Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

Good afternoon everyone and thank you for your patience. We just, we usually have meeting in other rooms, so just for some reason we have to have it here. Welcome to the licensing subcommittee meeting. My name is Councillor Sulek Ahmed and I am the chair of the licensing subcommittee meeting today. The meeting is being held in person. Committee members and key participants are present in the meeting room whilst others may join remotely online. This meeting is being filmed-- is it set up here? This meeting is being filmed for the Council's website for public viewing. I would remind members at the meeting to only speak to my direction and to speak clearly into their microphones to ensure that their contributions can be properly recorded. Can members and officers please introduce yourselves. Can I just start from my right here please? Good afternoon everyone, and my name is Councillor Ballaluddin and I represent from the Black elected town. Thank you. [ Silence ] Good afternoon everyone. My name is Ahmadling Khan and I am also representing the town. And myself, I'm Councillor Sulek Ahmed. I represent-- and the town and just two of these applications I think are within my ward. That's all I know about and nothing else. I'm going to start with the first one, the first one. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to ask the officers please. Corin Holland, licensing officer. Ibrahim Hussein, licensing officer. Simi Yasmin, Democratic services. Jonathan Melnick, legal advice to the subcommittee. Yeah, Anurag Liri, environmental protection. Thank you. Any apologies? No chair, no apologies. OK. Do you-- well, I already declared mine but do you remember to have any declaration of disclosure working on your interests? No chair, no DPI. OK. [ Inaudible Remark ] Yeah, I just did mention earlier, it's-- No, the DPIs have just-- No. I haven't got anything to declare that. OK. Can members please note the rules and procedure on page 9 to 18 on your RPAG. OK. So, we go to the reports now. I would ask Simi to announce the-- those who is attending the meeting today. Thank you chair. First item on the agenda is 3.1, application for premises license for 7 frying pan and 7HS. And chair, we have Mr. Jack Spiegel who's representing the applicants. We have Mr. Rich Willing and Alec Feekes also here present. We also in-- sorry, the objection to the application, we have Ms. Corin Holland, licensing officer, Mr. O'Leary who's the environmental health officer, and Sandri Crichly who's speaking on behalf of SPIRE. Once the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and we'll have a total of five minutes to make their representation. The objectors will also be given five minutes each to make their representation. I'll let each speaker know when you have one minute remaining. Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda pack in advance. Thank you. Thank you Simi. Can I ask Ibrahim Hussein, licensing officer, to introduce the report? Do members have any questions of the licensing officer? You know, he can follow up after his presentation. Thank you chair. This is an application for a premises license for BOLA 7 frying pan LAE 1, 7HS. This official has described the premises as restaurant and piton A.Q. BOLA venue within the ancillary bar. A copy of the premises license application form is includes as in appendix 1, page 29 to 51. The side of the plan of the venue is included as appendix 2, page 52 to 53. A map showing the vicinity included as an appendix 3, which can be found on page 54 to 55. Details of the nearest license venue included as appendix 4, page 56 to 62. This hearing is required by the licensing [inaudible] because the representation have been received from licensing authority, which can be found on appendix 5, page 63 to 68. Environmental protection, appendix 6, page 69 to 70, Christopher Loyce from SPAA, residents association, which can be found on appendix 7, 71 to 73, page number. Weapon 182, advised by the home office concerning relevant vexations and frivolous representation is attached as in appendix 8, which can be found on page 74 to 76. License officer comments on noise while the premises is in use, which can be seen on page 77 to 79 in appendix 9. Appendix 10, license officer comments on access address problems, which can be seen on page 182. Appendix 11, license officer comments on crime and disorders on page 83 to 87, appendix 12, license officer comments on public nuisance, which can be seen on page 88 to 19. Appendix 13, which shows the cumulative impact zone, which can be found on page 91 to 96. Planning and detail can be seen on page 97 to 98, appendix 14, appendix 15 licensing policy relating to the hours of trading, which can be seen on page 99 to 100. Standard funding documentation submitted on behalf of the applicant, which is added to the supplementary agenda 1 on page 3 to 16. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Do you want to answer any questions or do you want to wait until the applicants, okay. Can I ask the applicant to present your application, please? We have five minutes, and it will be right before a minute remaining. We'll remind you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you for considering this application and the additional supporting material in the Agenda Pack. Please may I also place on record the applicant's gratitude to SPIRE and also the licensing authority for time engaging during the application process. With your permission, and for want of a better term, the premises will operate as a competitive socializing venue centered around French balls or patank, where guests can enjoy again with friends, colleagues or family, and alongside the patank is a high quality restaurant offering and drinks menu. Controlling this use is condition 1 at page 22 of your report, which requires the provision of licensable activities to remain ancillary to the competitive socializing and restaurant use of the premises. In addition, the applicant has agreed condition with SPIRE, effectively making this license personal to the applicant. At page 53 of your report, you'll also see a ground floor reception area with a small bar counter which then leads downstairs to the main subterranean space where you can see the dining area and about 10 patank courts and condition 3 requires waiter or waitress service throughout the premises, apart from the tiny little pink areas shown on the plan. The premises previously operated as a fitness first gym, meaning the applicant is confident. It is well acoustically attenuated and a building that has historically had lots of people coming and going throughout the day and evening. That is relevant to Ms. Cadzo and Mr. O'Leary's representation on public nuisance. Environmental protection also cite residential accommodation at 9 Frying Pan Alley. That is actually student accommodation whose website advertises their own 32nd floor bar and at page 57 you'll see that in fact that's a 1 a.m. license. There are no objections from the police or individual local residents and the applicant has agreed conditions with SPIRE so as a result, Chair, I think it's fair to say the primary remaining concern is the premises location just inside the brick lane cumulative impact area and my written submissions seek to address that policy but in summary, we invite you to please determine this application as an exception to policy for five reasons. Firstly, the policy places emphasis on the type of premises being relevant and that's because the evidence in your cumulative impact assessment correctly identifies high-risk alcohol-led late night premises with regulated entertainment as the key contributors to cumulative impact in brick lane as well as premises licensed for off sales of alcohol. The applicant does not possess any of these high-risk factors. It's not alcohol-led. Shall I wait, Chair, for that to ring out? Thank you. So the application premises does not possess any of the high-risk factors identified in the cumulative impact assessment. It's not alcohol-led. The hours are within framework hours and there's no regulated entertainment. Secondly on exceptions, there is a strong and high quality restaurant offering. The list of possible exceptions to policy recognizes that restaurant type uses are unlikely to add to cumulative impact. Thirdly, the supply of alcohol will be predominantly by waiter or waitress service. A number of these customers will be served while seated, consistent with another recognized policy exception. Those that are standing are most likely to be engaged in patank or waiting to play but the key point is that the policy recognizes that vertical drinking venues where there's nothing much else to do but stand and drink alcohol are high-risk and do not have high levels of customer services provided by waiters or waitresses which of course also helps to safeguard the amount of alcohol being consumed. Fourthly, the proposed hours are within framework hours which is also a qualifying factor for possible policy exceptions and fifthly in relation to off sales, there is absolutely no intention to provide off sales for consumption away from the premises as agreed with SPIRE. Off sales would strictly be prohibited to 9 pm to seated persons in an authorized external seating area only. So to finish chair, we ask you to please grant this highly and tightly conditioned framework hours and policy compliant application as amended the conditions agreed with SPIRE and doing so will provide a new safe and fun alternative venue for local workers, residents and visitors to enjoy away from the alcohol-led venues that have historically contributed to cumulative impact in the Brick Lane area. Chair, thank you very much for listening. Thank you very much. Can I ask the objectors to present their objection? You have five minutes as well, please. Thank you, chair. Obviously the licensing authority object to this application due to it being in the cumulative impact area. This application does not fall into the possible exemptions within our licensing policy. I've put the exemptions on page 65 of my representation. Basically the capacity is over 50. I've been informed that there's 70 to 80 covers for food with a total capacity for 200 people with possibly up to 300 people for occasional pre-book functions or private hire. So that exceeds our, the exemption policy. Alcohol is also not ancillary to food. Although there obviously is a restaurant provision within the premises, but it's not a requirement to have a drink in there. Obviously the business model doesn't fit with having a fully seated venue and therefore allows vertical drinking. I agree, it's obviously likely to be when you're playing a game or standing, waiting for a game or cheering your friends on whilst they're having a game. So obviously the balance of probabilities, the authority is concerned that the addition of another premises selling alcohol could potentially add to the existing antisocial issues within the area. Particularly through access and egress as patrons could be in high spirits, therefore undermining the licensing objectives. The onus is on the applicant to show that there are exceptional circumstances as to why their license should be granted and that it will not have a negative cumulative effect in the area. It is their responsibility to rebut the presumption, otherwise the license should be refused. Just one thing extra that I wanted to add was sort of, and this might be legal to advise you, as to the condition that's been agreed with SPIRE to remain owned by the applicant or a company that the applicant owns. I'm not 100% sure about the legality of this because obviously you can't stop her, that won't stop a license being transferred and obviously I know if it's a condition on the license they could transfer the license and apply for a minor variation to remove that condition. So I'm not really sure why that would be volunteered and accepted. Thank you Chair. Thank you Corinne, can I ask Mr O'Leary. We consider the new premises application for 755 AMALA London E1 7HS and the potential impact of public news and measures to prevent noise generated from within the premises and the external area, which could cause disturbance to people in the vicinity and considering the premises in Brooklyn community impact zone. Once the premises is proposing to approve within framework hours and the applicant is not applying for regulatory entertainment, consideration has to be given to the live music arts 2012 as amended. If the venue is licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, amplified music can take place between the hours of 8 AM and 11 PM, 7 days a week. Any noise conditions attached to the license with regards to the music would not apply during these hours and particular consideration to the venue being in Brooklyn community impact zone. Whilst the applicant has a number of noise conditions, condition 22, patrons permitted to temporary leave and then reenter the premises easy to smoke shall be limited to 20 persons at any one time. The potential of 20 persons in the external area has the greater potential to cause public news. And there are also residential premises in close proximity to the premises, including number 9 frying pan assets. So in our view the application as is done fails to comply with objective of the license 2003 relating to public news for the following reasons. Noise break out from the venue affecting the residence, access to the from the venue, especially due to veterans likely to be in high spirits and use of the external area which they propose. In conclusion, environmental protection does not support application for 7 frying panel length for the following reasons. Increased likelihood of public news, particularly when considering the use of the external space. The premises is in Brooklyn community impact zone. Thank you. Thank you, Visha. I've got, lastly, I've got Sandy Cusley, the residence objecting as well. Can I hear from you? Thank you. I'm a committee member of SPIRE, which is the umbrella group formed nine years ago to combat antisocial behavior in Spitalfields. We represent six residence associations within our cumulative impact area. SPIRE reviews all new and or amended applications for alcohol licenses in the ward to ensure that the interests of the individuals and groups it represents are not negatively impacted by any such applications. We're a pro commerce community group, so our aim is not to block change and development in Spitalfields, but to try and limit any adverse effects that might be caused. We'd like to thank the Ball Bar applicants for engaging with us and for being so cooperative in their response. They've also clearly recognized the importance of the cumulative impact assessment. Our objection to the Ball Bar application was based on two issues. The first was the off sales application. Residents would normally oppose any off sales license in this part of Spitalfields, which already has high levels of antisocial behavior, and the licensing subcommittee has in the past rejected such off sales applications. In addition, the license runs until midnight on Friday and Saturday. However, this issue has been addressed, we feel, by the insertion of additional and amended conditions. In particular, the Ball Bar submission dated July 2024 stipulates that the sale of alcohol for consumption of the premises shall only be to persons using the designated external seating area until 9 p.m., 2100. We've been worried also about the possibility that the sport-related nature of the business might morph into more of a club or bar with a late night license. Residents have already experienced a similar problem with public life on Commercial Street, which finally had its license removed entirely. Residents living near Paloma Cafe in Wentworth Street have recently lodged complaints with the licensing department because it has changed from a restaurant with a late license to a cocktail bar, with groups of people regularly outside until after midnight. We have no problem at all with the Bulabar concept itself, but residents wanted to see conditions attached to the license that would prevent any change in the type of business. The applicant has now, in its July 2024 submission, attached a condition stipulating that licensable activities may only be provided under the premises license at such times that Bulabar UK Limited, or a group company related to Bulabar UK Limited, is the premises license holder. In other words, the license would be tied to the individual company, significantly minimizing the risk of a change of use. SPIRE now considers that the applicants have addressed the major problems we identified in the original application and we withdraw our objections. Thank you for listening. Thank you very much. It is time for your questions, so do any member have any questions to the applicant or any parties? What do you mean by like people standing by and the play area and they will have a drink? How big is the play area, how many people standing in one time for waiting for their coffee, how big is it, how many people in one time, thank you. I've been told the capacity is 200 on a normal business day and possibly up to 300 for private events, so obviously the seating capacity in what says the covers is 70 to 80, so maybe we could ask the applicant whether the others would all be standing or is there additional seating that they haven't counted as covers, because the covers really is like how many people can be seated to eat at one time. So, same question to the presenter about there is about 70 to 80 seating capacities and in my view, this is the capacity that the policy exception is going to have, so about 300 people will be inside there, so how are you going to make sure that those people are standing, they will not be able to have access to the alcohol all the time? Thank you, Councillor. The first point to make, I think this is in the context of the policy exceptions, where possible, and I say possible policy exception is the premises of a capacity of 50 or less and then also premises that reduce the opportunities for vertical drinking, I must stress, it's a rebuttable presumption in that policy, we don't have to satisfy those exceptions, they're just examples of exceptions. On the breakdown of the numbers, just to emphasise, we're talking about extremely busy trading periods, on a day to day basis, on a really busy day, there might be around 200 people subject to a fire risk assessment, that's broken down to about 60 people playing, about 80 seated in the restaurant, that takes us to 140, and then another 60 people who will either be waiting for a table to eat, waiting for a court to play, or they just finished playing and having another drink or something to eat, waiting for something to eat with friends before they make their journey home. In relation to the private prebooked functions, again subject to a fire risk assessment, they would be occasional, and I hope it's accepted generally that if it's a private prebooked function, everyone's name is on the door, everyone's more likely to behave themselves, it's not general members of the public. Similar numbers again, but you're more likely to have some of the colleagues cheering on other colleagues while they're playing, and they may or may not be standing up while they're having a drink. But it's also predominantly waiter waitress service, so not like your typical vertical drinking bar, where there are large bars where customers can go up and buy alcohol at the bar and then stand up with nothing else to do, it's all very tightly controlled with waiter waitress service, focused around the batonk and the food. I have a question for the applicant. Are you aware of the CIZ zone, that this falls within the CIZ area, and how would you make sure that it is another burden on the inside this zone if the licence is to be granted? How would you justify that? Thank you, chair. I refer you to my additional submissions, which I'm grateful to you for all reading. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do, and I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm thankful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm thankful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm thankful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. I'm grateful to the staff for the work that they do. Thank you very much, Jonathan. The residents are suddenly… You mentioned that you present six different residents' organizations. May I just know in detail which area and what's the surrounding? It's roughly within that area, yes. Can you just explain a little bit more about the resident that he represents? Well, I can't list them all at the moment. I'm afraid I don't have the list. But there are organizations like the Spitalfields Society, the various residents' groups, the St. George's residents' group. There's one for the Elder Street area as well, I think. So, there are six, certainly. What I'm trying to say is that you are presenting all six of them. Have you consulted before you… We have a committee. We have a committee. …consulted all these six organizations? We haven't. We don't do that. They rely upon us to make a judgment. And there are representatives of all these different groups on the committee. Okay. I've got one question for the resident representative. It's that now you said that you had a concern and you had some issues with the presenting authorities, parties had dealt with your concern and your objections. And now you are withdrawing your objections, yeah? That's what you said. You made the objection on planning of this, sorry, licensing presenter. And now you say that you are satisfied with some concern you had and they have dealt with it and you are satisfied and you now withdraw your objection, yeah? That's right, yes, that's right, Councillor. I just want to know that. You said that there is six others, what you call it, residents associations. Have you consulted with them before you withdraw your objections? We haven't consulted each one individually on this issue. But each of the organisations has a member on our committee. Okay, thank you, no question. I've got one more question. The premises, how is, I'm talking about drinking. You've got like a certain amount of capacity of sitting and mostly it's going to be vertical drinking as well. How do you make sure that is kind of like having somebody's drinking inside, you know, it's a vantical drinkers, I would call them. It's not going to impact to the street problem they're already facing. You have so many people like drinking alcohol in the street as well. I mean, it's my area and I know practically when I drive around, I see them during weekend, especially on this commercial street and show this area, you know. So how would you control the crowd not going outside and doing the same thing? Thank you, Chair. It's a concern that the applicants recognise as well, particularly in light of conversations with Spire in respect of persons drinking on the street. The application before you would not allow customers to leave the premises with alcohol to drink on the street, I should say, from the outset. The other point is that the venues that you've identified that contribute to the local problems are indeed contributing to these problems. I think what the applicant is proposing is a venue that is an alternative to those venues for local workers, residents and visitors to enjoy away from those alcohol-led venues where there's nothing to do but drink alcohol and listen to loud music. This venue is centred around the Patonque, competitive socialising. And in terms of the vertical drinking and the supply of alcohol, ordinarily, in a problem premises as identified in your cumulative impact assessment, you will see large bars allowing large amounts of people to be buying alcohol all at the same time. Whereas here, the focus is on the Patonque and its occasional waiter or waitress service serving those customers when they may or may not want to drink alongside the substantial food offer. So everything centred around that and not the alcohol, meaning a lot less alcohol consumed. An atmosphere that's not centred around alcohol consumption and getting intoxicated. That sets a completely different tone and mood amongst the clientele, much more likely to leave the premises quietly, make their journey home without disturbing anyone, let alone drink on the street or head on into shortage. I hope that assist you. Yeah, thank you. Similar, I'm just going back to the objective's public nuisance. It is quite alarming for the residents that we had this problem before. Some years ago, there were applications around this area and all the residents jumped in and said we don't want to add another problem in the area. And the residents are quite concerned about the nuisance that is going to add on to the oldages. So this is what we are about to discuss here today. So about the public nuisance, how would you satisfy the residents and that is not going to create problem to them? Chair, on the residents, there are no residents as it stands objecting to the application. So I'm not sure we have to satisfy them. But to satisfy you, the residents identified in the environmental protection representation is actually a student block that has their own bar, 1am bar and within the premises that is advertised on their website. In terms of the concerns about noise emanating from the premises, Mr. Willing and Mr. Feaks will be able to confirm that they have inherited an old fitness first gym at subterranean level which has a substantial sound system already which you would expect to be used with high tempo music when people are working out during the day and into the evening. Because it is subterranean, there is an established use with loud music. We already know it is well acoustically attenuated so we are very confident there is not going to be any noise emanating from the premises itself that causes a nuisance. And conditions have been offered. If you look at condition, if we go to page 22 of the main report pack, please. I beg your pardon, condition 23. Sorry, page 23, condition 8. No noise shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance. In terms of external activity, you have heard that the applicants agreed a condition that any external seating area will cease provision of licenceable activities by 9pm. There has also been a concern from environmental protection about the number of people allowed to smoke outside at any one time. The figure of 20, which is in condition 14, was provided as an absolute maximum during a particularly busy, perhaps corporate function. But it's not anticipated there will be 20 people smoking outside at any time. If it assists its share, I'm sure the applicant will be able to agree a slight reduction on that, if that is a specific concern of environmental protection. Thank you. Just one more question for you. You mentioned the patrons permitted to temporarily and then re-enter the premises to smoke or make a phone call shall not be permitted to take glass or containers with them. How do you imply, how do you sort of keep track on it when you have 300 people inside your premises, who is going in and who is going out and who is taking what? There is a ground floor reception area which you'll see at page 53 of your report. That will be constantly staffed and monitored. You'll see that the counter is right next to the front door. So in fact it's very easy for the staff at that counter to make sure that customers aren't leaving with their alcoholic drink. There is a smoking area just to the side of the premises which is used by the students, right adjacent to the premises, so that's where the applicant intends to allow smokers. Again, the figures in condition 14 are an absolute maximum at any one time. We're not expecting there to be a constant flow of 20 people smoking at any one time. And the purpose of the condition restricting drinks is to make sure if they haven't got their drink with them they're less likely to loiter, they nip outside for a quick cigarette and come back in. And if they're allowed outside with their drinks, they're more likely to spend more time out there and potentially cause a nuisance. Thank you, Chair. My question to the officer, when you consulted in this area and formally how many objections have you received from the resident? When you consulted in this area about the license, how many objections have you received from the resident? Is there any objection? Any objection from the resident? From the resident's side? Written objection. There would be a report if there were any other representations of the report. To answer your question, Sandy is representing the residents. Just to confirm, the only representation from interested parties representing the local community were Spire. And Spire are very kindly withdrawn. So there are no local residents or interested parties objecting to this application now. It's just your responsible authority officers. And I think it's fair to say their concerns are primarily based on policy rather than specific concerns since no local residents are actually objecting. My question to the presenter. The people who smoke outside, did you have any designated area for the customer to smoke? Did you have any designated area? And second question is that the alcohol consuming inside the restaurant or the surrounding area, not outside. How do you make sure that they don't drink outside? Thank you, Councillor. There is a smoking area used by the students that live at 9 Frying Pan Alley, which is just set aside from the pavement. You look at page 53 of your report. It's just to the right of the area. So where you can see the label licensable area at the top of page 53, just to the right of the ground floor, there's a controlled area just off the main public highway, which is already used as a smoking area for the students. And that's where the applicant proposes smokers can go. And then just to reiterate what I said before, any persons wishing to go outside to smoke would have to pass by the constantly supervised and manned reception desk encounter, which again, you can see at the top of page 53, meaning anyone going past can be closely monitored to make sure they're not taking drinks outside and reminded to behave responsibly outside. That, of course, is unless they're in the external seating area. Were on that first in relation just to make might make things slightly these remembers the ground floor of my writing thinking that on the map on page 53, it would sit above effectively the square on the right of the paper that's not part of the license level area. So you sit to the right of the alcohol storage area. I don't know if you can see from here, but is it with the ground floor entrance be that bit there? That's correct. Yeah, and just makes it easy to pick yours. Or the only other thing in relation to the alcohol storage area that's shaded in red as well, which in theory means that alcohol can be consumed. And I'm just wondering if that's possibly a mistake and should be unshaded. We can undertake. If you are minded to grant, we can undertake to produce a new plan without that area shaded, first. It's going to be a difference between potentially 20 people outside of two o'clock in the afternoon having a cigarette and that number outside. So once the external area closes at nine o'clock at night, would you all be willing to limit it to something, probably more in keeping, say five smokers at any one time or five people outside at any one time after nine o'clock after nine o'clock. I think I think I'm fair to say and I'm conscious you've not heard from Mr. Mr. Willing or Mr. Feeks, but I think it's fair to say the majority of the time after nine p.m. there will be there might be no smokers. There might be three smokers or five smokers. But if there if it's Christmas and there's a good corporate function on, we don't want to breach that by having six, seven or twelve, even if it's for a one or five minute period. So it's obviously within your gift to decide an appropriate number. We if if 20 is too high, we think 20 up until nine p.m. would be good. We prefer more like 15 after nine p.m. But it's obviously a matter for the for the committee. Just to make sure we're compliant at all times again, not to say there will constantly be 15 or 20 people outside after nine p.m. and of course they'll be well managed. If we don't have any more question, we can go to the the concluding remarks. Can I just start with the objectives with your concluding remarks, please? Thank you, chair. I don't really have very much else to add. Obviously it is in the CIZ area. We do have a policy on that. It is up to the applicant to show there's exceptional circumstances as to why it should be granted and that it won't have any negative cumulative effect on the area. So that's our objection. Thank you. Thank you. We believe that not 20 people, 20 persons, at any one time, that's a very high number of people. So if committee's money to grant this, I think due consideration should be given to the numbers. Thank you. Thank you chair and please may I reiterate to the applicants thanks to SPIRE. Briefly on policy, the policy is very clear that it is rebuttable. The list of exceptions in your policy are possible examples. We don't have to fit within those, but we do share the key characteristics of a number of those policy exceptions and the conditions that the applicants offered make sure that this premise is not the type of premises. And the type of premises is so relevant in your policy that will add to cumulative impact in Brick Lane to do the opposite. It will provide an attractive safe environment to people to enjoy away from those problem premises. Chair, you've heard enough from me. Can I hand you over to Mr Feekes for closing remarks just briefly? Hi, I'm Alec. Very quickly, I'm co-founder and CEO of Ball Boy UK. Thank you for considering the application. Just to reiterate, we're a competitive socialising venue based around the game of batonk. We've operated our first venue in Southbank over the last year incredibly successfully with really good engagement and cooperation with the local residents community in that area. Our venue is much more akin to a French park, the atmosphere that we're trying to create, than a vertical drinking bars. That's absolutely what we're trying to do is be a value-add concept to the local community, rather than a detractor and certainly not to compound on any negative impact in the local area. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you, councillors. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Okay, now I move to Agenda 3.2. Can I invite the next applicants? Thank you, chair. This is Item 3.2, this application for a new premises licence for House of Music and Entertainment, 20 Commercial Street, London E16 LP. For this application, chair, we have Mr Stuart Gibson, Sarah Freeman and Andy Allen who are here presenting the applicant. Those persons that have made representation are Ibrahim Hussain, who's the licensing officer, and Mr O'Leary from Environmental Health. After the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of five minutes to make their representation. The objectors will also be given five minutes each to make their representation. I'll let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Thank you. Thank you. Can I go to Corinne Holland again, please, to introduce the report? Thank you. Thank you, chair. This application is in the agenda pack starting from page 147. There's also a supplementary agenda that relates to this application. It's an application for a new premises licence for House of Music and Entertainment at 20 Commercial Street. The applicant has described the premises as a co-working space by day and event space by night. It includes two rentable pop-up retail spaces. A copy of the application is in appendix one on page 158. The hours that have been applied for is the sale of alcohol for on sales only Monday to Saturday 10am to 11pm and Sunday 10am till 10pm, with opening times from seven in the morning throughout the week and 30 minutes after the last sale of alcohol. The site plan of the venue is included in appendix two on page 178. Maps showing the vicinity are included in appendix three on page 180. Photographs of the premises are in appendix four on page 182. Other licensed venues in the immediate vicinity are in appendix five on page 186. We're having this hearing as relevant representations have been received from the licensing authority and that's in appendix six on page 191, and from the environmental protection team and that's in appendix seven on page 196. The agent responded to these objectors and apologies for missing out of the report, but it's now in the supplementary agenda too. Conditions which are consistent with the operating schedule which have been volunteered by the applicant are on page 150 of the report in section 7. And then general advice for members is appendix eight to 14, which is pages 199 to 220. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Can I go to the applicants now to present the application and you have five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Stuart Gibson, representing the two applicants to my right. This is an application of attribute. It's an office space by day. It's an event space, potentially in the evenings, closing a licensed activity to cease at 2300 hours with the venue to shut to the public, totally at 2330. Given I have five minutes, Chair, could I be very cheeky and ask one of the members to ask in their questions the applicant to explain more fully what House of Music and Entertainment actually does. If I did that, it would take the full five minutes and we would cease to get through it. If I could ask that, that would say to my right. You can add that to your question. The objections before you are from the licensing authority and the environmental health. They seem to center around two things. Cumulative impact area, which we have the premises sits within and I would guess that's more of a policy objection. And we have from the environmental health concern regarding noise. If I could deal with both of these briefly in detail in terms of the cumulative impact area. We believe this is an exception to the policy for the following reasons. There is no admittance to general public to these premises at any time. So if you were walking past chair at nine o'clock at night and you the mood took you, you could not just open the door, walk in and get yourself a drink. You would not be allowed entry because you're not on a guest list and you wouldn't be allowed to come in. It's a members only venue or indeed for if the event of the premises is hired out for an event, it would be for preregistered guests only. And that'd be strictly adhered to on the door by security staff who would, if your name doesn't appear on the door list, you ain't getting in. So it is purely invited guests only. And the license is only activated when events take place. So basically, if there is no event in an evening, in a particular night, the place isn't open for the sale of alcohol. There would be no sales at all. Anyone who becomes or uses the premises daily or in the evening becomes a member. And this is something that home could explain. And they have a double door entry. There's an out of a double entry door and there's an inner entry door. And they would only get in with their own individual key fob to get through into the premises. It is very clear that alcohol is ancillary to the primary function of this premises. And that is that of events. The event is the prime area. Alcohol is available as an add on, as a nice to have. It's quite a nice place to be. I can get myself a glass of wine while I'm there. It's not alcohol led. The premises operate within the council's framework hours. There is no regulated entertainment applied for, as is mentioned in the report that you'll have seen. The only music that is proposed for these premises is acoustic music. And that was deregulated back in 2015 and therefore is not required. And the premises close before regulated entertainment kicks in anyway. So for those reasons, we submit this as an exception to the cumulative impact area within the council's policy. I think the key point is an event space, which is the primary function. And alcohol is very much ancillary to that event space. Now in terms of the noise concerns that the environmental health have, I have already mentioned it's acoustic music only should that be part of the event. We are proposing in the application that there would be five maximum of five smokers at any one time at any part of the day. And the smoking area, which can be elaborated on by Sarah to my right, is not on the main road. It's down a side road away from residential properties and so forth. Five smokers at any one time, no drinks to be taken outside at all. And the type of events we're talking about, and I think this will have appeared in the ancillary papers I sent through yesterday to be included, which you will have seen. But the events that we're looking at are creative industry focused networking events, training sessions, presentations, workshops and then the occasional live acoustic music performances. So this is not a club. This is not a party venue. This is not somewhere to go off the norm and and get lots to drink. It is purely led by the type of event that the home put on. And the alcohol is totally ancillary to that as basically as an add on, as would soft drink be a cup of coffee. It is also possible maybe to have a bottle of beer and maybe a glass of wine for the premises. And finally, the capacity at any one time for these events would be 100 people. And that is a maximum. And it would quite often an event would not attract maybe 100 people. A training course may well only have 20, 15, 10 people there, whatever, but the maximum capacity would be to 100. So for those reasons, I think we have answered the concerns with the environmental health in terms of noise. And we have shown there is an exception to the policy in terms of the cumulative impact for the business. I think I've run out of time. So thank you very much for listening to me. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I move to the objectives now? For your objection, you also have five minutes to present your objections. Firstly, just to let you know, my colleague Moshen Ali is a senior licensing officer who made these representations. He is on leave. Therefore, I'm just covering behalf of him. This licensing or two-to-two representation is primarily based on the fact of the premises is located within the CIS area where the special cumulative impact policy is applied. The premises within the different area. Mr Osenk, could I just stop you for a minute? I'm sorry. I'm so sorry for the interruption. Would you mind speaking up? Would you mind speaking up a little bit to give me a chance to hear from you? How are you? Thank you. Okay, okay. Sorry, we're going from there. Is that right? Yeah. My colleague Moshen Ali. Can you start again? Yeah. My colleague Moshen Ali is a senior licensing officer who made this representation to this application. He's on annual leave. Therefore, I'm just covering behalf of him. This licensing or two-to-two representation is primarily based on the fact that premises is located within the CIS cumulative impact zone where the claim area special cumulative impact policy is applied. The policy will be strictly applied for where the relevant representation I received is in the committee to reject or refuse these applications. The balance probability could impact the licensing objectives regarding noise, anti-social behaviour, crime and disorders. The licensing authority does not support basically this application. There is a concern about the capacity and how it will be managed. I know you have mentioned like it could be 20, 30, 40, but I mean on what basis it will be the number of capacity. Also, the analysis on the application to show the exceptional circumstances as to why the application should be granted and this will not have a negative cumulative effect on this area. The other thing is that the license should be refused. However, the subcommittee is minded to grant a license. The committee is not going to be able to provide any additional information on the application. Thank you. I am also representing my colleague Tim Hong. Having considered the premises license application of house of music and entertainment, you have to consider the impact of licensing objectives. Particularly for protection, the provision of public news and the provision of noise generated from within the premises or outside to be causing disturbance to people in the vicinity. The consideration also has to be given to the fact that the premises is within a cumulative impact zone. In this application, there is insufficient information in the operating schedule of the license application to show how the applicant will promote the licensing objective for the provision of public news. What we have in the application for the insufficient information was one patron's attending premises will be reminded to leave premises quietly. A smoking policy available on site for inspection. Cigarette bins will be provided to encourage smokers to dispose of their cigarette in a safe manner. We believe this information from a public news perspective is insufficient. There is no consideration of an impact on public news and from increased food for persons assessing and addressing the premises. Patrons outside the premises leave to smoke a sample. Particularly when considering the premises is in a cumulative impact zone again. There are residential premises in close proximity. For review assistance, this application first comply with the objective of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to public news and for the following reasons. Noise breakout from the venue affecting neighboring residents. Assess and address to and from the venue including patrons outside the premises to smoke whilst the premises is in operation. In conclusion, environmental protection does not support application for House of Music and entertainment 20 commercials for London for the following reasons. There is great likelihood of disturbance to residential premises from the impact of additional food for. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to show how they will promote their licensing objective for the prevention of public news. The premises is in a cumulative impact zone. If the committee are minded to grant this application, I will ask for the following conditions to be considered. Loud speakers shall not be located in the entrance lobby or outside the premises building. Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and re-enter the premises to smoke shall be limited to five persons at any one time. I believe he agreed on that. No noise generated on the premises or by its associated plant or equipment shall be emitted from the premises. No vibration will be transmitted through the structure of the premises which give rise to public nuisance. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Harui. Now Members, you have the opportunity to ask questions to other parties. Do you have any questions? Yes, thank you Chair. My question is that the applicant has said that this is a workplace by day and is turned into an alcohol and music venue at night. And there is a two rental space. So I just want to ask you, if the license is granted, those two rental units will be given to somebody else to run this pop-up retail space in the evening. These will be given to somebody else after you get the license. I want to make this one a little bit clear so that we can understand who will be using this and who will be owning this space. To clarify, I think the question is, will the license cover those retail units or are they on the plan, and within the license area, or are they excluded? And that's simply a description of the premises as a whole. You were asking, Councillor. I think I'm right and please jump in and correct me. The retail units have no bearing on the license application, is that correct? They've got nothing to do with the license application. For the sake of clarity, they would not be included. No license activity could take place then. Thank you Councillor. I have a question. You mentioned to the applicant, you mentioned it's not open to the general public, members only. Is there something that pre-arrange or you have to become a member, how does that work? Can you explain a little bit more to us? Thank you for your question. Our members internally are people who have entered into a contract to use our spaces, either office space, individual desks or day desking. They can use the event space as part of that membership. We would also be allowing people to hire that event space, but we would be entirely responsible for running those events. So they would always be a member of home staff on site to run those events. I hope that answers your question. Absolutely. We would host all events. It's staffed internally, so it would never be externally staffed by anybody else. My second question will be, you also mentioned it's not an alcohol-led premises. So what is the main business that you will present there? Well, the main business, obviously office space by day, but it is an event space by evening, and I give you an example of the type of events that were held. People come for the event. They're invited or they're on a guest list to come to this particular training course, to come to this particular presentation or networking event. That's what they come for. The alcohol is there as a secondary measure to say, well, now you're here, would you like a glass of wine or would you like a bottle of beer or so forth? So it's not an alcohol-led event. You don't turn up to have a drink and say, I better put myself through this kind of presentation. You go for the presentation and you would be invited to attend because of the presentation or supplementary type of event. Thank you. I've got one more question, and I'm going to ask, is on your, the name of the applicant, it shows as House of Music and Entertainment Limited. How does it justify what you said was occasional live music? I mean, it doesn't really relate to the name, I guess. I mean, what is it called? So we offer office space solutions and networking solutions for those that operate within the independent music and entertainment industry. So the name is about our client base as opposed to necessarily the nature of activity. Is that a satisfactory answer or can I provide any additional information? If you've got something additional, you're welcome to express. Yeah, the name relates to the kind of businesses that operate within our premises. When you look at a name or a venue saying that House of Music, you go with the intention of having a dance or something, you know, live music or loud music, that's why you're inviting the customers. This is what I want to justify with your claim that it's occasional live music. Hi everyone, I'm Andy Allen, I'm the CEO of House of Music and Entertainment. Effectively, it came out of trying to incorporate something that was welcoming to the people that are in the independent music industry. And if you actually abbreviate the lettering, it's actually home. And what we're trying to do is provide a home for people within the industry who are more independently minded. And so we have various slogans like 'work from home', 'home is where the heart is', that sort of approach. And that's kind of how that name came out of it. Thank you, chair. It's my question as to how you make sure that the music noise, whenever you're using the noise, stay around your inside, the premises, it doesn't go outside, make noise pollution. How do you make sure that? I'm not totally sure on the question. I think it was to how do we make sure the music or the entertainment provided stays within. The music, it doesn't cause news to certain neighbours. First and foremost, it's acoustic music only, and as is helpfully mentioned in the papers, the report from Corinne, it says acoustic music is not licenses. So regulated entertainment is not enforced in this instance. There is no requirement on any premises to have acoustic music up to 11 o'clock. And that could happen whether we were sat before you here today or not. I'm not trying to be facetious. I'm just saying that it could, they could go ahead and do that. It's not a licensable activity. The fact that it's acoustic, there is no speakers. It's not amplified. The music would be contained as a double door entry to get into the premises. As you've already heard, there's members have to use two key fobs to get through the two doors to get or the same key fob to get through the two doors. So there is natural soundproofing in that respect. And with it only being sort of acoustic music, the noise is not going to escape into the general public. Because I'm asking this question because the title you put there, the license of House of Music and Entertainment, that seems that what you have to describe is something different. This is why I ask you this one. Thank you very much for your time. I think, I think, chair, what's been said is House of Music and Entertainment is more to do with the business side of the operation where people using the desk during the day than actually the events that take place at night. And I totally get, House of Music and Entertainment becomes home and there's an awful lot you can do with that in terms of marketing material. But it is please, for one thing, don't get hung up on House of Music and Entertainment and it's going to be live bands and raves every night and so forth. That's not what's before you today. It's never been mentioned in the application and it's not intended by the applicants here today. So what are the others doing today? What kind of business is that used for? It's going to be that it's just the general, it's going to have planning permission for general office use and no doubt for the retail uses as well. So I think it's just standard office use. I'm not sure that it necessarily requires much description beyond that. You've already been told also that it's, that it caters for people working within the independent music industry. So that's the clientele. That's the, it's clerical office based work. I'm happy to give some examples of some of our current residents if that will help the committee. We have a firm who is a music PR firm. We have several different music management companies. We have a merchandise company, a music merchandise company. So we do sort of span quite a lot of the live music industry but it's a place of business essentially. So it is kind of related although it's not licenseable but that's what I'm just trying to get to. All right, OK, any more? My question to the officer. You mentioned the applicant have not, they have not provided sufficient information to show how they are promote their license for the prevent of the public noises. Could you explain more about the case, what not to provide it? Yeah, thank you chair. In the operating shell of the application, so the information in terms of how they're going to you know, prevent public nuisance. They talked about cigarettes and how they're going to dispose it. That is not sufficient enough for in terms of public nuisance prevention. Could I add to that Councillor if I may. I think you received additional papers either yesterday or this morning regarding this application. But on Wednesday the 19th of June I sent a detailed email to Mr Hung in relation to his objection outlining more detail. Unfortunately Mr Hung chose not to reply to that at all. But there was further detail of what the premises was about, what type of business, what was going to happen there. Giving him additional information but that has not been included in the. It is, it's in seven pages, 17 to 21 of the supplemental agenda. It has a supplement but in terms of the verbal objection from the environmental health that's not been referenced at all. Any more questions? Thank you. How many events are you thinking of having because obviously one thing that might occur is the premises license itself is going to be in operation 24/7. So despite what's being said you could obviously operate every single day so what are, how many events do you anticipate holding in Israeli scope for limiting the number of events? I don't anticipate us holding more than between one or two events a week. We will have quieter periods where we may not host an event for a month or more perhaps. But I don't anticipate it being more than two a week events that would take place in the evening, that is. If the committee are minded to grant the application are you willing to have a limit on the number of events? That would depend on the limits but we would definitely be amenable to it, yes. Fair in mind you said you are not anticipating more than one or two a week so it might help the committee certainly if we can get an idea of what would be an acceptable limit whether it's per week, per month. If we could have some sort of limit to about four a week that would be amazing. [inaudible] How do we know how many events are taking place? We do have some places that send a weekly list, monthly list to us. It's difficult to enforce how many events can be granted a week from a licensing authority's point of view. If the committee were minded to impose any sort of limitation on the events then that would obviously be something that goes with it because as you say, the responsible authority is going to need to know about that. [inaudible] Again we know that there's been a lot of discussion about how the state is going to make sure that if it's been recommended to have those type of events from 10 o'clock in the morning up to 11 so again it doesn't really seem necessarily to be entirely in keeping with how you're working and what's being proposed to have alcohol at 10 o'clock in the morning so perhaps you could address that for the benefit of the committee please. We don't particularly need something from 10 o'clock in the morning but we may well have some events that are going on throughout the day and something from an afternoon sort of perspective would be really appreciated. That's fine. Thanks. My question was to the officer. How is the within the locality and other venues similar venues. Do you have any issues that have to be concerned with and what are the licensing timing on those premises surrounding this. I think the question is, you've got a list of nearby licensed premises at pages 186 through 189, and in terms of other problems generally speaking the whole point of the CIZ that it demonstrates that an area is already oversaturated with premises it's not always possible to point to a specific premises and say this one's causing a problem or that one is you in a way, whereas outside of the CIZ. You might want to know far more about the presumption is there are problems, adding to those problems or adding another license with alcohol is going to impact on those unless you effectively take it as red. So I think you you're not going to have before you are there specific problems with any of these particular premises because also the premises themselves are not necessarily relevant to another application. And in terms of the actions you're looking at the overall cumulative impact does that assist. No questions. So, we have a couple of remarks. Can I ask the objectors, you have one minute for your concluding remarks please. Yeah, thank you. If consideration is a few, the committee's minded to grant application, I would like the conditions online in the representation to be considered. Yes. The applicant please. All right. Yeah. Thank you. If the license is granted by the by the committee, I want to make sure that like on page 194, well the condition to be added, because it's within the CIZ and where it could cause noise, nuisance, ASP issues, and also condition two, where he says about smoking. We want to ensure that there's a number of person can smoke outside to be added under conditions. Yeah, that's it. Actually there's nothing much to actually see CIZ and that's why purely licensing authority have made the objections. So to be considered. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, chair. You've heard the application today and you've heard from the applicants as well. You have also seen my emails of the 19th of June, which did respond to the objectors concerns, and you've also seen emails that I've sent in saying we agree entirely with the environmental health proposed conditions that the gentleman has just asked for in his summing up. Yeah. Can you just adjourn for just just for a while. was having a bit of a coughing fit so sorry. As I said, we've agreed to the environmental health conditions they proposed in an email that was sent back in June. We also agreed to some of the licensing authority proposed conditions numbers one, two and five. I believe we couldn't agree to number three and four saying there'll be no vertical drinking that may be impossible to enforce because people may be well need to stand up on occasion. And the other one saying alcohol can only be served with a table meal. It's not a restaurant. And there's no food being served. So it's very difficult for me to sit here and say, yes, we agree to that. We can't agree to that one. And that was also sent in an email back in June, but didn't receive a response from from Mr. Ali. You what you've had chair is concerns regarding noise to the premises, but there is no residential objections to noise. The residents were obviously notified through the usual channels of this application taking place and had any of them nearby being concerned, I'm sure they would have raised an objection. We didn't. As I say, we have agreed to the proposed conditions from the authorities. You've heard from both applicants in some detail this afternoon, and I would move that you grant the application as applied for and as amended with additional conditions. Thanks for your time. Thank you very much. I think we are reaching the end of it. Thank you for your contribution and the subcommittee, as usual. We will deliver our decision in a private session after this meeting ends and see me. She will write to you in five working days with the decision. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. For this application, we have Mr Marcus Lavelle and Mr Matthew Mitchellson, who are representing the applicants, people, persons. We will also give five minutes each to make the representation. Let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Thank you chair. Thank you. I would invite Mr Preej. Thank you. This is an application for variation of the premises license. For the title of this application, the application is included in appendix 2. This application has described the variation as follows. The appendix 3 map of the venue page which can be seen in the page 262 to 264, appendix 4 photograph, showing the vicinity of the venue on page 265 to 266. Appendix 5, a detail of the nearest licensing venue, which can be seen on 267 to 268. Appendix 6, 6 to 38, representation form of the residence, which shows on page 269 to 355. This application is essentially because of the applicant has not provided explanations of how they will accomplish the licensing objectives. With the applicant agreement to the environmental protection, which can be found on page 356 to 359. Due to an error when I have produced a report, there was some evidence which can be found on page 333. Pack number two, which can be found on page 23 to 31 in appendix 30. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Can I just move to the applicant, please present your application. Thank you, sir. I was a little too close there. I'm here with Matt Michaelson who is the area general manager for go Puff. Can I just check, you've had time to read the summary of application and other documents that we sent through by e-mail? Thank you, sir. I'll try and therefore be brief and not just rehash everything that you would have read previously. In simple terms, sir, this is an application to extend the ability for the premises to sell alcohol. It can currently sell alcohol for delivery only to 1130 p.m. Mondays to Thursdays, midnight Fridays and Saturdays, and 1030 p.m. on a Sunday. And on all days, it can recommence selling alcohol by delivery at 6 a.m. This is an application to fill in that gap. This is a grocery delivery company, sir, that operates effectively a grocery distribution hub from this site. They have the ability to deliver groceries that are not licensed products, so anything other than alcohol. Or hot food, arguably, although we don't sell hot food. They can deliver unlicensed products 24 hours a day. Currently, they deliver products until 2 a.m. every night. So if you use the go Puff app and you're within the catchment area, up until 2 a.m. you can order a selection of groceries to be delivered to your door. However, as it stands, from 1130 Monday to Thursday and from midnight Fridays and Saturdays, any alcoholic products will vanish from the selection screen on the app. This application is made so that the customer experience remains the same at all times. So as long as you are able to order anything from this go Puff site, you will be able to order the entire scope of items, whether licensed or unlicensed. The makeup of licensed products, so alcohol, they're a smaller component of overall sales from this and any other site. On average, only one in five orders contains any alcohol. And in the later hours, across the go Puff estate, where go Puff is able to sell alcohol past midnight, that actually drops in the later hours. Between 10 and 15% of all orders contain alcohol. However, maintaining that consistency of customer experience is of value to go Puff and allows them to keep a competitive edge in the marketplace, especially in these very difficult times for all forms of grocery retail business. If I can just very quickly, sir, look to the issues that have been raised by a number of the residents, and I know that we have residents here who will, of course, be able to speak for themselves. But if I can just use some time very quickly to address some of the issues raised by the residents. Two of the residents, Annie Koo, who can be found at Appendix 7, and Mohammed Tabir at Appendix 25. I just gave you those notes, sir. I won't expect you to turn those pages up in the interest of brevity right now. They make reference to a number of things, such as persons tailgating them into their apartments. That's where someone hangs around near the front door, and as a resident with a key enters an apartment building, that person then slips in behind them to avoid security. That indeed sounds absolutely terrible. They also identify that people have been damaging their electronically locked doors, damaging their lift circuits as they force their way in. There is no suggestion that is actually carried out by our staff. There's no objection to this application from the police. We would suggest if there was any link between our staff and burglaries in the local premises, we probably would have been contacted by the police, and we'd expect we would, of course, cooperate fully with that. There is, I would submit from what we see here, no link between us and this criminal activity. What can be seen from the photographs that you've got in your additional agenda, sir? There is and has been an issue with delivery drivers of large commercial vehicles parking outside of our yard where we accept deliveries. There are two main points on this. One, this is something we are dealing with with that particular supplier, of these larger orders. It can often be caused because people park domestic cars in front of our yard, and it makes it hard to access our own yard. They're not our own people blocking our yard. It's just one of the issues of dealing with an inner city site. But we do work with that. We're not ignorant of the issue, and we don't turn a blind eye to it. However, this is an application that relates to the sale of alcohol for delivery in the earlier hours. These deliveries will not, they will neither increase nor decrease in frequency during the day in order to provide us with items that we then may end up adding to orders that are going out between midnight and 6 a.m. There will be no additional frequency. There will be no impact on the situation as a result of this variation. And that's an important element when a licensing authority considers any application for variation. It's the nature of the change that's being requested and its likely impact. We would also suggest the fact that we already have operations until… We normally allow five minutes, but we're already over. If you can sum up quickly, please. We already do provide delivery services in these later hours up until 2 o'clock, whether there is an alcoholic item in the delivery bag or there isn't does not add to any risk to the licensing objectives. So, that's our summary. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do you remember if we have any questions at this stage? Yeah, can I just ask the objectives to… Are you both going to speak or just one person? We have five minutes between you two, so… Between us or each? Each. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Hi, my name is Katarzyna Szalika. I live in Reiglehaus, which is directly neighbouring the GoPaf site. And my flat is quite, like in the middle of it, so relatively close to the site. My objection is based on existing nuisance to the neighbourhood caused by the large tracks that are a lot of the time idling. Outside our premises, I think the application was not allowing the idling vehicles parked outside. It's also about the… you know, the number of the delivery couriers, vehicles going on bikes, which adds to the street not being safe for pedestrians. I work from home or spend a lot of time in my flat, and it's really noisy during the day. There were times when I would be on a call and I would not see… I would have to literally put headphones in on large volume to hear the other side speaking, right? Because of the noise coming from the idling tracks outside. Then I don't refer to the comment that was made about the anti-social behaviour. I personally don't think this was… we can link this, so I agree with that, but it's really the nuisance. It's the loading, unloading the large tracks, having delivery vehicles, couriers gathering. And my worry is that it will actually increase during the night, when we try to sleep. And that… you know, I won't be able to sleep, say, without earplugs or anything like this and this is not a nice way to be. The other comment about the tracks being parked on the pavement, obstructing the pavement due to the residential cars parked. I've personally not seen the cars directly parked in front of the gate to the yard, and also I can't see any of those large tracks being able to safely drive in and out the yard just due to the size. The yard size is limited. A lot of the larger tracks are just too big for it, in my view. Thank you. Can I move to the other gentleman? Can I move to you, sir? Thank you. Thank you. My name is Rory Malone. I'm a resident also in Rigel House. I live next door to the premises … Rigel House is next door to the premises. I spoke at the original Licensing Committee. I believe it was Councillor Gold's, who was the chairman two years ago, when the initial application was granted. And I have it here, and I believe it's in your pack, and I wish to just quote some things that are in the minutes from that meeting. The fact that the premises would not be open to the public would not attract people to the area to buy alcohol from the premises. That's one quote. The other quote from the minutes is, It was noted that all delivery drivers would be employed directly by the company, which gave members assurance that the applicant would have direct control regarding delivery drivers' compliance and licensing conditions related to deliveries and the conduct of delivery drivers. Also at that Licensing Committee, the applicant said that there was about 10% of their sales with alcohol. So I note now, if it's one in five, it's doubled in two years to 20%, which is what the applicant just said, or the applicant's representative. Reminder, as it's been said, their existing hours are 6 a.m. until 11.30 p.m. Monday to Thursday, and then 6 a.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday. Two things, not open to the public, and that all delivery would take place from their own drivers, that's from the meeting two years ago. Their business model has changed. Okay? The reason the application was granted that then, it has got worse for residents. They have got rid of their own delivery drivers. They are now either occasionally GoPro contracted, i.e. not employed, compared to what they said then, or worse, it's Uber Eats, and it's Deliveroo drivers. So it's independent, totally separate drivers, and that is because their business model changed. Their GoPro fired a lot of employees, and they now accept orders through not their own app, but through the Deliveroo app and through the Uber Eats app. I want to point out, I'm not sure what was said, there was 33 objections from residents, please. I don't know whether that was noted in the beginning, but there was 33 objections. Councillors, I and the other residents suggest to you that you should reject this extension outright, and the reason you should reject it is because this operator does not have in place controls to meet the licensing conditions and the licensing objectives. They do not have the controls in place. I want to turn to condition six, the current condition which says no idling of vehicles that are awaiting access to the premises or waiting to pick up a delivery. In your pack, you will see pictures of a car sitting in the yard idling its engine. Its lights are on, and that is evidence we provided. You've heard from Katia and from other residents that provided their written submissions. The delivery trucks idle their engines, and vehicles parked outside idle their engines. That is against licensing condition six. The vehicles the deliveries cause nuisance. The applicant wants us to believe that magically the extra alcohol they will sell by this extension will just magically turn up, maybe by drone or by TARDIS. Obviously it won't. It needs to be delivered to the premises, and so we ask, is it going to be more deliveries? Is it going to be bigger trucks, or is it going to be more frequent deliveries? Because alcohol does not just turn up by itself. It has to be delivered to the premises to be delivered out. The size of the trucks they're using are almost the length of this room. They are trucks the same size that deliver to the Sainsbury's in Whitechapel. They are huge, huge trucks. The road itself is actually less wide than the width of this room we're sitting in now. So from the pavement to where the cars are, this room is wider than Hemming Street is. We are telling you that it's not possible to have these kind of deliveries. We provided evidence of the cracking of the pavement that their delivery trucks are causing when they're parked on the pavement doing the deliveries. And actually, even this morning, there was a Safeway delivery truck right there parked on the pavement with a guy right there doing the delivery to GoPro. It's happened this morning. They're not taking account of this. It's ridiculous. We would suggest, if they are to do anything from this premises, there needs to be a licensing restriction about the size of vehicle that can be used to deliver to the premises. Because these huge trucks that are delivering for supermarkets like Whitechapel or elsewhere… Okay, I'm going to move on. There are other conditions that unfortunately they are breaching. Condition number two says members of the public shall not be allowed on the premises at any time. Three says licensed premises to fulfil internet sales for delivery. Condition seven says alcohol shall only be delivered. The answer is if alcohol shall only be delivered, why is this order for pick up? This order from alcohol which is… You can't, that's really not something that can be brought into this hearing. It's taking the applicants by surprise. It's not something that the members have said. I'm sorry, I've only ever once spoken in an application before. That was the previous application for this so I apologise. The applicant is breaking this licensing condition. They are allowing pick up from their premises. And please note who they will blame. They will blame a junior employee, they will blame the residents or they will blame technology. I'm sorry, it gets worse. In summing up, they are selling alcohol outside of their licensed hours. We've made four test orders and they are selling it well after midnight which is against them. We will have time to answer your questions so we can perhaps add some more comments there. In summary, this applicant does not have the controls in place to meet the licensing… Sorry, you will have the opportunity to… Thank you. Your time is up to present your objections. OK, we now move to the questions. Sorry, Chair. Thank you. I'm going to… obviously applicant objected… Excuse me. Anyone can expand on their representations. I'm conscious that as a general proposition you will obviously give people quite a lot of leeway but I'm also conscious that with matters raised in that for the first time that the applicant has had no opportunity to respond to. I certainly need to consider the fairness of the hearing as a whole. I don't know if there's any application by Mr. Lavelle to adjourn whether it's for a brief period to get some instructions or otherwise but I think that's something I do need to draw to this committee's attention. So perhaps, I could invite Mr. Lavelle to say what he wants to do. It may well be that he's completely happy to continue with questions. Thank you. If it helps keep the hearing on track I'd rather deal with it almost by just some questions as to what's actually being claimed by the resident on his bag that he has there. But I would note in line with what's been said by your officer, if issues aren't raised with us where people have issues of compliance and it hasn't been raised ever before that somehow we're in fundamental breach of our license for selling alcohol on, the whole point of this premises license is to facilitate distribution of our groceries. That's it. If the resident is saying I'm ambushing you here at the last minute having found something out, if it had been brought to our attention beforehand we don't operate that way and we certainly don't want our staff to operate that way and if our staff had been operating that way we would stop it immediately. So if I can just ask the resident just for some confirmation, the bag that he has there, is the suggestion that you have made an order for that and then gone to the premises and collected it from the premises itself? Just before Mr. Malone answers that, as a general proposition the committee doesn't normally allow any sort of questioning and I would still want to keep us off that disappearing down the route potentially of cross-examination. What I might be more appropriate is if there's perhaps a five minute adjournment and Mr. Malone and Mr. Lovell can go outside, Mr. Malone can show you the bag, they can have a quick discussion and see where they go and then come back in. Can I respond on the point before we adjourn? May I respond on the point before we adjourn on whether the residents have left? The residents have sent an email on the 14th of May 2024. At the time the public nuisance and the issues we were aware of we included in that email. It was to Parviz Iqbal who's the site manager, it was copied to I believe Matt Michaelson here and it was to other, Jack Loudon who's the person we've been told to raise it with. We got no response. That was what we knew at the time. We got no response. But again that's something that's not before this committee. It's very difficult for anyone including the committee themselves to respond to any points like this on the hooves. Perhaps as I said we maybe have five minutes, maybe a little more if that's what it takes and Mr. Lovell and Mr. Malone and of course I'm going to now mispronounce your name very quickly I apologize. Ms Jelliger want to go outside and have a quick chat about that and we give them some time to do that and then we see where we go from here. Say five minutes we can see where we go. Five minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much everybody. The meeting is adjourned for five minutes. [No audio] So sorry. Jelliger and Mr. Lovell have had a lot of opportunities. [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] [No audio] Thank you very much. Jonathan can you just help me? Of course. Yes of course Mr. Lovell you've obviously had some time to take instructions. Are we happy to proceed or is there an application? Thank you sir. It's unfortunate for these things to come out now and I can't see whether the resident felt he'd have more impact by bringing out evidence that we have no time to look into or counter is helpful for him. We would just to be clear the allegations being made by the resident are that he's able to purchase alcohol for collection. The app is designed to prevent that in any event however the resident lives very close to the premises and it may be that by living close to the premises he's able to select options that for example only staff members would be able to do with selling to themselves that sort of thing. However we wouldn't want those issues to go unanswered or unaddressed and so we would request an adjournment to the next available committee date where you actually have time so that we can take instructions, make inquiries with how our app works and specifically as you can imagine I've got an operational manager here. I don't have part of the tech team. I also don't have various people from the site here. We would have had and we would have had answers if these issues had been raised in advance and I would suggest they certainly could have been raised in advance, but as a result of this we would yes request a reasonable adjournment to the hearing so that we can engage in a fact-finding exercise and come back to you with specific answers so. We obviously ask the objectors they're entitled to express the view whether they agree with Mr. Lavelle or not and then I can give you some little advice on what your options are and what you decide. Can I just hear you as well? First of all I want to trace that those allegations are backed by evidence and the second I don't think an app would work personally. I'm not an IT person but I don't think the proximity could have impact on the settings The issue is about whether you agree to the adjournment or whether you're going to ask the committee to carry on today that's really what I need you to do. If I can then, I'll wait for the chair sorry. Councillors I apologize if I, I'm not a lawyer, I have only attended one previous licensing committee and that was with COPAF previously so if I didn't do something I was meant to do I apologize, I won't do it in future. I would point out before that point the residents the objectors have provided evidence that they're not meeting the licensing objectives because they're causing nuisance with their delivery trucks there's existing evidence that we provided in the emails and the stuff that have been provided there that they are not meeting the licensing objectives and I go back to the point I made the reason you should project this is because they do not have the controls in place to meet the licensing objectives to meet the licensing conditions and that is the reason we think we should continue and you should throw out the application. Yeah, Chair you've got the power to adjourn a hearing where you consider it's necessary in the public interest to include to consider representations, notice or an application by the party. Ultimately your goal is to be as fair as possible to everyone I appreciate Mr Malone isn't a lawyer and that there's nothing underhand intended but the difficulty is of course that the applicant is now in a rather difficult position in relation to matters that haven't been raised and what I would say in relation to those matters that have been raised, allegations of breaches of conditions that relate to idling for example and rather the difference to saying we can go in pick up alcohol or do other things that are actually far more serious and would have a far, far greater impact. Given that and given the potential impact that it may well have subconsciously otherwise in your decision my advice to you would be that you have to seriously consider adjourning this application to another date so that those issues can obviously be properly looked into both by the applicant and I'd obviously Mr Malone could obviously expand should he needs to on that representation in due course that's my advice Chair but it is ultimately a matter for you and your colleagues. What I would suggest is we normally deliberate in private maybe we pop out and you make your decision then come back in rather than everyone else leaving Thank you Jonathan, thank you for your advice. It's very rare we come to this kind of situation I would say to have a fair trial, fair decision for interest of both sides the meeting, we should join the meeting for today and we have the next available date is on the 24th September if it's ok for both of you? 24th September? Is this ok for the applicant as well? I'll have to check with my diary and others, I anticipate it will be ok I'll confirm within 24 hours if that's ok sir If you can let for the sake of providing make sure that your colleagues are content with the measurement as well Councillors are you in agreement as well? As the Chair said we want to hear from both sides and we have fair decisions, when we make the decisions in a way it's quite a difficult thing and unexpected thing happened so some of the questions that we won't be able to address on those basis we make decisions I think it's fair to both of the parties that we are in other meetings and we can make a fair decision I'll go with the Chairs Thank you Councillor So the meeting is adjourned for today and we have a date here on the 24th and it is said to be confirmed by the next 24 hours Thank you very much Thank you very much residents, officers and members Can I have a question? If we come across any new evidence is it ok to submit it in advance? You can do that on the future application You can call the licence officer and... Just not on the date? You can attach any more evidence or whatever with the application before it comes to the committee Thank you If you could contact Mr Ibrahim who is the Lead Officer Licensing Officer on the case He got my email, all the residents who made the objection have my email so any concern please do contact me on my email Ok, now the meeting is closed, thank you very much Thank you Thank you .