COUNCILLOR CARLI HARPER-PENMAN – IN THE CHAIR

Councillor Harper-Penman welcomed all parties to the meeting.  Following this, all parties present introduced themselves.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf Councillor Peter Golds for whom Councillor Khales Ahmed substituted.

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.

There were no declarations of interest made.

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

The Rules of Procedures were noted.

This item was adjourned at the request of the applicant and has been rescheduled to be considered on 2^nd April 2012.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for PFC, 241 East India Dock Road, London E14 0EG. It was noted that objections had been received by the Metropolitan Police and Planning Enforcement.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Anthony Edwards, Legal Representative for the Applicants explained that the premises had been operating since 2001 without a late night refreshments licence as they had presumed they had a licence all this time. This came to light in September 2011, when an application was then made. He emphasised that in the 10 years of trading unlawfully there had been no complaints of public disorder or nuisance and had there been a compliant then licensing would have known that there was no premises licence.

It was noted that the premises was on a commercial street where there were a parade of shops and there was no immediate residential properties. Mr Edwards referred Members to the supporting documents and the petition provided by the Applicant, he also highlighted the parking provisions that were available and the financial impact on the premises due to reduced hours of operation. It was noted that there was no sale of alcohol therefore would not attract intoxicated persons to the premises.

Mr Edwards concluded that the planning issue would be resolved soon, as an application has been made and they were waiting for the decision. That CCTV cameras were in place and the applicants would display signage asking customers not to congregate outside the premises. He finally stated that there were no complaints of disorder and urged Members to grant the licence.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Thomas Doyle, Planning Enforcement, stated that Planning did not support this application as the hours applied for were excessive and this would cause serious public nuisance to surrounding residential occupiers later into the evening than what currently occurred. He stated that the granting of this licence would not maintain a balance between commercial activities and residential amenity in an area where this was clearly required. He also highlighted that the hours being applied for could not legally be implemented as the premises did not have planning permission to be open any later than 11pm nor was planning permission likely to be granted for the hours applied for.

At the request of the Chair PC Mark Perry, Metropolitan Police, briefly stated that if the hours applied for were granted it would attract people who would have been out drinking and would be likely to cause anti-social behaviour and if opened beyond 2am then people would be attracted to the premises and would congregate outside the premise as other premises in the area would be closed after this time. He suggested that a robust CCTV camera system should be available and hours should be granted in line with other similar premises in the area. 

In response to questions it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

There was no other business.