experience.
Mr Rogers said the Police and the Licensing Authority had not objected to the licence and had agreed proposed conditions. Mr Rogers said he was puzzled as to why Environmental Health remained an Objector as a response had been sent to Ms Cadzow on the 23rd April 2021 agreeing to all the proposed conditions put forward by her.
Mr Rogers continued saying the hours had been amended further as per the Council’s Licensing Policy and were now compliant with the framework hours. Mr Rogers had drafted conditions and asked if he could circulate these to everyone present at the meeting. On taking advice from the legal officer, the Chair requested Mr Rogers to read out the new timings and proposed conditions, so it was clear to everyone both physically and virtually present what was being proposed. Upon doing so, Mr Rogers concluded his presentation.
The Sub-Committee then heard from ... view the full minutes text for item 4.2 |
|||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Delicious Pho, 3-6 Steward Street, London, E1 6FQ. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, the Applicant’s Counsel, Mr Tom Day presented his submission. He referred members to page 29 of the supplementary agenda and said a written representation on behalf of the Applicant had been sent to the Clerk, to be included in the pack, but this was missing. The Chair asked Mr Day to read out that representation.
Mr Day said the Applicant was seeking to amend the hours applied for, in line with the framework hours, and no longer needed a licence for regulated entertainment, as only background music would be played at the restaurant. Mr Day said his client agreed to the conditions put forward by Ms Cadzow on page 473 of the agenda and wished to clarify that the off-sale of alcohol would only be for pre-ordered, click and collect food orders or deliveries via food partners such as Deliveroo, UberEats, and Just Eat.
Mr Day said the Applicant, Mr Kevin Huynh, was an experienced Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and had been in the restaurant business since 2005. Mr Day said Delicious Pho was a Canadian Brand, with branches worldwide and was a quality, reputable outlet. Mr Day said the premises was run previously by ‘Byron Burgers’ and the timings shown in the original application echoed those hours, although timings now sought had now been reduced in the amended application.
Mr Day argued that it was in everyone’s interest for the premises to be occupied, as an unoccupied unit means the Council had lost business rate revenue. He said no objections had been made by local residents, which was a significant factor. He said a previous application relating to the same premises had generated residents’ objections because of the nature of that business. Mr Day said that the Applicant’s restaurant was in stark contrast to that in the previous licensing application relating to the same premises. He said the Applicant’s restaurant would have 138 covers, with everyone seated at tables and alcohol served at tables. Mr Day argued that the potential net impact of the restaurant on the CIZ was zero, compared with the previous application. He said the restaurant would occupy the same footprint as in the previous licensing application relating to the same premises, but with limited hours and greater conditions to restrict any potential impact on the area. Mr Day said this was a food-led business. Vietnamese food is often sold with tea or a soft drink.
Mr Day acknowledged that it was for the Applicant to rebut the presumption against grant of licensing applications relating to premises in a CIZ, but this application gave rise to exceptional circumstances. He referred members to the examples of exceptional circumstances ... view the full minutes text for item 4.3 |
|||||||
EXTENSION OF DECISION DEADLINE: LICENSING ACT 2003 The Sub Committee may be requested to extend the decision deadline for applications to be considered at forthcoming meetings due to the volume of applications requiring a hearing. Where necessary, details will be provided at the meeting.
Additional documents: Minutes: Members agreed to extend the decision deadlines for the applications below to the dates stated; Licensing applications were extended due to the impact of the pandemic, and were adjourned under regulation 11 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, it was in the public interest to do so, and did not require representation from parties to the applications.
|