Transcript

We're live. May I say good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Committee of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. I'm Councillor Peter Gold and I'm the Chairman of the Licensing Committee and for the purpose of this meeting I shall be chairing the meeting this afternoon. The meeting is being held in person with committee members and key participants present. Others may join remotely but of course this does exclude the committee members who will be seeing everything and will be taking part in the meeting. When we conclude the meeting we will retire and we will be assisted by two officers but the decision we reach will be hours and hours alone and you will be notified of the decision within five working days which will tell you whether the decision was unanimous or by vote. For your information I'd like everybody on the table to introduce themselves starting with my Councillor colleagues. Councillor Simon. Jonathan Melnyk, Legal Advisors of the Subcommittee. Simi Yasmin, Democratic Services. Thank you very much. Because we are in this public building there are, we obviously are subject to fire alarms, there are no fire drills expected whilst we are attending so if the fire alarm goes please calmly follow the signs for the nearest fire exit and do not use, well I don't think anybody here would use this but quite basically if the fire alarm goes let's get out as quickly as possible and assemble at the front. The meeting will be filmed for the Councillor's website and for public viewing so we will be on public viewing now. Members of the public sitting in the gallery, the cameras will not be focusing on you for absolute purposes of GDPR and your own privacy. I would ask members and indeed everybody to speak only at my direction, we try to conduct these meetings as collegiately as possible, we're neither in the Council Chamber or in the House of Commons so it doesn't work if people start cross-cutting or interrupting people. If you have anything to ask catch my eye and I will signal and I will call you at the appropriate time. Please if you are speaking speak directly into your microphone and when you've concluded switch it off. We are in the period of what is known as Purda because there is a general election going on so this is licensing, we cannot introduce anything of a political nature that could be construed and I do have advice that if anything does come up that could be considered remotely of a political nature I will rule it out of order instantly and we will go backwards but I doubt if we will do so. The opening of our agenda is apologies, well as we're only a three member panel and that is the quorum, if there weren't three members here we couldn't be quorum so formally we have no apologies for absence. I am now required to ask if any member has a declaration of interest and I will commence by saying I have none. Do colleagues have any declaration of interest? I don't have any. I have none. Thank you, that will be recorded in the meeting. For the purpose of those attending and particularly those of you who are on your laptops or who have got a great big chunky agenda in front of you, the rules of procedure explaining the law and how we operate in the licensing committee are on pages 9 to 18, we will try and follow those as closely as possible but for your information they are there. Item number 3 are minutes of the previous meetings which are pages 19 to 50, may I ask members to agree the unrestricted minutes of the meeting held on the 23rd of April and the 14th of May, are they approved? Thank you. They have been approved by agreement, we will sign them afterwards. I now proceed to the items for consideration. For those sitting looking at the agenda, item 4.2 has been withdrawn as resolution has been reached so we will do 4.1 and 4.3. We now move to item 4.1 which is an application for a new premises license for unit 2A, Queen's Yard, 43 White, Bose Lane, London, E85EN. May I ask when people are speaking for or against if they could refer to the pages because there is nothing more frustrating that we have got to make the decision up frantically thumbing through the pages to work out where we are. I invite Ms. Yasmin to tell us who is here and speaking on behalf of the various applications. Thank you, Chair. For this item we have Holly McColgan, the legal representative, and Mr. Jason Smith, the consultant on behalf of the applicant. After the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of five minutes to make the representation. I believe there are no representatives who have made a representation against the applicant present here today, so therefore members will note and consider their written objections. Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda pack in advance. You will have five minutes to make your representation. I'll let you know when you have one minute remaining. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Yasmin. There was a request by members of the public to speak who couldn't come and somebody did appear but had not registered. Is the person present? Have they been notified they cannot speak? Yes, Chair, we have notified the person present. That's one of the people sitting here. Thank you. You do understand the circumstances. We have to have you notice but I do welcome you here and we will note what is said on the various objections, take them into consideration and you will note that we are more than likely to use the written representation, the question we put to the applicant. Can I now invite Corinne Holland who is our licensing officer to introduce the report. Corinne. Thank you, Chair. This is an application for a new premises license for the Yard Theatre Unit 2A Queen's Yard 43 Whitepost Lane. It's what we call, it's sort of called a shadow license. That's the term that they've been given where there are duplicate license that are usually held by the landlord of the premises as a security against the existing license lapsing. So it's not an additional premises that will be operating separately. It's a license that's held in the background and not operated at the same time as the original license. So a copy of the application can be seen in appendix 1 on page 60. The hours that have been applied for are on the same terms as the existing license and can be seen on page 52 of the report. And then the existing license in full can be seen in appendix 2 on page 87. A site plan of the venue and an application summary is included in appendix 3 on page 100 to 103. Maps of the vicinity of the premises are in appendix 4 on page 105. There's some photographs included in the report and that's in appendix 5 on page 107. And then other license premises in the vicinity of this premises are shown in appendix 6 on page 111 to 122. The hearing is required because there's been relevant representations made by three residents or businesses in the area. These are shown in appendix 7 on page 124, appendix 8 on page 126 and appendix 9 on page 128. The applicant has made a response to those objectors trying to explain the situation and this letter is included in appendix 10 on page 130. Any conditions that were volunteered are as per the existing license which as stated is in appendix 2. Thank you, Chair. I've just been noting a page down where I can go. Thank you very much for presenting that. College, do you have any questions to the licensing officer? Thank you, Ms. Horn. There are no questions at this stage. We now move to the applicant and I would invite the applicant to present their case. Don't worry. Are you okay? That's lovely. Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon committee. This is an application for a shadow premises license made by Hatton Garden Properties. Apologies. Do you remember when you go to pick it up? Yeah. Thank you. I'm going to try again. There we go. So this is an application for a shadow premises license made by Hatton Garden Properties Limited. As a responsible landlord, Hatton Gardens has commenced an exercise to protect all premises licenses held by tenants within their portfolio. This is the first of many intended applications for a shadow license across the portfolio and the yard was ironically selected as the first license to apply for because of the low impact it seemed to have. An application for a shadow license is uncontroversial and follows the authority established in the extreme oyster case. The premises are not located within any cumulative impact zone. The application is made on exactly the same terms as existing license number 19537. Is it worth us trying the other microphones? As I understand it, it's not common for a shadow license application to be determined at subcommittee. As I understand it, it's not common for a shadow license application to be determined at subcommittee and most likely this is because it doesn't bring an additional use to the area. It's used as a mechanism frequently used by landlords to protect a license which can become imperiled in many different ways such as death, insolvency and surrender to name a few. So a shadow license, it provides a safety net which can be an excellent tool for continuity but it also brings the landlord into the fold in terms of promoting the licensing objectives so it's a two for the price of one, if you like. Representations have been made by three residents which is why we're here today. There is a shared misunderstanding that the application is for a new use and for additional hours. That is not the case. The residents were written to as the license authority confirmed to clarify the position but to date no reply has been received. The residents representations also raise some concerns with noise and nuisance. The applicant of the landlord has not been made aware of. Is it possible your laptop is causing the interference if you move it over to the side and give that a go? We've had this before. Laptops and mobile phones can really go down those things. I think that could be it. Take my laptop away completely. Why not sit somewhere else? Up to the witness box over there. Am I safe? Sounds like I am. The residents representation also raises some concerns about noise and nuisance in the area. So the applicant as landlord has not been made aware of any issues with the existing tenant or their reparation and in reality the yard theatre is considered an exemplary tenant bringing cultural use and community engagement into the area. The absence of a responsible authority representation will I hope give the committee confidence that the application is uncontroversial and is suitable for grant. I would urge appropriate weight to be given but to the absence of a police representation when considering issues of crime or disorder and an absence of environmental protection objection as experts in public nuisance. In addition there is also no representation from the licensing authority as custodians of policy. To be clear I'm not playing down any issues that the residents may have raised in their representation but it's important that they are considered in context to the premises to which they relate. It does not appear from the landlord's knowledge nor the absence of representation from any of the responsible authorities that the issues and concerns that are raised in those representations are connected with the yard theatre. So for the residents benefit I would like to quickly signpost the ability of a review mechanism that they can use if they are having issues with particular premises and are not getting anywhere with the premises license holder and there is a section on the council's website that deals specifically for that. The statement of licensing policy does not contain any specific commentary on shadow licenses which isn't a criticism some local authorities do. Landlords have powers over their tenants outside of the licensing regime for example with lease covenants however as I said there are many circumstances in which a license can lapse and where a landlord is also a license holder that license can be used which can support continuity and stability both in terms of the operation of the premises, employment and the use going forward. The premises operate under an existing license as a theatre. Whilst the hours granted for that license are later than framework hours the statement of licensing policy and our signpost due to paragraph 16.9 names theatres as a type of premises which and I quote are not considered to make a significant contribution to the problems of late night antisocial behaviour and as such these premises will generally have greater freedom to operate outside of the framework hours. So to conclude, and I'm sorry I've lost track of where I am with time, that an applications for premises licenses are perfectly proper and are an increasing mechanism used by a landlord as a mechanism to protect their interest. The application is for a shadow license on exactly the same terms as the existing license. There is no new use proposed nor any extension of hours sought. The application is made by a reputable landlord and for premises where there are no known issues. There is no responsible authority representations and again I would urge appropriate weight to be given to that. By granting this license on exactly the same terms there can be no negative impact on the locality or the licensing objectives. In fact having a landlord as a license holder places an obligation on them to promote the licensing objectives. Thank you. It's in my mind and it's the issue of a temporary event notice. Can you assure me or give me some understanding whether this would not be an opportunity to double the number of temporary event notices? No it wouldn't chair. The number of temporary event notices that can be given are limited by the Act and they're limited both by reference to premises users which is effectively anyone who gives a 10. And not only to those but specifically also to the premises themselves. There's still a bit of a hangover from the COVID days but in essence it's 15 10s in any calendar year and that's effectively the same as once that limit is reached because it's defined by reference to the premises. Though that can't be increased any further than the existence of another license would make no difference to that. I've listened very carefully to your presentation which was brought to us in a very erudite fashion and you've explained that effectively this is just a doubling up of the existing license. So as far as I can tell we're the current license holder to depart the landlord can continue to operate the premises rather than having to suddenly potentially shut them down or something and reappear here. Have you done work with local residents to explain that situation because the residents clearly are concerned and they're just reading the letter the three representations that have been made there is a thought that this is a new application as to rather a doubling up on an existing application. Thank you chair and yes but we've written to the residents that made the representations, and that is in your report at page 130, and in which we've explained the purpose of the application and the fact that this is not a new use. And it is not an extension of ours, this is on exactly the same terms as the existing license and we've explained the purpose of the application as a shadow license, and we've explained that that is an increasingly common mechanism for proactive landlords to help manage their assets which include buildings left to license tenants to reiterate the proposal will not result in a new license venue in your area, nor any extension to hours or relaxation of conditions. Just two more other points, one is that the license is identical so it is the existing hours and existing conditions as they are. In terms of liaison with the residents because I think years of experience of doing this I've often discovered that residents have concerns and when they get to know applicants and understand what is going on it's a two way street because everybody understands this. Did you not or would you not consider perhaps either holding a meeting with residents or even a teams meeting where people would have come along and this could have been explained to them very carefully. Landlord would be absolutely happy to liaise with residents, so today this was a first application for a shadow license as it tended to cross the portfolio. The representations it received obviously signal to us that perhaps there is more explanation that needs to be done so the residents understand the intention of that and the fact that there is no new use as a result of the license made so absolutely the landlord would be pleased to do that. Colleagues, any questions? Thank you chair. Considering you have the license, what's the most benefit of your promises, do you reckon that you would be benefited by granting this license? So the shadow license is a mechanism to provide a safety net as it were for a landlord so if for any reason a license lapsed and that can lapse for so many ways when it's sometimes it's not even realized if a company that held a license goes into administration for example the license can lapse and people may not have even realized that's happened. So by the landlord holding the license they have a license of exactly the same terms as the current license and they can operate under that license should there be any issue with the original license so that cannot be used. So it ensures continuity, it allows the flame hour to condition so it is a mirror or a shadow of exactly the license that is in place. My second question is do you know of any breach of the contract or the current license that the premises held at the moment, are they running smoothly or is there any problem or any objection from the public, do you know of any? I've asked that question myself of the landlord and they are not aware of any issues raised by residents for example directly to them. So it's Jason Smith on behalf of Hatton Garden Properties, the landlord, the freeholder, they're an exemplary tenant of ours and actually we have documents out for signature today for an extension of their lease for another term of 30 years so they're a long term occupant of Queens Yard and will be a very long term occupant going forwards and they're an exemplary tenant for us. As my colleague alluded to we're making these applications across the whole of our portfolio and it's an extensive portfolio across London ready to protect our position and see the benefits for all concerned and the yard theatre was chosen for this estate as the most exemplary tenant of our estate. Thank you. Could I ask a technical question very quickly to the legal advisor? (no audio) So what the council was just asking me is whether we could make clear to the lady who had attended on behalf of someone who'd been nominated by someone to appear as to whether we can ensure she explains when strictly speaking she is here as a member of the public, she's not appearing in the sense of being here before the committee in relation to this one. Some of my advice is strictly speaking, no, but I'm sure that she will have understood that in any event. It might be when we adjourn for consideration if both sides had a chat outside. I could recommend that, would that be okay? I'm not in a meeting but outside when we've had the adjournment. Thank you. We now move to the concluding remarks. I'm not sure there's anything to say is there? Would you like to say anything more? Thank you, Chair. Just to reiterate, it's a shadow licence, exactly the same terms, hours, conditions, no new use is proposed, it sits behind the existing licence and no responsible authority reps and we will be happy to speak with the representative outside while you deliberate. Thank you. Thank you very much for your contributions. I'm sorry that the original people who put into the chat weren't able to make their contribution because I would like to have heard from them but I have tried my best by booking up the correspondence and questioning I've done and everything else to try and do what I can. The committee will deliberate in a private session after the meeting ends and you will receive a letter from Ms Yasmin of Democratic Services with five working days as the result of our deliberation which, as I explained to you, will also say how we've reached the decision and depending on what it is, of course, you have the right of appeal. I'm not sure if we were mindful of granting you a right to appeal against granting but you understand where I come from. Thank you very much for your attendance. Thank you. Item 4.2 has now gone which was the application for new premises licence. So we now go to item 4.3 which is an application for variation of premises licence for Studio Spaces Limited, 110 Pennington Street, London E12BB. There are lots of people. Jack Henry and Sarah Clover? Sarah Clover. And that's Jack Henry? May I suggest you sit there which was the most silent part of the proceeding. For those who have made representation, obviously I know because they're officers of the council but I don't want you to seem too familiar with the office. So I'd like to invite Ms Driver to acknowledge herself and Mr Sherwell as I know both of them. Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you very much. You know the procedure, you both decide to be given five minutes to speak after the application has been presented. I'm now turning to 247. If I can do as I said before, if when speaking, if you can refer to the pages in our bundle so we know what we're talking about because we've got like a double bundle here. I'm not going to open my laptop in case I have the same problem as the previous speaker and so referring to page numbers in that context is not going to be possible. I don't think it will be necessary based on what I'm going to say if you would prefer me to take a little more time then I can go backwards and forwards but five minutes is not very long at all. I think I'll risk without the page numbers and try and get as near as possible to five minutes. This is an application for variation of a premises license for studio space, E1 at 110 Pennington Street, London E1W2BB. A copy of the existing license is enclosed in appendix one on page 256 to 272. The hours for the current license are shown on page 248 in section 3.2. A copy of the variation application is enclosed in appendix two and this includes the plans of the premises on page 278 to 299. The applicant describes the variation as to extend the hours for all activities on a Sunday into a Monday morning and to make some minor amendments to the current plan. Although the hours on the application are different to what is on the license, the applicant has confirmed that it is only from Sunday night into Monday morning that the hours are changing. The conversation on an email is in appendix two, pages 274. The hours that have been applied for are for on sales only. Monday from midnight, so Sunday night, so Monday morning midnight to 7am. Provision of late night refreshments is from midnight to 5am and then provision of regulated entertainment in the form of plays, films, live recorded music, dance and anything of a similar nature from midnight on the Monday through to 6am. The opening hours of the premises are to extend from Monday midnight to 7am. Maps showing the location of the premises are in appendix three on page 301. Photographs showing the premises in the vicinity are in appendix four on page 304 and the nearby license premises are in appendix five on page 309. This hearing is required as there's been relevant representations made from the licensing authority and that's shown in appendix seven on page 315 and from the environmental protection and that's in appendix six on page 311. It's like the wrong way around in the reports, I've just adjusted them round. Thank you chair, that's the presentation. Thank you very much Miss Holland. At this moment I have no questions. Do colleagues have any questions? Yes if I can just quickly clarify something with Mr. Sherlock, just it might help to narrow things very slightly. I understand Mr. Driver doesn't object to the variation of the plan but Environmental Health don't actually say what their position is. Can we assume that the application as it relates to the plan variations is not objected to, it's only the hours that you're concerned with? Thank you. It's the change of plan as well as the hours. Yes, it's the change of the, so the Environmental Health objecting to is the change of the plan as well as to the operation hours. So you are objecting to the plan as well? Yes. Okay. Thank you and I think that's considerable clarity. We now move to the applicant. So you have your five minutes. Chairman, thank you very much indeed. I'll do my best to come in within five minutes. I hope you might be slightly indulgent if I go over, there's quite a lot to say. I'm the barrister on behalf of Studio Spaces. I've got Jack Henry sitting next to me who's the designated premises supervisor. Bit of a surprise to hear that there is an objection from EHO about the plan, I'll come to that in a moment. E1 is one of the most iconic clubs in the country, if not the world, has been since 2017. It's a jewel in the crown of the London club scene. It's already got a seven o'clock licence, so this is purely in relation to that Monday. The premises are championed by the Mayor of London's culture team. We've been through a number of planning applications as well. We've got a wealth of acoustic reports which the responsible authorities have declined to engage with. We've got a lengthy statement trying to record some of the most important points for you, so I hope you'll have an opportunity to read through that and absorb those. E1 has a following for a Sunday night into a Monday morning. It's a bespoke event. We've trialled it, the club has trialled it with special events already on the licence. They're allowed to extend until 7.30 in the morning on days before bank holiday, so that would be Sunday into a bank holiday Monday. And they've had a number of temporary events notices as well, so this isn't completely speculative. They have trialled this night, it's worked well, hasn't caused a problem, hasn't given rise to complaints. Environmental health obviously have the opportunity to object to temporary events notices and have not done so. The application has been discussed with the police. Originally the discussion was around an earlier closure of about three. The police said no, don't do that. Take it into six to seven o'clock because then your dispersal starts to merge with the morning rush to go to work and it actually causes less problem. Taking the police advice, that's the basis for this application. The variation has caused no issues for residents, there's been no residential representation at all. The application's been advertised twice because there was a glitch on it, so it's gone out for seven weeks, 56 consecutive days. Mr Henry has got a WhatsApp group on his phone with 138 residents in it. 100 residents also have his personal number and they can call him if they want to. Not one person has contacted in relation to this application or the WhatsApp group or Mr Henry's number to say that they would have a problem with this. Residents have made their feelings known in the past, so we know they're capable of it if they've got a problem, but previous applications have been granted and have demonstrated that there has been no problem. The police have also previously closely engaged with E1 for various reasons, so it's highly significant that they have not made a representation in objection to this application. On the basis of Thwaites and the section 182 guidance paragraph 9.42, I would highly commend that fact to you, particularly when talking about crime and disorder, which is one of Ms Driver's objections, which is something I'll come back to in due course of thought. Nobody had an objection to the plan, not quite sure why anybody would have an objection to the plan. It's a very minor technical movement, I'm sure Ms Driver can explain what it is, it doesn't seem as though Mr Sherwood is completely up to speed with what that change is. Really not very controversial, perhaps we can look at that in due course if need be. We've offered two additional conditions, it's very difficult to offer more conditions on this licence because it's got a very comprehensive operating schedule already, but there are two additional ones. Firstly, notifying police and licensing 14 days in advance of any of these openings on Monday so that they can check it out and see if they've got an issue, they're not expected to be every single week. And secondly, six monthly meetings with the responsible authorities to see if there have been any issues arising and to discuss any problems that they might have. Egress and dispersal is already very carefully and successfully managed, you've been shown the management plan, the venue management plan runs to 87 pages, it's very, very comprehensive, it's got an awful lot of policies in there which supplement the extensive conditions that are already on the licence. There's a dispersal policy, an entry policy, a queue management policy, premises are very well connected to public transport, it hasn't been an issue previously, dispersing people away to get them into public transport to get them away from the club at the end of the night. The premises are already an exception to the framework hours, to policy, both of these objections appear to be based on policy. Both of the responsible authorities base themselves on the exception to framework hours but these premises are already by some considerable margin an exception to framework hours and so it would not be granting an exception to policy, the premises are already an exception to policy and it would need to be explained why this exception was not acceptable as the previous exceptions are. We've offered site visits, they've not been taken up, the representation's final point from Ms Driver on behalf of the licensing authority appears to be based on crime and disorder. It's not prohibited for responsible authorities to raise issues other than their own licensing remit, it's not advisable if the responsible authority responsible doesn't have an objection as the police do here, so it's not really for Ms Driver to indicate what the police would want in terms of a veto or anything else. The examples of crime and disorder, I think there's one in relation to queuing and the other one was a complaint that was actually made by the premises themselves and Mr Sherwood brings no evidence at all of any complaints from residents and that is also extremely important. So those are the points I'd wish to make at this stage, very happy to answer questions. Wow, that was quick, thank you very much. Do colleagues wish to ask questions? I'll come back. I'd rather jump ahead, let's go to the objectors, I'm terribly sorry. Yes, sorry about that. I don't normally do. Thank you Chair. Sorry, apologies for that, I was just trying to get the two plans up but obviously at the time I looked at the plan and it was only a minor change from my point of view in the sense of the plan. I'm just obviously bringing this up for Joao's point of view for clarity on that but obviously from our point of view there is no objection to the change of layout that's been applied for. In terms of our objection, obviously that's at page 60, 61 and obviously we appreciate that the application and the conditions on the licence are... and obviously we appreciate that the application, and I assume that it's still continuing, that they've reduced it for 20 occasions a year or has that been declined now? Obviously there was an offer of potentially 20 occasions a year so I just wanted clarity on that, if that's not the case then we obviously continue our objection anyway. Mr Chairman, I'm very confused. I know that my licensing consultant made contact with Ms Driver to see if there was any way of withdrawing her objection to avert this hearing today. That was not accepted and so we are here before you with the application that has been made. If Ms Driver is now saying in the middle of her representation that she would like to negotiate, perhaps we could be given some time. I think we need to clarify with Ms Driver if that's what's actually being suggested because that's not what I understood it to be. No, because obviously we'd had that offer and obviously that was part of my presentation in terms of what was originally offered and obviously clarifying that matter. In terms of the objection, obviously we appreciate the 14 day notification to the license for environmental health and that would be useful in terms of obviously the notification and obviously monitoring that in terms of the impact. However, from the licensing authority we have to consider the impact on the area of the venue operating. Obviously it naturally operates at weekends until Saturday, until Sunday morning, until 7am Sunday morning and obviously adding the Sunday into Monday we feel will cause added disruption and impact on the business and residents in the area. Obviously at weekends I think there is that expectation from residents that the venue does operate at weekends. I think it's a different matter in terms of the disruption if it goes from a Sunday into a Monday morning. Obviously our framework hours are 10.30 in the evening. I think from a point of view of complaints, obviously there was a serious incident that has been referred to in my representation of the CS gas incident that took place in March. Obviously the police dealt with that separately and the venue did put in measures in place in terms of that. The complaints that we've had is about destruction of the highway, complaints of underage people attending the venue, public disturbances and an insecurity in the community. So we've got to obviously take into account, aside from the police obviously dealing with the crime and disorder, it's the anti-social behaviour of the people outside is more the licensing authority's remit, certainly from a complaint point of view that we receive and the noise of the customers when they leave. I think obviously operating until 6 o'clock, we know the venue is obviously not going to completely operate until everyone's not going to leave at 6am in the morning or 7am in the morning, but obviously there may be an impact on the times in between that, so obviously that's going to operate until the early hours. I think in terms of the disturbances that we've had from residents is obviously there's Artichoke Hill, Wapping Lane and it goes as far as Betts Street on the other side of the highway where the complaints have come from in the past. So I think our representation is that it's the egress of people attending and even recently the late night levy reported the taxis and the taxis that pull up outside the venue, they double park to pull up and drop residents off and I think that's obviously going to make to me more of an impact on that Sunday early hours Monday morning. In terms of how it's going to impact those residents. I mean obviously there are been no residents representations but obviously we've got a judge from point of view, the licensing authority as well and obviously the complaints that we've had and that's including obstructions of the highway in terms of the Monday morning as well. So I think that's going to cause an added problem when you've got commuters and everything else in the area at that time. I'll finish my representation there, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Eymer. Mr. Sherlock. Thank you, Chair. So my objection from the environmental health point of view is that the extension of the hour into early hour of the Monday is if it's being granted, then there will be seven and a half hours on extension on the existing framework hours. And also, there's been planning permissions given to residential development in the area surrounding the E1 nightclub, including the Pennington Street development which is on top of this E1 nightclub. So if we granted this licensing application extension of the hours, then therefore in the future, once these residential development has been completed, and the residents moved in to these new development, then they will be even closer than the current residents. So therefore, at the moment, although we haven't received any objection from the residents, but we as a licensing authority, we have a duty of care to protect the future occupiers of these already approved residential development. And so this is the reason that we believe we need to put in an objection for this variation to the operation hours. That's my presentation. Thank you. Just to deal with the legal point that arises from that which I anticipate that Ms. Clover would have picked up on in any event is the subcommittee's concern isn't with what might happen in the event of future development. And that falls down to the agent of change principle which applies with respect to planning, namely that new premises being built near to existing licensed premises should effectively, being agents of change, be the ones to take any mitigation measures rather than the licensed premises itself. And of course, it's going to be rather nebulous to say what the likely effect is on development in the future and of those residents who aren't even there. Chairman, may I address that as a legal point since your legal advisor has done so. This is hugely important because there have been two, at least two planning applications that have gone through Tower Hamlet's planning department and have been dealt with extensively over the course of a couple of years. And Studio Spaces has engaged fulsomely with both of those planning applications and the planning team and one of them at least has gone to inquiry in front of a planning inspector with Studio Spaces objection flatly in front of Tower Hamlet's planning department and the inspector for precisely that reason. That if future development is granted, particularly the one sitting on the top of Studio Spaces and new residents come in, they are likely to make complaints and for that reason the planning department and the inspector should refuse planning permission. And the department agreed, Tower Hamlet's planning department agreed with Studio Spaces position and it is desperately disappointing that the environmental team don't know this. It went to inquiry and the inspector said that there are ways for the developer of both of these developments to mitigate their own developments in such a way that Studio Spaces will not cause a nuisance to their residents. And on that basis, with those conditions implemented in the planning permission, the permission would be granted and it is upon that basis and that basis alone echoing the age interchange principle that your solicitor has so rightly identified for you that those planning permissions were granted. And it's not in the representation, it's not in the responsible authority representation which is a breach of the section 182 guidance as you know and section 18 of the hearings regulations not to put something in a representation and raise it for the first time at a hearing. But for the environmental health team not to know this history of the planning permissions affecting Studio Spaces is very disappointing and certainly wouldn't survive appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I do find it difficult of course because we do have the extant planning permissions and there will be very, very quickly residents coming in but of course we can't talk about people that aren't there and I do understand that. Our framework hours are quite clear but we do sometimes go beyond them and I find it very, I think it is rather difficult this issue of the necessity to go on Sunday night to six in the following morning. I do find that somewhat excessive but there we are. Ms Driver have you consulted with anybody locally on this issue of the six o'clock on the Monday morning? We've had no contact from residents in terms of the application certainly obviously any representations would have been produced for this hearing. So residents as far as we know, well no residents have raised anything. Okay, thank you very much. I can confirm that notices were obviously placed at the venue and I think I even requested one to be cleared at the front as well because I think when I visited it was in the business window and it was certainly pushed out to the front. Mr Henry did you consult with any residents beyond fixing the statutory notice? Yes, so we consulted with the residents through our WhatsApp group and we advised them that our operation would be changing slightly of which we had no negative response. Within the WhatsApp group did you refer to the extending six hour, up to six o'clock on Monday morning? Yes, so they had a full copy of the blue notice that was positioned outside the venue. Thank you for that. Colleagues, do Councillors have any questions? Councillor Salih Ahmed. Thank you, Chair. I just come to your WhatsApp group first. What's the WhatsApp group like? Is it a large amount of people or how did you create it? How did you create that? So I believe the WhatsApp group has been running for over five years now. My predecessor is DPS and also the premises licence holder, Mr Hen. He made a lot of connections with the residents. Obviously we have been in the area for some time and the licence has been active for several years. To get to that point obviously our collaboration and working together with the residents was key for that. So we created WhatsApp group to tackle issues that are not only arising towards the venue but things that we could help local residents tackle elsewhere. There was several years ago some low level drug dealing taking place on the street of which we positioned security and stewards to eliminate that over the weekend period of when we were operating. So when did you say it was created? As far as I'm aware I've been in the group for just under a year now but I've been aware of it for over three and a half years. Although Jonathan clearly mentioned that we can't take into account the potential development that's coming up, do you have any knowledge anyway that the size of the development is going to be there? And the amount of new residents are likely to be there? Have you got any knowledge of the planning? Thank you. Yes, so I am also happen to be the ESO review the original planning application as well. So, but I don't have exactly the size of the development, but it's on top of my head it's around 15 stories. So, the nearest one. And also I want to emphasise that in my original objection letter, I did mention the noise sensitive premises, including the residential premises at London Dock, which is the permitted development. So, that is in my original objection to the applicant. Chairman, I've let this go. If you'd like to signal, come back to me please, I'll call you after we've spoken. It's a legal objection. Well, I suspect I can anticipate what Miss Clover is going to say, and I'd be advising you pretty much in exactly the same terms as I've already advised, if there can't be noise sensitive premises, if they don't even exist at this point in time. Is that your objection? That's absolutely it, and the more that the committee hears about impermissible submissions, the more it runs the risk of influencing the decision, and the worse it becomes. I think we're quite used to that. That's why I'm bending over backwards to be very careful for everybody of impermissible decision making. I can't quite work out how to ask it, so I can't ask it. Okay, we'd like to go to summing up if the objectors would like to sum up very quickly for about a minute. Chair, I don't wish to add to much more, but obviously in terms of my objection, obviously it remains, I think the highlighted issue is not necessarily even a residential that isn't there, there's residential already there in Wocking Lane, I choke Hill, an opposite even along the highway that residents are affected. Chair, that really concludes my remarks. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I want to emphasise that the objection from EHO is focused on the extension of the hours into early morning Mondays, so with this application, if it's been granted, then effectively the site can operate on every Monday until 7am. So that is my remarks. Thank you. I think I phrased my concern on that before we get to the summing up. I mean, it does look as if really you wish to operate the premises almost from a continuous weekend event, almost non-stop, that's what I find. I'm trying to work out, I can't work out how to phrase it, but that's my concern, so if you'd like to perhaps look at that as you sum up. I will, again, one minute is significant. You go over one minute because it's an important issue. I'm so sorry? You're welcome to go over one minute because I think it's a very important issue. I'm grateful, because it is very important and it's a legal point as much as anything else. The concern is framed around why going beyond the framework hours Sunday into Monday and operating continuously from Friday through to 6, 7 o'clock on a Monday. Firstly, one has to bear in mind that this is a flexible situation. This isn't necessarily every single Monday of the year, as has been suggested. Secondly, it's been trialled and this is very, very important. It's not a completely speculative application that nobody knows what will happen. It's been trialled because the premises are already allowed to trade up until these times on a bank holiday. Bank holiday background noise levels are lower, not higher, than a working Monday. So if there were issues and noise and trouble, residents would highlight that. It's not absolutely continuous as it happens because there is a break and this idea of starting at 8 o'clock in the morning and running right the way through to 6 or 7 o'clock the following morning makes it sound as though it is continuous on every occasion. It's not. This is a multi-use, multi-functional venue and it has galleries in it and photograph studios in it and corporate spaces and conference spaces and the club and the smaller disco area and that kind of thing. And the hours, although they appear to be continuous, are actually discontinuous in relation to these different events for different groups of people at different times. And you might have, although infrequently, a box fizz reception for the opening of an art display, for example. And then you might have something in the afternoon and you might have something in the garden and somebody might be doing a corporate promotion, for example, and they want to have wine or champagne there. And then you have the club in the evening and all of these activities within the space are disaggregated. They're not continuous. It makes it sound as though people are going to turn up and be drinking from 8 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock the following morning and that isn't how it is. And the police know that which is why they're not here and it would have been very helpful if the responsible authorities had taken the opportunity to come and do a site visit. But what they said was we don't need to because we're making a policy objection and they can't make a policy objection because the premises already exceed your policy hours and you have to look and see how that would look on a decision. We're going to refuse on the basis of a policy that has already been exceeded. That's not sustainable, as a legal argument goes. What one needs to look at at this point is the impact on the licensing objectives. What would the impact of this, that's what the law says, what is the impact of the variation application on the four licensing objectives and the way to test that is empirically. Firstly, what problem has it caused when it has been done in real time? Secondly, what problems do the residents anticipate for themselves based on their general experience? And that's a very vital piece of the puzzle because residents are very well capable of extrapolating what happens on a Friday or a Saturday and thinking that is going to happen to me on a Sunday as well and particularly before I go to work on a morning. They're your litmus test, that's your touchstone. If they're not saying that and they don't have concerns and they do have confidence and they know they're able to get hold of Mr Henry if they need him, then that is the baseline for whether there's going to be impact on the licensing objectives and that is sufficient for granting the variation. Because what you can then do if there are factual evidenced problems and evidence is very important, if there are evidenced problems then the responsible authorities or the residents can bring a review and that is the way that licensing works. It is a permissive regime that says yes when it can and no when it must and what the responsible authorities are trying to do is to say no on a just in case basis and I still haven't heard what Mr Sherwood's objection is to the plan. Thank you. Right, thank you for your contributions. As I said earlier on we will deliberate in a private session early on, you will be notified within five working days of the decision, of our decision and that will inform you whether the decision was unanimous or by vote and will be up to you to act in accordance with what the decision is. The next item on the agenda is extension of any deadlines. Do we have any extensions? No chair. I just formally announced that on the published agenda there was an application for a ten for the colour factory at Queen's Yard White Post Lane. The item was withdrawn by the applicant. Thank everybody for your contributions. This part of the meeting is closed. We will now go into a closed session to deliberate and reach our decision. Thank you.