COUNCILLOR DAVID SNOWDON (CHAIR) – IN THE CHAIR

Councillor Snowdon welcomed all parties to the meeting.  Following this, all parties present introduced themselves.

To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

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.

No declarations of interest were made.

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

The Rules of Procedures were noted.

This was an application by MPG St Katharine Limited Partnership for a Time limited Premises Licencein respect of premises trading as St Katharine Docks, St Katharine’s Way, London, E1W.

Kathy Driver (Licensing Officer) introduced the application. It was noted that representations had been submitted by local residents, the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health regarding public nuisance and crime and disorder.  Ms Driver explained the purpose of the application to showcase Danish nation during the Olympic period. She also referred to the revised conditions dated 12^th June 2012 circulated by the applicant. Copies of which were circulated to Members at the meeting (that updated those in the supplemental agenda).

At the request of the Chair, the Panel heard from Gary Grant, the applicant’s solicitor who explained the aim of application to help promote the Docks  and Denmark as a nation over the Olympic period. He explained the nature of the activities proposed to be staged in a number of places.  He explained the plans for a floating pontoon in the marina and for Olympic coverage on TV screens. There would be a high number of corporate hospitality events such as company stalls. There would also be opportunities to experience Danish culture arts and entertainment. It was anticipated that the activities would mostly be enjoyed by Danish tourists wishing to enjoy their teams participation in the Olympic games.

He explained the amended 12^th June 2012 conditions to address the concerns that had been send to the relevant Responsible Authorities.

He drew attention to the two letters of objections received from the 430 residents consulted. Neither were in attendance this evening. He considered that the  revised conditions addressed both objections.

The first from Mr Suchet merely objected to the opening hours in the initial application that had since been dealt with by the amended conditions. The second objector Mr Garwood was never opposed in principle to the scheme just the timings of activities. In any event, he had since withdrawn his objection and had submitted a further e-mail saying that in light of the new conditions, he positively welcomed the proposal. The e-mail from Mr Garwood was available at the meeting.

So both objections had successfully been addressed.

Mr Grant also drew attention to a letter from the Friends of St Katherine Dock dated 14^th June 2012, stating that they supported the application with the 12^th June  amendments.

Furthermore, the Applicant had met extensively with the objecting Authorities and had taken steps to resolve their concerns. Crucially they had in the last few days prepared a noise management plan for the proposal. (Prepared by specialists on their behalf who according to Mr Grant were top experts in their field).  The various specialists were in attendance to discuss its aims. The draft plan had been submitted to LBTH Environmental Health and also the Metropolitan Police for consideration. At present it was a ‘living document’ but it was planned that it would finalised very shortly.

Mr Grant felt confident  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Members resolved that the application be adjourned to allow the applicant sufficient time to consider the representation from Environmental Health. A further hearing would be arranged.

Decision

That the application byMr Kabir Ahmed & Mrs Salima Khatun for a Time limited Premises Licence in respect of premises trading as Perfect Fried Chicken  214 Mile End Road, London, E14 4LJ be AJOURNED.                 

This was an application byMr Lutfur Rahman for a Premises Licence for the provision of late night refreshment in respect of premises trading as London Friend Chicken 112 - 116 Whitechapel Road London E1 1JE

Kathy Driver (Licensing Officer) introduced the case. It was reported that the applicant was not here at the hearing despite having been contacted several times by Democratic Services to confirm attendance. The Panel noted that representations had been made by the Metropolitan Police, LBTH Environmental Protection and the Planning Department.

The Panel also received a valid petition (tabled) excluded from the committee agenda supporting the application. Members were mindful of the limited weight that should be placed on this given that customers were normally favourable to the premises.

At the request of the Chair, the Panel heard from Thomas Doyle (Planning Enforcement Officer) regarding the planning history. The licensing application was initially deferred to address the planning issues. It was recalled that at that time, the applicant hadn’t submitted a planning application for the plans now under consideration. Therefore it was deferred to enable them to take this forward. However since that time, the position largely remained unchanged in that the planning permission for the plans being proposed still hadn’t been granted. Therefore, if granted, the premises would be operating in breach of its planning permission. 

In response to the Panel, Officers confirmed that the existing planning permission was for an A5 hot food takeaway use. The premises had seating area for up to 15 people.

At the request of the Chair, The Panel heard from Alan Cruickshank of the Metropolitan Police who referred to the Police submission. He pointed out that the applicant had failed to turn up for the hearing to address the concerns regarding crime and disorder and public nuisance. The application should be rejected.

At the request of the Chair, The Panel also heard from Ian Wareing of LBTH Environmental Health. He testified that there was evidence that the premises was operating to as late as 5am on a regular basis.

On questioning, he referred to late night observations from outside the shop. During which he personally witnessed the premises trading after midnight.

In reply to the Chair, he recalled that he made this visit around November 2011. This was after the application had been submitted.

Members took into account the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing to address the concerns of the Responsible Authorities, especially those concerns as outlined in the witness statement of PC Carl Peacock. Members also had concerns over the completed application form, specifically the steps to promote the licensing objectives as it was considered that the condition were more suitable for a nightclub than a food takeaway. Members were concerned that the applicant had not actually considered this for his premises but had copied this from another source.  Again, this was not a matter upon which members could seek clarification as the applicant had not attended.

Members were also very mindful of the eyewitness account  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

There was no other business.