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.

There were no apologies for absence.

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.

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-Committee held on 19^th, 21^st , 22^nd & 26^th July and 2^nd August 2011.

The minutes of the Licensing Sub Committees held on 19^th, 21^st, 22^nd & 26^th July and 2^nd August were agreed.

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises license forDamascu Bite, 119-121 Brick Lane, London E1 6SE. It was noted that a objection had been received on behalf of Planning Enforcement.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Shakil Ahmed, Applicant’s representative briefly explained the make of the area, a busy night time economy with clubs, bars and restaurants. He explained that they would not be selling alcohol as the application was only for late night refreshments therefore there had been no objections from local residents or the police. He stated that having had Temporary Event Notices, there had been no problems and had actually had an increase in business.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Cain Duncan, Planning Enforcement referred to his statement on pages 81-82 and stated that the supply of late night refreshments would cause a serious public nuisance to surrounding residential occupiers later into the evening than what currently occurs, that the granting of a licence would not maintain a balance between commercial activities and residential amenity in an area where this was clearly required. One of his concerns was that the premise would be targeted by people leaving clubs and bars who would cause public nuisance. He also mentioned that the premise did not have planning permission and would breach hours if the license was granted. 

Mr Duncan stated that on 1^st July and 7^th July 2011 the premises had been open all night claiming they had a Temporary Event Notice however this is yet to be confirmed. Members questioned why this was not included in the representation.

In response to questions it was noted that the capacity of the premises was for 25-30 people, they had CCTV cameras and recordings were kept for 30 days, that the applicant had 20 years of experience in running a restaurant business and had another restaurant in Hackney which he had a licence for. The applicant confirmed that he would provide extra training to staff and customers would be able to smoke outside the premises.

It was noted that there hadn’t been any further complaints other than what was mentioned by Mr Duncan. It was noted that residential properties were situated around and opposite the premises.

The Chair advised that the Sub Committee would at 6.55pm adjourn to consider the evidence presented. The Members reconvened at 7.15pm. The Chair reported that;

Members listened to all the representations made for and against the application. Having given regard to the Licensing Guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy, Members noted the objection on grounds of public nuisance.  It was noted that issues of planning were not an issue for licensing and the applicant had actually reduced their hours in relation to the objection received.

Members believed it inappropriate to introduce a new issue that happened six weeks prior to the objection being made. Members noted that there had been no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Principal Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises license forSainsbury’s Supermarket, Unit 5, 33 Bell Lane, London E1 7HS. It was noted that objections had been received on behalf of Planning Enforcement and local residents.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Robert Botkai, Legal Representative for Sainsbury’s Supermarket explained that this was a standard application which was used for their supermarket applications and having consulted with the police they had amended the application by reducing the hours to which the police were satisfied too and did not make an objection. He explained that the opening hours were 24 hours however the intention was not to open for 24 hours. Mr Botkai referred Members to the Licensing Policy which stated that supermarkets should be allowed to sell alcohol the same hours as the store opening hours. He addressed the concerns raised by local residents in terms of delivery of goods, increase in alcohol abuse and crime prevention. He did acknowledge that there was a large student population and the concerns of easy access to alcohol, however he explained that they would be capable of getting it from elsewhere even if not sold at the supermarket.

He explained that planning was a separate issue and that there would be very little sale of alcohol in the morning, he emphasised on the fact that police had not made an objection or raised any concerns regarding the application. He also explained that residents would be given the Area Manager’s contact details for any complaints or issues they may have and that the review process was also available to residents if they wished.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Cain Duncan referred to his statement on page 199 and explained that complaints have been received by Planning because of noise and disturbance caused by students drinking and loitering around the corner of Bell Lane and Frying Pan Alley and it was considered that providing a late night source of alcohol will add to this problem.

The Chair then invited residents who wished to address the Committee, Mr Peter Boisseau, Mr David Donoghue, and Mr Daniel Lambert were among the residents who spoke in objection to the application, each addressing similar concerns in relation to noise nuisance, public disorder, anti-social behaviour, drug activity and crime and disorder.

In response to questions it was noted that the main customers would be local residents and the students. The Area Manager explained what policies were in place and how alcohol would be sold responsibly i.e. Challenge 25 policy, staff trained, till prompts and signage displayed. Members asked further questions about the local area, and what steps would be taken if the sale of alcohol was refused.  

The Chair advised that the Sub Committee would at 7.55pm adjourn to consider the evidence presented. The Members reconvened at 8.35pm. The Chair reported that;

Member listened carefully to all the representations made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

This item was adjourned at the request of the applicant and has been provisionally rescheduled for the Licensing Sub Committee on 3^rd November 2011.

This item was adjourned at the request of the applicant and has been provisionally rescheduled for the Licensing Sub Committee on 3^rd November 2011. 

There was no other business.