At the request of the Chair, Ms Jacqueline Randall, Principal Environmental Health Officer, introduced the report which sought a variation of the premises licence for the EOne Club, 168 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ.  She pointed out that the current hours shown in the report for the sale by retail of alcohol (on and off sales) from Monday to Thursday should be amended to read: ”from 1000 hours to 0100 hours the following day.”   

Following discussions with the Metropolitan Police, the variation hours had been amended.  Accordingly, the days and hours sought for the sale of alcohol and for regulated entertainment (music) were those of Monday to Thursday from 1200 hours until 0330 hours the next day; Friday and Saturday from 1200 hours until 0430 hours the next day; Sunday from 1200 hours until 0300 hours the next day.  The days and hours sought for regulated entertainment (dance) were Monday to Thursday from 2000 hours until 0330 hours the next day; Friday and Saturday from 2000 hours until 0430 hours the next day; Sunday from 2000 hours until 0300 hours the next day.

Appropriate consultations had been carried out with objections received from local residents.

Prior to formal consideration of the application, Mr Zakir Hussain, LBTH Solicitor, stated that there had been an issue as to the final date for consultation, with Licensing and the applicant disagreeing but all parties had now agreed that the final date was, in fact, 18^th May 2008.  Two representations had been made before 18^th May and three made on 19^th May.  As the representations made on 19^th May were outside the consultation period, Members were asked whether they wished to use their discretion to include these representations as part of the objections under public interest grounds.

At 6.55 p.m., the Chair indicated that the Sub-Committee would adjourn to consider the point.  The Sub-Committee reconvened at 6.58 p.m. and the Chair informed those present that members had unanimously agreed that the representations made within the consultation period were sufficient for them to reach a decision as these covered what the others would have raised anyway.

The objections were on the grounds that granting the application would result in anti-social behaviour from patrons leaving the premises and disturbance from patrons leaving the premises on foot.

As there were no questions for Officers, the Chair asked the applicants to present their case. 

Mr David Lucas, Solicitor for the applicant, stated that pubs owned by Admiral Taverns (Nevada) Ltd were all tenanted premises and the application had been made in the name of the company to allow more control of the premises.  The premises at 168 Mile End Road had not been owned by the company until May 2007.  Mr Peter Mackay, who then became the tenant, had 7-8 years’ experience and the application had flowed from the way in which the premises had been traded previously, for the restoration of hours formerly operated.  Initial discussions between the tenant and Police had addressed the Police concerns with four incidents that had occurred in March 2008, when there had been a different door security team.  Mr Mackay had replaced them with another team in April 2008 and there had been no serious disorder or Police complaints to date.  The tenant had also accepted additional conditions applied by the Police, as circulated with the agenda papers, including revised hours for licensable activities, as outlined in the commentary above.

Mr Mackay had received no direct complaints from the two residents who had made representations, although he had written to them with his proposals and offered to discuss any problems.  He had since met Mr D. Finn on 2 August and had offered to provide him with secondary double glazing to his bedroom window: this offer was also open to the other objector.

Following complaints from a resident of 167 Mile End Road concerning noise, Mr Mackay had installed soundproofing to the whole of the club premises at a cost of £70,000 and there had been no problems with other responsible authorities. 

Mr Mackay was prepared to deal with other issues identified but some could not be attributed to his business, such as drink cans and litter.  Canned drinks were not sold at the EOne club but were sold in a nearby 24-hour off-licence, and, likewise, anti-social behaviour was not necessarily caused by the club’s patrons. The proposed controls agreed with the Police would make the licence much more heavily restricted, with curtailed hours.  Mr Mackay added that the Police had requested no admissions under the age of 18 years, however, the club’s policy was to admit no-one under 21 years unless they had a student i.d. card.  In addition, seven CCTV cameras were operated inside the club, with others outside.

In response to queries from Members, Mr Mackay indicated that he had experience of working in licensed premises in Stamford, Lincs., and had run premises in London for the last 7 - 8 years.

Mr Hussain requested clarification about the hours previously traded by the premises.  Ms Randall stated that the applicant had been in discussions with the licensing authority around a claimed earlier operating licence until 5.00 a.m.  However, archive files about the premises had not indicated such hours.  Under the old licensing regime, it was unusual to have operating hours later than 2.00 a.m.  This was currently unresolved.

In summing up, Mr Lucas commented that objections to the application had been raised on the grounds of disturbance, fights, verbal abuse and litter.  However, litter could not always be due to EOne customers and the tenant would be happy to monitor the position with his staff.  Only general statements had been made about verbal abuse and fights, which was more speculation than real evidence.  The applicant was well aware that non-compliance with licence conditions could have severe implications for the premises in terms of fines, licence reviews and possible closure.

The meeting was adjourned at 7.20 p.m. and reconvened at 7.40 p.m.

The Chair reported that, having considered the report and the evidence and comments presented, the Sub-Committee had RESOLVED

That the application for a Variation of the Premises Licence for the EOne Club, 168 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ, be GRANTED for the following days and hours and  subject to the following conditions:-

Sale of Alcohol

Sunday to Thursday from 1200 hours until 0130 hours the next day; and

Friday to Saturday from 1200 hours to 0300 hours the next day.

Regulated Entertainment (Recorded Music)

Sunday to Thursday from 1200 hours to 0130 hours the next day; and

Friday to Saturday from 1200 hours until 0300 hours the next day.

Regulated Entertainment (Dance)

Sunday to Thursday from 2000 hours until 0130 hours the next day; and

Friday to Saturday from 2000 hours until 0230 hours the next day.

CONDITIONS

·        That the conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police be applied but that:

(a)   CCTV footage be retained for 31 days; and

(b)   Groups of smokers outside the premises be limited to a maximum of 10 persons at any one time, for a period of five minutes.

·                                              That  no entry to the premises be permitted on Sunday to Thursday after 0100 hours, or on Friday to Saturday after 0200 hours.