Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the licensing subcommittee. My name is Councillor Shiba Hussain, I'm the chair of the licensing subcommittee. The meeting is being held in person. Committee members and key participants are present in the meeting, and there may be some joining remotely online today. By the way, this meeting is being filmed for the council's website for public viewing. I would like to remind members at the meeting to only speak on my direction and speak clearly into the microphones. There's a button, you just press it once you're ready to speak. And please ensure that the contributions can be properly recorded. And members, now, please, and officers, introduce yourselves, please. Members. Good evening. My name is Ahmadur Khan, and I'm the Councillor for Blackwell. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Muhammad, and I'm the Councillor for the Blackwell. Thank you. Officers. Nivee Miller-Johnson, licensing. Simi Yasmin, democratic services. Jonathan Eldick, legal services. There's been no apologies. Do members have any declarations to declare? No declarations, sorry. Can members please note the rules on procedures on page 9 to 18 on the agenda? Thank you. Could you? So, chair, if I would like to ask the chair members to please vary the order of business. So if you could hear application 3.2 first and followed by 3.1, that's okay. Perfect. Chair, so 3.2 is an application for a new premises licence for solid floor 7A, Esra Street, London, E27RH, chair, please note that the applicant present is Peter coinsby, his licensing agent, followed with Elke van Bles and Bob Weems. In terms of those that have made representations, we have Mr. Charles Garrard, Mr. Adrian Heathfield who has joined us virtually, Duncan Campbell, Christopher Shepherd and Matt Cassini who are all present here at the meeting. 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. Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda pack in advance. Thank you, chair. Can I ask LIVIN Miller-Johnson, the licensing officer, to introduce the report, please? Thank you, chair. This is an application for a premises licence for solid floor and it is at 7A, Esra Street, London, E27RH. The applicant has described the premises as, the venue is a Victorian warehouse with a yard and a roof terrace. Solid Floor Limited is a flooring company. The owners of this property would like the opportunity to transform the showroom into a restaurant over the two floors, courtyard and roof terrace where they could comfortably accommodate 80 diners. A copy of the application is enclosed as appendix 1, pages 116 to 137. The hours that have been applied for are as follows. The sale by retail of alcohol on sales only Monday to Thursday from 9am until 10.30pm, Friday and Saturdays from 9am until 11.30pm and Sundays from 9am until 7.30pm. There's also non-standard timings which is days preceding bank holidays from 9am until 11pm. The provisions of late night refreshments indoor only Friday and Saturdays from 11pm until 11.30pm. Also non-standard timings preceding bank holidays from 11pm until 11.30pm. The hours that the premises will be open to the public Monday to Thursday 9am until 11pm, Friday and Saturdays 9am until midnight and Sundays from 9am until 8pm. Under the non-standard timings, the applicant has stated hours for days preceding bank holidays. Members may wish to confirm what specific days they refer to. There are maps of the venue which is included at appendix 2, page 139. As shown the facility is included at appendix 3, page 142 to 143. Details of the nearest licensed venues are included at appendix 4, pages 145 to 147. Representations have been received from residents. These can be found at appendices 5 to 21 which is pages 149 to 197. Members have been agreed with the local authority licensing. These can be found on page 199 to 201, that's appendix 22. Do members have any questions to the licensing officer? Do you know how many so far have complained have you received from, complained? Any objection? The number of representations received, 17. Have the officer come to the conclusion that the applicant is fulfilling all the conditions? Sorry, can you repeat that, please? How did you get, come to a conclusion that applicant has fulfilled all the conditions required by council for the license? Excuse me, council. At the moment it's just questions for the officer about the content of the report in terms of, excuse me, questions about the application itself and what the applicant is or isn't going to do. They need to be directed at the applicant and he will obviously need to make his presentation to this committee first. Okay. Okay. Sure, then. Can I now ask the applicant to present the application, please? The applicant has been a leaseholder of the property for six years, he knows the area very well. During that time the premises have been operating as a bespoke wooden flooring company, a company that was founded by my client 30 years ago. I must point out it's an application to license the premises in question to sell alcohol, not for the premises to be a restaurant. It's already got the correct use class to be a restaurant. The style of restaurant may well depend on whether the venue is granted a license today or not, and the idea of which will be touched on shortly by my client. The idea being that it's going to be a fine dining, high-end restaurant. The definition of such is that these types of establishments have certain rules for dining which visitors are expected to follow. Such a venue sets it apart from other eateries, and I mention this as many of the representations are not specifically against the venue selling alcohol, they're against it becoming a restaurant. And I mention fine dining as the application has been put together with two thoughts in mind, that it is a fine dining restaurant, and secondly, that the operating schedule was constructed to ensure it maintains the highest of standards. The venue is not an accumulative impact area, as per the policy drawn up less than a year ago, but the point being the operating schedule that we put together was written with the robustness of a venue in such an area. As per my letter in August in response to the representations, we are generally grateful to know the concerns of local residents to the project. My client doesn't wish to unsettle anyone in the area, and for that reason, has put a number of conditions in place and offered a number of additional measures to mitigate those concerns raised. Unlike many restaurants, the premises is not on a main road, but more of an industrial road with limited residential properties. There are no residents above the venue or directly next door, where one would ordinarily expect greater concern. There are residents to the rear of the venue that at present the windows do overlook, but I'll come to that later. The nearest residents within Ezra Street are in the bold building, and if you were to turn to page 17 of your supplementary bundle, there's a Google image. You'll see bold labeled by Google, and L-shaped building of three floors, and the building to the right of the bold building with three larger and one smaller skylight is entirely commercial, also over three floors. Sorry, you have your time. Can we continue, please? We will come back. You'll have your time. As we move towards Ravenscroft Street at the end of the bold building, there are a couple of large trees at the same height of the buildings before we reach Blackbird Yard. As noted on page 17 of the nearest, any outside diner will be sat at the residence of Blackbird Yard is over 50 meters across a courtyard of trees, the bold building, and a three-floored commercial building. The likelihood of chatter over dinner being heard in Blackbird Yard above that of ambient noise already present is, in our opinion, highly unlikely. In any case, the quiet chatter of conversation, if it could be heard, is probably favored over the current day use of power saws at the premises. Going back to the residence at the rear, my client had already discussed with me prior to the application that it was likely the windows would be blocked up as mentioned in the introduction to the application. As a result of the concern for those residents, it was agreed immediately that they would not just be covered over this light, the windows would be removed and bricked up, negating the issue. Advice will be taken on the legality of that bricking up, but the point being here is they will not serve as windows anymore. As you will note from my letter in response to representations, we've answered all the concerns and a number of other concessions have been made as a result of acknowledging those reps. No speakers or other vibrating equipment to be mounted on the rear wall, amending the hours of commencement for sale of alcohol to 11am, ensuring that all suppliers of food and drink to the venue will be instructed by the licensee to park their vehicles in the yard and not to park on the street, which is exactly what happens now with suppliers. Bullet point on the other issues, it's becoming more of a rarity for people attending such a restaurant to drive, cars and parking will not be an issue. A survey in 2022 in London showed that over 67% of people walk, cycle or use public transport when going out socially in London and according to other clients in the trade, this is increasing. My client cannot demand that people do not drive, nor where they park, but obviously can advise and assist with public transport options. The collection of waste which has been raised as an issue will not change, it's already collected at a specific time and will continue to do so, so this will have no adverse impact. Music will be at background levels whereby conversation could be heard without raised voices and we have offered to condition the volume of that music. Special areas will be closed by 9pm. Touching on a petition submitted by one of the reps, page 15151 for 2 of your bundle, I'd like to put it into context, it states the names and addresses of locals that agree with the statement and I'm sure many would agree with the statement, but would they actually be affected by this premises selling alcohol? We're trying to mitigate every issue and find amicable solutions and I have no issues with the petitions as they're great to gather support, but there needs to be relevance to that support or in this case objection. The closest resident to the venue within that petition resides over 200 metres away, the furthest being 8 kilometres away, they're not local in that they wouldn't be directly affected by the restaurant, however it may be that their parents and children attend in the school and have signed for that reason. If that be the case, as the school has been mentioned in some of the reps, we don't consider that a restaurant of this calibre will affect the children of the school, especially as the main gate to the school is in Columbia Road, not in Ezra Street. The only responsible authority to submit a representation during the consultation period was Environmental Health, they asked us to add three conditions onto the operating schedule, all of which were done anyway, were being done anyway and they were immediately agreed. There was no representation for the police or licensing authority and I think that's quite important because in my opinion as a retired police officer that worked in licensing in the Met, if there had been a number of valid complaints recorded by the local authorities and the police, it is their duty to object, but they, the experts and such that have the facts and figures did not. I don't want to keep repeating myself, but the premises will operate as a restaurant. It has that permission already. We believe we've answered every concern and mitigated where possible for all representations, be they in relation to the venue becoming a restaurant or related to the application that the venue be permitted to sell alcohol, which is the main reason we are here. Will this venue increase crime and disorder? We think not and more importantly, neither do the police. Will it affect public safety? Again, we think not. Policies and procedures within the venue are in place as agreed. Will the venue prevent public nuisance? Yes. The applicant has already assessed the potential of life pollution to the rear, blocking up windows. There's a robust system for literally external checks to be in place. The diners will be encouraged to arrive and depart by public transport. Alcohol here is not the draw. The draw and emphasis is the fine dining of the restaurant. As for protecting children from harm, all policies will be in place. If I may, for the last couple of minutes, I'll just pass over to Mr Ilka van Blaes who will introduce himself and a little bit more about the restaurant project. Thank you. I'm the founder of Solid Floor, started Solid Floor 30 years ago in the UK and then took Ezra Street on. I'm a local in Ezra Street, I live four minutes walk away, I believe in the area. But since lockdown, retail has changed, people do not shop as much anymore and people are more into experiences. And I always had a desire to open a restaurant as an other venue. And I believe that this building is very suitable for that and we also invested a lot of money in this building and hope to get our investments back, hence we made an application in December and were granted the restaurant use in January. I do not see personally what the problem is, why there are objections in regards to more fruitful as of what it is today. Yes, there will be a different time when people come to the area, to our site, than at least what we do now between 10 and 6 o'clock, but there is a lot of people in the area anyway. And to have a restaurant which is, we are aiming to have a very fine dining, the type of person who comes will not be a disturbance to the area. It will not be people who sit in the area, drink in the street, none of that. We are aiming for a high end. But if we cannot get a drink slice, then we need to have a different type of restaurant, which I don't think will be beneficial to the area, where people are concerned about. You have one minute remaining. I don't know what I actually further can add to this, so thank you, chair. Thank you, guys. Now, can I ask the objectors to present the objections. You have five minutes each before we do that. Before you do speak, and I will leave it to Ms. Yesmin to decide which order you are going, it would be really helpful if you just give your name, because I will need to find you in the papers. I have got the names, so can I ask Charles Gerard to speak. Are you Charles? Also can I speak to Charles, hear from Charles first, and then we'll come to you, we just have to follow the order. Sorry, Charles. Charles Gerard. I am the co-owner of 7 and 7B Ezra Street, occupant of 7B and next door neighbour of 7A. We bought the building derelict and rebuilt it, and I have had a working studio space there with the yard outside since 1986. Adding perhaps 600, maybe up to a thousand users a day to this small historic street is a terrible idea, and extremely unpopular with local businesses, residents, and residents as the volume, variety, and veracity of the objections amply demonstrate. But the planning consultant reminds us that the planning stages of the site in principle allows, and I quote from, it's a very broad planning section, section E, it covers all kinds of things, but in this instance sale of food and drink for consumption mostly on the premises, that is the letter of what the planning commission thought that is, amongst a lot of other, I've got to be quick, this does mean that it would be legal for a subtenant to open a business selling food on the premises there, therefore it could be argued that these many objections are not pertinent to the application. This is not so as it is highly unlikely that anyone would want to open an 80 seater unlicensed premises in a tiny street off the beaten track with notoriously bad traffic and parking issues. So the granting of a license would actively encourage the opening of such an oversized venue. Also contrary to the consultant's comment, if we were forced to add another restaurant to the street, a restaurant without a license would certainly not be as much of a threat to the locality as a licensed one is. The application does not reveal who the new subtenant will be. If one has not yet been found, the landlord and tenant must be looking for a subtenant who will run a high end restaurant on the site, as that is what the application purports to be for. Excuse me, Mr. Garrard, your representation is concerned with the impact on the street on traffic blockages. I'm coming to that. I'm coming to that chair. Can you please address that? I'm addressing it. If I may finish, you've got to focus on your representation. What you're adding is effectively new information. No. It's a precursor to my other points. So please let me get on with it because my time is running. If one has -- clearly adding a liquor license would be a big step towards attracting such a tenant and one would be unlikely to come forward without it. Therefore the license application is based on the supposition that such a subtenant would be found. A restaurant on this scale would almost inevitably be corporate and would be a cuckoo in the already crowded Ezra Street nest. It is therefore vital that all of the objections are taken into account and that no license is granted. In addition, with all the good will in the world, restaurant ventures, large and small, often fail. So even -- even if the perfect subtenant alluded to in the application can be found, they may quickly disappear and leave us locals with precedent set facing a far less civilized license premise than that proposed. The application is professionally researched and ticks as many boxes as it can in terms of promising to comply with all the bylaws and requirements. It may look sound on paper, but there are a great many massive downsides for us locals in it. However many hunnid reassurances we are given, they could be avoided. This will inevitably be -- there will inevitably be noise from extraction machinery and music played too loud, as well as the cooking fumes and a huge influx of people. I would like to quickly go through some of the specific issues addressed by the planning consultant's letter to our subjectors. This is a reply to what I sent in. The venue will be a high-end destination restaurant. How do we know? No details of a tenant have yet been given. External license areas will be closed by 9 p.m. Forgive me if I have overlooked it, but where are the external licensable areas? The yard at the front cannot be used as it is stated in the application that it will be used for deliveries and waste. The roof terrace cannot be used as it will cause overlooking problems and interference with the work in our yard. Next point. All suppliers of food and drink to the venue will be instructed by the licensee to park their vehicles in the yard and not on the street. This does not generally happen, even the small number of deliveries to the current business. It's very difficult to get in and out of the yard. Turning is difficult on the corner and blocks the traffic. Only one vehicle can pass down the street at a time and the few parking spaces are almost always occupied. Properties are often made to all the properties in the street by vans stopping in the road or parking on the pavement, very often blocking our crossover, gates and doors and obstructing other traffic trying to get through. People visiting solid floor often park on the pavement, sometimes blocking out access to our gates. The overwhelming majority of people travel to these restaurants these days by public transport and not in their own vehicle. This is just not true of a high-end destination. This is not true of a high-end destination restaurant. Some clients will use their own cars and decide to park on the pavement, but very many will use Ubers and taxis, which will inevitably get snarled up, especially at peak times. So you don't want me to finish? I have more things which I can always supply later. Let's talk about the experience of living on Ezra Street, which is, as you've seen, a narrow Victorian street with high walls most of the way down that amplify noise like an echo chamber. And the windows of our rented one-room studio flat are, in fact, 25 to 30 yards from these large licensable outdoor terraces where it's planned to have big numbers of people eating, talking and drinking. What has been presented is factually incorrect in relationship to the places where we actually live. And we have nowhere to go away from the noise or from the spill-out from this proposed licensed restaurant. Ezra is a street that everyone assumes, as the representation has, that no one lives on because of the builder's yard and because of the school that dominates the representation of the street. But, in fact, there's housing all the way down and around this site. And yet more alcohol licenses. There are already four, in the space of 25 yards from 7A, four alcohol licenses. And a license at this scale, which is extraordinary, will massively impact street noise till very late at night. This is compounding a situation where there is already a lot of drunken disturbance from many venues and antisocial behavior from drive-by drug deals and people using the street to take nitrous oxide. This is my lived experience of being here. And I'm very, very surprised that the police haven't made any representation here. That's quite disturbing. In fact, when you look at the Met's crime site in relationship to this specific street and this area, you'll see that, in fact, Ezra Street is a local hotspot, particularly for antisocial behavior and theft. The two crimes where Tower Hamlets exceeds the general crime rate in London. And is, in fact, worst performing in those areas. So this is a part of our lived experience here. And alcohol licenses will just add to our problems. Two quick final points. The noise pollution from waste trucks at 1 or 2 a.m., as the applicant's representation suggests, will actually be significantly increased for an 80-seater restaurant. It's not true to say it will be the same as a wood flooring shop or facility. We're talking about daily waste and daily waste retrieval. And I'd also finally ask the counselors to seriously consider the impact on the quality of life for the kids in our building, my 3-year-old, who is woken at night frequently by antisocial behavior, and a disabled early teen who is highly noise sensitive due to her disability will be significantly disturbed by the scale of this development and its noise pollution. Thank you. Thank you. Now can I ask Duncan to speak? Duncan, could you put your mic on, please? Sorry. Thank you. My name is Duncan Campbell, thank you very much for hearing our objections. Ever since it was announced that there was a plan to have a license for an 80-person restaurant, I've spoken to dozens of people who live in the neighborhood. Every single one of them is dismayed by it and very much opposed to it. And that is without a lot of people being aware of the application being made in the first place. It's a very short, narrow, already has a small restaurant wine bar and a pub. And putting another restaurant in there would mean a large number of people arriving, they make a noise when they arrive, they will come and they will order Uber cars afterwards, however much we're told that people come by public transport. And it would create an enormous public nuisance. And that is the essential result of granting a license to an 80-person restaurant selling alcohol from 9 a.m. until sometimes 1130 at night. It would mean I have a window that also lays onto the street, we're used to that kind of noise, but you would be quadrupling the effect that we already have in the neighborhood. It would be a nightmare, and that's one of the many phrases that people have used at the idea of an 80-person licensed restaurant in the area. So public nuisance would be enormous. And as Adrian has said, it does attract when people see lots of people arriving, oh, let's come from around the corner from the pub, there's lots of people on the street. It would turn into this enormous amount of noise and nuisance. Another key factor in the objections is that Columbia School, which looks after children from the ages of 3 to 11, is right there on the corner. The children arrive there between 8 and 9 in the morning, and they're picked up between 3 and 5 in the afternoon. Just at the time in the morning when the delivery vans are arriving, we already have them. I walk down Ezra Street every morning to my newsagent. I see the vans arriving for the existing, much, much smaller restaurant with, you would quadruple that amount of traffic with the proposed restaurant, 80 people for lunch every day, 80 people for the evening, however high-end they are, they make a lot of noise. When they're drinking, they come out onto the street and they make even more noise, and quite a bit of this restaurant, apparently, is planned to be in the open air anyway. It would just make it intolerable for people who live and work in the area. And in terms of objections to this, we were only made aware of this just as the holiday period was starting. I've spoken to people who have children at the school. They were upset and outraged about it, but the school was just about breaking up, and we had only a small amount of time to respond. So I would just say to members of the committee, how would they feel if an application to open a large licensed restaurant, selling drinks 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, more or less outside their bedroom window, around the corner from where they work, or at the back of the house where they live with their family, would they not object? I'm talking about people who, the others who have objected, come from Ravenscroft Street, from Ezra Street, from Shipton Street, and from Columbia Road. That is the level of opposition to this plan for a licensed restaurant that runs right across the neighbourhood. It would cause, we already have problems with fly-tipping, you were suddenly having 80 people and all their bottles and waste, and however much the assurances were given, and we have read the responses, but it's a response that, looking at where it came from, which I think was from Cambridgeshire, not from people who live and work in the neighbourhood, and whose lives would be very badly damaged if you were to grant this license. It would make life quite intolerable for many of us. Thank you. Thank you. Can I now get Christopher to speak? Thank you very much. Thank you, members of the committee. I think Adrian already dealt with the factual point that what's described as the bold building is in fact not a commercial building, it's a residential building, and all that's there is right next, it's the closest 20, as Duncan says, 20 metres away, you've got 16 flats, it's not a commercial building. I had invited the applicant to also allow me to share the Police UK crime statistics for the area, but they declined to accept that at this point, but nonetheless we can submit that to you, and you can see that actually, as with the area, there is a crime hotspot within the area. It is undoubtedly the statistics are there. And my main point about this is that you can't consider this application without thinking about the neighbourhood as a whole. It was also me, other committee members, I think, will have seen this map centring on the primary school, which shows licensed premises of which there are 25 within 300 metres, seven of them within 100 metres of the primary school. There's a real surfeit of alcohol selling premises, and the effect of that, of course, and adding more to that, is to create a night-time economy. That's what's bit by bit happening to this area, and you know we don't have to have a crystal ball to know what that's going to mean, because you already have that within the borough, in Brick Lane, and you know what the effect is when you have this concentration of these kind of properties. The neighbouring parking area to us, we're A1, A5, has had to make residents' parking the restriction 24 hours a day at weekends, because people come apart. They don't come, they don't, people drive and they use Ubers. It's a myth to think that people are taking public transport. If you stand on Ezra Street, on Ravenscroft Street, outside Braun Restaurant, which is one of these ones, also a kind of high-end restaurant, you see people turning up. There can be no discussion about that, and you will also know, the council members will know what happens in these zones, as you have in Brick Lane, and the immediate adjoining one on Shoreditch High Street, that all the uses of the emergency services go up because of that concentration. The statistics are there, the facts are there, we already have the local crime statistics. So it's not possible to take this application without understanding the added effect, the cumulative effect, in the whole neighbourhood of what's going on. This would become the largest single destination within the area. And of course, people go, they drink, if it's an outside space, they drink outside. Of course, Duncan is right, that attracts other people into the area. Of course there's a cumulative effect of that, and I think that is what we really need to pay attention to. I want to make one other point, which is, I did write to the committee members about what I call the silent majority of our neighbourhood, which is the people who live in the blocks around. And we have some knowledge of that, because when there was the application at the Birdcage pub to have a licence at 3am, Duncan and I actually went door to door to those to ask people, and 100 people signed a petition for that application. They were predominantly Muslim residents, who were simply against the proliferation of alcohol in this area, particularly an area that is focused on a primary school. So I think you have to pay attention not to us, this little group of middle-aged white men who have turned up, but to the people who haven't, for one reason or another, turned up to have an opinion. They do have a voice, they do have an opinion, and I'll just need five seconds to that. I think you just need to imagine yourselves what the effect is in the community if you live there. Thank you very much, all of you. Thank you. If the members will have the opportunity to ... Oh, sorry, sorry, Matt. Can I get ... One second, I'll just clarify, I think Mr. Gassini, I'll probably mispronounce that, is speaking on behalf of someone else, is that correct? Yes, Matthew, I'm Matt Genassi, I'm speaking on behalf of, and in conjunction with my wife, Deborah T. Young. We live on ... Yeah. That's fine, thank you. Nice one, Matt. You've got five minutes. Thanks very much for the opportunity. I live on Shipton Street, immediately behind the premises. First of all, I want to say Solid Floor has been a great neighbor, and we've enjoyed having good neighbors in the short time we've lived in the neighborhood, certainly not as long as any of you. We actually do look forward to having another nice restaurant in the neighborhood, and certainly will plan to enjoy that. We look forward to that on the condition, I think, that certain steps are taken to reduce the nuisance potential for the property. I think it's a unique site. It's a unique neighborhood with characteristics that I think require additional safeguards in order to reduce the nuisance. We're very, very close to the property and to the planned premises. We can see the inside of the current, I believe, architecture studio from most of the rooms in our house, from our hallway, from the bathroom, from two bedrooms. It's only a few meters away. It's even closer from the backyard. You know, I think the prospect of having boisterous noise and vibrations from that room carrying into our property is what concerns us most. I appreciate that you have indicated the intention to take certain steps to block up the windows, as well as to reduce vibration potential through that wall. I guess my main purpose in being here is just to make sure that those intentions and kind of expressed plans are actually reflected in the licensing, and so they're actual requirements. I think plans to investigate whether to break up the back window sound good, but I would like to see some firmer commitment to prevent light pollution and noise pollution through that back wall. I think stated intention to reduce vibrations and not attach anything to that back wall, that's great. I appreciate it. We can hear loud conversations through the wall in our kitchen. It's not an issue because of the way the buildings are currently used, but 80 conversations fueled by alcohol, I think it's going to be a different story. So we think that additional steps need to be taken to account for the construction quality along this shared back wall. I think it's, again, we appreciate the steps that you've offered to take. I would just like to see those reflected in the license so that they are enforceable. I won't go too much further than that. I think these objections or concerns are not about alcohol per se, but they're about the exacerbating effects that the alcohol can have on the nuisance potential of any establishment there. I think that concept is implicit in the nature of the conditions that are included in these licenses in the first place, closing windows after a certain period of time, et cetera. So I think, you know, this is -- these comments are in the spirit of the current licensing conditions. We would just ask for further safeguards to account for that unique nature of the property. Now members will have the opportunity to ask questions. Do members have any questions for either parties? Thank you. My question to the applicant, the resident said the school are near to the corner and also more than 100 metres, is this true or not? I didn't understand exactly what you -- >> The resident explained the school are near to the corner. How far from the -- your pardon, you said to the school, how far, the hundred -- How far from us? I don't know exactly how far it is. It is the other corner. And most of it, there is a little yard where the children play, and for the rest it's brick. The opening time from the school and the restaurant don't really -- you know, I don't really see that there is a big problem. Dining will take place. Yes, there will be some lunch, but most of it will be in the evening, and the school is closed. So I don't really see a direct confliction. Could we -- I apologise for interrupting. Could we stick to the question asked, please? I haven't measured, you know, I can't measure it, but it is opposite corner. So it is -- >> Could you turn off your mic, if that's all right? Yes. My question at the moment to the applicant, have you done a local survey, the local residents, that what impact it will bring to the area, if you open this restaurant with 80 people in it, and also is having the alcohol? No, we have not. We haven't consulted the neighbours, no. I don't also -- when I opened my timber flooring company, I didn't consult the neighbours either, ask if they thought it was a good idea. In the yard next to us on Sundays, there used to be bacon, sandwiches, there was coffee. On Sundays, the yard next door is quite busy. Did you ever consult people? I don't think we're supposed to speak to each other, are we? I had a complaint from your -- from the pre-holder. Sorry, guys. Yeah, exactly. I don't think we're supposed to speak to each other. You can turn off your mic. Another question to the -- >> Jonathan, to jump in quickly, please. There are procedural, we don't have direct questions between the parties, otherwise it will degenerate into chaos, that's -- so obviously, please, I can appreciate, you know, it can be quite fraught for people, I appreciate obviously from the resident's perspective, it's their homes, they're very concerned, I appreciate it from the applicant's point of view as well, it's business, it's livelihood, but if people could please just focus on when members are asking the questions, what's being asked, please just answer that, nothing more, and try not to get drawn into making further submissions, otherwise it just prolongs everything and makes it a lot more difficult to deal with, thank you. My question to the applicant is that is there anything else the applicant do to win you guys over, and he has his business? I know applicants often apply for something with very extended time, for instance, this is 9 till 11.30, and so on, and then they offer to reduce it, just the fact of having an 80 person licensed restaurant means for us a lot of public nuisance, a lot of noise at night as people leave, they've been drinking, they make more noise when they've been drinking. The reference to the school, the point I was making is that when children are arriving in the morning with their parents is just at that time when vans start delivering, when children are being picked up at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, it's just as the first wave of drinking diners, however high end they may find their drinking and however expensive their wines are heading off in their cars and their Ubers, so there's two different times when the effect on the school, which is more or less next door, it's literally sort of 15 yards across the road from the proposed restaurant, so that's the point I'm making about that. For residents, it's the public nuisance of constant noise every day of the week until late at night from people coming and going and talking very loudly because they've been drinking. From the safety of children point of view, it's to do with the sudden influx of an enormous amount of more traffic than this tiny narrow, I mean, I do recommend people go and have a look at it, tiny narrow street is going to have vans, staff, everything like that, and then all the punters arriving until late at night, it'll just be, I mean, as I say, for us, it would be a nightmare, and I'm talking about people in Ezra Street, Ravenscroft Street, Columbia Road, and Shipton. There's a couple of people, I think, just one, there is a capacity condition on the license of a, and that is, I don't know if people are aware, but that is actually going to be imposed if the license is granted, it's been offered up as a condition, so there could never be any more than 80 people at any one time, first I just wanted to make clear whether that was appreciated, it may well be, but, there is one other point that is worth bearing my, obviously you'd appreciate, they could operate as a restaurant regardless, and people can bring their own alcohol, so again, I want to make people aware of that, so, yeah. Can I just say, I don't think any of us were aware that a license to run a restaurant had been granted, it was a reference made to people selling bacon sandwiches on a Sunday, Sunday in that area, okay, sorry, there hasn't been, that's why we're here, it's an application for a premises license that will effectively allow the application, the applicant, if granted, to operate as a restaurant, they'll be selling alcohol and late night refreshment, but one has not been granted as yet, and the sale of food itself is not licensable, so there's a general proposition, people, if there was a burger ban or hot food being sold on a Sunday in the yard, it wouldn't be licensable, or certainly not under the Licensing Act. Alright, now, let's get concluding remarks out of the way, can I get, can I get objectors to start, mention, yeah, a minute each, if that's alright? The applicant gets the, unless, if members don't have any more questions, the applicant, it's their application, if they effectively get the last word, I'm afraid, it's the way it works. Concluding remarks, you've got a minute to make concluding remarks, so I can get Charles to give his concluding remarks, Adrian would you? So, yeah, if we could just go in the same ward as we did, Chair, so if Mr. Charles Garrett could go first, if you all have one minute, and we'll just come in that same order. I was cut off in mid-Dart tribe, so I won't resume my points, many of which I made in my original submission, I would like to say how, very much I support all the statements of the other two gentlemen who made these objections, and it seems that mainly it's been residential people who put in objections, apart from myself, but actually trying to run a business there, businesses, because the building has a number, it is already crowded, the business of the traffic is not to be underestimated, it really is really complicated, and often gridlocked with people delivering things, so the other thing is the noise and machinery, particularly endless humming and fumes of food, if it's one bacon stool, it's just a few sandwiches, but if it's 80 people dining constantly, the fumes will have to go somewhere, they can't come into my yard, they can't come out of the building into my yard anywhere, I'm afraid. Thank you, Charles. Can I now get Adrian, who's online, to give his concluding remarks? Yeah, I mean, I just have two simple points. First is that the application has serious factual inaccuracies in it in relationship to the place where people actually live, their distance from the site, and the applicant doesn't even know the distance from the school, so I don't think the committee should be accepting applications that are so strewn with factual errors, and the second thing is that the real focus of this should also be on the terraces, and in the applicant's application, it is clear that they want to serve alcohol out on the terraces, there's an elevated terrace and a ground floor terrace, if you can just imagine the noise impact of many people sitting around the terrace till 11 or 9 or whatever time it is allowed outside, I think we have to really accept that this is an application for a lot of, on a very big scale, for a large number of people doing outdoor dining and drinking, and that is precisely, historically the problem that we've actually addressed in previous committees, and there have been some really strong solutions to it, the Royal Oak, which is, again, less than 25... Thank you. Sorry. Okay. Could I now ask Duncan to give your one minute remarks, last remarks? Yes, I would just urge you very strongly not to grant a licence on two very strong grounds, the prevention of public nuisance, of which there would be an enormous amount with the noisy drinking, the arrival of diners and drinkers to the street, to a very narrow street, the prevention of public nuisance, and there would be significant public nuisance and antisocial behaviour if you were to grant it, and the second factor is protection of children from harm. You're going to have an enormous amount of additional traffic just when children are arriving in the morning, and also additional traffic in a school which is more or less on top of the thing. So I appreciate that Solid Floor do a very good job in running the place at the moment, but the last thing we need is an 80 person licensed restaurant, so thank you. Thank you, Duncan. Can I now ask Christopher to... Yes, thank you. I think in addition to that, what I would ask the committee to appreciate is the scale of the environment. These are very narrow streets that we're talking about, and because Ravenscroft Street, the last section of it is one way, everyone coming off of Hackney Road down Ravenscroft has to turn down Ezra Street. So there's a narrow street with residents parking all down one side. It's effectively a one vehicle street, but that's now going to be the only point of access to all the delivery vans plus the Ubers, et cetera. It really is a very, very tight little neighborhood, and that's why the proximity to the school is a real concern, because it is, everything's on a very small scale. Already talking about how people arrive and so on, if you live locally and you come home on a Friday evening, you can't find a parking space, a resident's parking space, because people who are coming to the restaurants are sitting all the way down Ravenscroft Street, all the way down Ezra Street, and you have to drive away in the neighborhood to find a space. So I think we already know that it's overloaded. This would make it a lot worse. Thank you. Christopher, can I now get Matt to give his last remarks? Thanks very much. While I don't live on Ezra Street, I can confirm that it is unique and very tight and congested, so I would just like to acknowledge that I think it should be visited if you have not been there. I also wanted to just note the one property that's closest to the planned establishment, I think 20 Shipton, can't be more than two meters from the back garden, or one meter from the back garden to the rear windows. Our neighbor that owned 20 Shipton sadly passed away shortly before this process, so that transaction is in process. You know, the one neighbor who is potentially most affected by noise and light and vibration from the premises is therefore not identified yet, it's going to be a new purchaser. I just want to use my time to sort of encourage you to consider the impacts on some others who might have the opportunity to voice their complaints. Thank you, Matt. You've got the law, it does require that the house is given the amount of time you have a minute. I'll be as quick as I can, then. Just answering Matt's concerns, everything and covering off on the other concerns as well, everything that we have submitted within the operating schedule, if the license is granted, this sticks with the license, and if my client were to transfer the license to anyone else, that stays with them unless they put in another variation, which would probably end up here again. Covering off the bold building, I didn't say that the bold building was entirely residential, I said the building to the right of the bold building was entirely residential. In terms of the crime in the area, I actually spoke to the police on the phone a couple of weeks ago, and they didn't object because there was an extensive operating schedule and no major concerns with crime in the area, that's what they said to me. And the entrance to the school, I think this is quite relevant, the school hasn't really come into our thoughts that much because the entrance to the school is not in Ezra Street, it's round, you would come out of the premises, walk down the road, and then I forget the name of the main road, apologies. It's Raven Cross Street and Columbia Road, but not Ezra Street, there's no entrance. And just to finalize, to say, in our opinion. Sorry, could you not interrupt, I have to ask you to leave, I'm so sorry. In our opinion it would be far safer and stronger for this venue to be regulated with a premises license than to operate as such without, and I appreciate that's my minute, I'm not sure that Bill has anything to add, if you might. I believe that a restaurant, I think the problem in Ezra Street currently is that it appears to be derelict, the street is covered in graffiti by owners who don't look after the buildings, that's why kids go to the Sainsbury's around the corner, buy alcohol and sit on the street. That's one of the problems. In regards to ships and street, we will put in sound insulation, there will be no light pollution because the windows will be blocked. And so that's not an issue. Thank you. So thank you all for your contributions today, the subcommittee will deliberate in a private session after this meeting ends, and Simi from Democratic Service will write to you all with the decision within five working days. Thank you. So, Chair, we now move on to Item 3.1, which is an application for a new premises license for Rotanda Cafe, Allen Garden, London E14-3EA. Chair, for this application we have the applicant present, Mr. Gianluca Colini, and we have one of the objectors present, Mr. Ralph Hardwick. Once the application has been presented by the licensing officer, the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of five minutes to make a representation. The objector will also be given a total of five minutes to make their representation, I'll let you know when you have one minute remaining. Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda pack in advance. Thank you. Could I ask, are there any declarations of interest? Actually, nothing to be clear, but I know that Ralph has our resident, that's it, I know him very well, that's it. Yeah, it's my Councillor. Just to clarify that, Councillor, so there's no personal relationship there, and have you discussed this application? Also, I know him as well, but we don't have any relationship with him. So famous. We just didn't know what to ask. That's fine. Did you understand? Notice that Mr. Ralph is a popular person in the Alladogs. Did you understand? Sorry, Mr. Clean, did you understand that? I'm sorry. Did you understand? Yes. Yes. So the members know this gentleman in the sense that he's their ward, and they know him through his business at the council, they've not discussed this application with him, and obviously they're just saying that so that it's open and transparent that that's there, but I don't know if that has caused you any issues, and you're happy to proceed, that's fine, thank you. Now that we've got that clear, can I ask Livin Miller-Johnson, can I ask Livin Miller-Johnson, the licensing officer, to introduce the report? Thank you, Chair. This is an application for a new premises license for Rotunda Cafe, Island Gardens, which is at Saunders Ness Road, London, E14, 3EA. The applicant has described the premises as a coffee shop in Island Garden Park. A copy of the application is shown at Appendix 1, pages 30 to 52. The hours that have been applied for are as follows. The sales of alcohol on and off sales Monday to Sunday from 8am until 11pm, opening times Monday to Sunday from 8am until 11pm. The applicant has since agreed to reduce the license wall hours Monday to Sunday with the police from 8am until 5pm. This can be found at Appendix 8, which is pages 79. The site plan of the venue is included at Appendix 2, which is page 54. Maps showing the vicinity are included at Appendix 3, page 56. Photographs of the premises are included at Appendix 4, pages 58 to 61. And details of other licensed venues close by are pages 63 to 67. Representations have been received by residents. These representations can be found at Appendices 6 to 7, pages 69 to 77. As mentioned before, the applicant has agreed with the police to reduce the hours. These can be found along with other conditions that have been agreed by responsible authorities at Appendices 8 to 10, pages 79 to 87. And members can find guidance at Appendices 11 to 16, pages 89 to 104. Thank you, Chair. Do any members have questions to the licensed officer? My main concern is how many objections have you received? Two objections. If the objector put on any condition for the license, what was the objector was saying about this license? Excuse me, Councillor. Obviously, again, you'll hear from the objector in due course. And all of the papers are there, so there will be scope to discuss conditions and such like later. Thank you, Chair. I don't know if I can ask the licensed officer, but was there an agreement, like, boundary set on if the application was granted where, within whichever the vicinity, they're going to drink? I think to clarify, if I may, I think there's reference in the application to an external area, but it's not necessarily entirely clear exactly where the external area is. I think the Chair is asking, is there a plan, for example, that defines where the external seating area might be? I suspect probably not, since it's not in the papers, but... It hasn't been defined on the plan, no. However, around the actual premises, there is, like, a graveled area. If you can see that from the pictures, the area is defined by the pavement changing. Thank you. Can I now ask the applicant to present the application? You have five minutes. Hi, I'm Gianluca Collini. I'm the cafe operator. First of all, I didn't expect that. I thought it was a straightforward application, a license for a cafe, selling, like, beers and glasses of wine at the premises, not off the premises, like I have for my other two businesses. Well, this only was to create an addition for the residents, to enjoy, like, a glass of wine or a beer with a meal. I stayed at the cafe. That's the purpose, you know. The halq will be sold exclusively from behind the counter and will not be displaced openly. So, no, kids cannot grab and go halq just for the safety of, you know, minors. That was the reason, you know. Thank you. Thank you. Now, can I present his objection, and you've got five minutes. I think it should be pointed out that this facility is actually council-owned, and what I haven't been made aware of is the restrictions placed on the lease for this particular property, which may fall outside. I have no idea whether or not that part of that lease is saying that it's a cafe, which is a coffee house, not a place to sell alcohol. There is no... I haven't been afforded that information, and perhaps the councillors and the committee would actually, first of all, establish whether or not the lease contains the opportunity for the place to be used as a... to sell alcohol. So, the background. This cafe replaced one that was there previously and run down, and fundamental to it was the fact that it should provide a public toilet because there are little if no toilets in the southern part of the Isle of Dogs. So, as I've said before, a cafe means a coffee house. It's not identified normally as a place that sells alcohol, and the fact that the lease information has been withheld, so that needs to be considered. The submitted plan, I think somebody just pointed out, only includes... only identifies the plan of the building, which was also the same plan that was submitted as part of the planning application. I noticed that I don't have any problem with the on-sales. The problem I have is with the off-sales. The park is in close proximity to George Green School, and also we have children that come on a daily basis in school term from Canary Wharf College, Glenworth Avenue. They always come and are generally playing in the park during a period of break times, so that happens quite frequently on more or less a daily basis. The off-sales, the other part of this is that it obviously seems to be in conflict with the fact that we have a borough-wide public space protection order, which is with regard to alcohol. So there seems to be a conflict with allowing people to buy drink in the cafe and then step outside and consume it. In addition to that, so I can't quite understand how you can have off-sales for somebody to go to drink in the park, which is most likely to happen, when there is a public space protection order. It seems quite nonsensical to provide an off-sales license when we have this issue with the public space protection order. One other element to it is that the plans for the cafe included the fact that all refuse bins will be contained within the building. We now have a situation whereby refuse bins are stored outside, we've got tables and chairs not sitting within the identified location, so we've started to push boundaries of what is allowed to take place at this particular cafe, which obviously comes back to the fact that I'm not a party to what the actual lease has to say. Saunders Ness Road and Ireland Gardens Park is also a focal point for anti-social behaviour, and as people have moved before, we don't have enough sufficient police response to deal with some of these anti-social behaviour issues, such as NOx gas cylinders and ASB. I'd also like to point out that there is no council CCTV in Ireland Gardens Park, nor on the road outside. I'm concerned about off-sales, potential for broken glass in the park, and as I say, I'm perfectly happy to have on-sales take place, but I don't think having off-sales is compatible with this cafe. It's worth clarifying a couple of points before members do. Firstly, what the lease may or may not say, and I don't know either, is neither here nor there. If the lease, for example, prohibited the use of the premises for the sale of alcohol, then unless and until the lease is there, then it's a breach of the lease, but it wouldn't prevent, if the committee saw fit, to grant this licence, they're entirely separate regimes with separate objectives at their heart, and so that, in a way, it's kind of an irrelevance, and much the same in the way that if planning says that they can go to X time, and this licensing committee goes beyond that, then there's only bound by the earlier time of the planning permission. All this would do is make law for the licence activity. In relation to the PSPO, just to clarify, there may be a misapprehension about what the PSPO does. It doesn't prohibit drinking in public places. What it prohibits is drinking in public places after an authorised officer or constable has asked someone to cease doing so, and it prohibits, obviously, the refusal of handing over those containers when asked to do so. So, again, people can drink outside in the park if they wish to. It's not automatically breached with the PSPO. It only becomes a breach at that point if they're told to stop doing that, but that's just to clarify those issues. Just in relation to the off-sales, Mr Colini, obviously you need to use the external area so your patrons can drink. You need the off-sales. Is it your intention for the off-sales to simply be for your patrons to drink in that external area, or is it intended that, for the sake of arguing, one of your patrons could come in, have a meal, then buy a bottle of wine at the end of the meal and just leave with that? Well, the reason to have that was just to enjoy with the meal, so no off-sales. But at the same time, anybody can come down the road, which is a minute away from the cafe, and buy a bottle of alcohol, which happens all the time, and go and drink in the park. So this is not going to change anything. Possibly not, but again, I suppose there's a difference between people buying alcohol from an off-licence, which may be cheaper than buying it from a restaurant. But really the key thing is, the off-sales part of your application, is that just intended for the outside area, or is it intended more widely so that people can just leave the premises and then go out onto the park, or go out wherever, and go home with it? I believe we agree with the other members and the police as well, just to have sales of alcohol in the premises, and outside, in the garden outside, not in the park, just the surroundings of the premises. That's what we agreed, it was a license from 8 to 5. They asked me not to serve in take-away cups, just to serve in a glass, and just patrol the area. As soon as they leave the cafe, they cannot leave with alcohol. That's what we agreed. There's not really off-sales of alcohol, to be honest, just for the premises. So there's going to be no off-sales of alcohol, beyond the outside area, and the alcohol is only to be served with the meals, right? With the meals, or not in the take-away cups, cannot be served in take-away cups. Is there a seating area inside? Like anybody can grab and go... Any seating capacity inside the premises? There are at least 25 people, and outside, at the moment, 1, 2, 3, 4 garden stools with chairs. And we also have some other tables, which are in the premises, but never outside, never so far. Just to clarify the Councillor's question, how many people are you proposing in the outside area? Outside area, we have 4, so it's about 25. 25 inside, and there's 25 outside, at the moment. When you mention at the moment, are you planning to increase the numbers of seating outside? I mean, it's not in the plan, but I don't see the reason why not, just to add some extra tables. I mean, the sales of alcohol will be really minor, from my experience, comparing to the sale of food and coffee. It's just an addition, I guess it's a small addition, from my experience and other places I have. We really sell a little bit of alcohol, comparing to what we sell, coffees and toasty, and the food and so on. So I wouldn't be worried about my side too much. But I'm not planning to increase at the moment. That's it. Thank you. OK, I've got two questions to the applicant. First one is that, have you checked your lease? Is there any condition that you are able to sell alcohol inside the premises or outside the parmesan? Is this condition there? Have you checked it before you make the applications? I haven't checked it. And I'm not aware of any condition. My solicitor didn't tell me there is a condition and so on, so I'm not aware of it. Second question is that, this is the area, this is under the lease. This parmesan is given to you as a lease, for you to run a cafe inside there, right? But not outside. So who owns the outside? The table you're thinking of putting the table outside. Is it including into your lease conditions or those spaces, public space, is not your space? Are you planning to put a table there to serve alcohol? I mean, there was already like four tables provided by the council, I guess. They are like outside already. I haven't put them yet. I guess that belongs to the cafe, the area belongs to the cafe. That's what I believe. Because when you get the… Just to clarify, the plan that goes on to the license is a plan doesn't show the extent of the premises. What it shows is where the licensable activity, which in this case will be the sale of alcohol, can take place. Consumption of alcohol, which is what will happen outside, is not a licensable activity and therefore doesn't need to be shown on this plan. All this plan on page 54 means is alcohol can only be sold within the premises. It doesn't mean it can only be drunk inside the premises. If there is an outside area, you may wish to know the extent of the outside area for the purposes of knowing where the off-sales can take place. But it doesn't have to be recorded on here because consumption of alcohol is not a licensable activity. As the gentleman has said, now at the moment there are about 20 spaces people can drink outside and he's not ruling out that there won't be more than 25. So it can be increased outside space. So this space is for the public, public spaces and not for the business to run or for their customer to use those benches, these benches for people to relax and have a good time there with their families. So what I'm saying, the objector doesn't have any problem with he's served the alcohol inside his coffee within the 25 cities. He doesn't have any objection, he says he'll be okay with it. What he's objecting is outside. It's like kind of a, this looks like kind of an off-license. He can go buy bottles and come out and he can drink outside. That's what objector is objecting. So this is why I'm saying that he should go look into his lease conditions before, everyone should look into their lease conditions before they ask him for a license inside or outside. As gentleman has said that he had no idea about it. So that's why I'm asking him. No I appreciate that but as a matter of law he's not actually required to deal with that. As I said and already explained at the beginning, whatever the lease says, that's a matter between the applicant and the leaseholder. It doesn't stop him from applying in respect of this outside area. And what you're concerned with is the grant of the application on the four licensing objectives. Not whether or not this is in accordance with somebody's lease or planning permission or anything like that. So you really need to be focusing on the, effectively the prevention of public nuisance issues which is really at the heart of this application. I think what the Councillor was trying to say was as long as the alcohol is drunk within the permitted areas of where customers can eat. Is that correct? So as long as, whichever the permitted space is. Just a bit of clarification for me. Surely if all the alcohol is going to be consumed either in the building or in the tables outside, would that not be considered totally on sales? No that is precisely the point. It's the sale of alcohol by retail that is conditions. I walk into a pub and the alcohol is behind the bar, the whole pub will inevitably be licensed. But then if the pub's got a beer garden, they might actually have a license in the beer garden for the summer where they might have some fridges and temporary bars set up. And without that they would be in breach of the Act because the garden wouldn't otherwise be licensed for on sales. But without it, what normally happens in the beer garden, if we pretend for the sake of argument this is a beer garden. The premises itself, the building is potentially going to be licensed, that's the issue. There's the external area, sales of alcohol will not be taking place there so they don't need to be licensed under the Act. But they do need to be addressed as part of the off sales because they're off the premises. That's why this gentleman needs the off sales and that's why there's going to need to be some clarity about that. Is this basically that any alcohol is going to be consumed on the tables outside or does it give the opportunity to wander off with a bottle of beer or something? Well that would obviously depend if the license is granted and if the committee saw fit. As I've understood it, and I'm sure the chair will correct me if he thinks it's wrong, but that was one of the reasons why I sought to clarify the extent of the off sales with the applicant because there's a difference. And I think what the members are likely to be concerned with, no doubt you, is there is a difference between this gentleman having off sales to the extent that it takes place in the outside area that he has a degree of control over but prohibiting off sales so that people can't walk in and then buy ten bottles of wine and then walk out and then drink it in the park. And that's what it would prohibit so they wouldn't be able to, if granted, that would be conditioned so that it deals with the off sales as tightly as it can to prevent just that problem. Does that answer your question? More or less, but I suppose one of the other issues is that is this the only cafe that has a premises license or potential for a premises license into our hemlers? No, there's other brunch and cafes within the borough that has licenses. But yeah, that becomes more theoretical and let's just stick to what we've got. Like Jonathan said, we obviously understand the concern that nobody wants a boozer, nobody wants an off license. And we understand your concern, but the applicant, you wanted to say something? Not well, I mean, as long as we can sell inside and outside space, whereas the benches, that's the only part. We want to sell alcohol, we just don't want to sell, like you said, ten bottles to go and enjoy in the park. It's not going to happen, we don't want that. So it was just related to our spaces and again, we're not going to sell into take away cups or be sold into glass, they have to go back. It's the same way we sold a cafe in a coffee shop. So you've already agreed that alcohol sale would be accompanied with food? It's page 76, overlabelled one for some bizarre reason, but top of page, second condition down, page 76. Supply of alcohol, premises shall only be to a person seated, taking a table meal then for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal. So again, it makes it, it's part of it effectively or closer to a restaurant condition that leads me on to something, if I may ask something. And again, this feeds back to something that Mr Hardwick had raised in his representation. The next condition, as drafted, says the sale of alcohol on the premises shall be by way to waitress service only. But as we've probably gathered from the discussion about on and off sales, on the premises does not mean off the premises. So if the application is granted, are you willing for that condition to be amended so that it reads along the lines of sales and alcohol, on the premises and in the external area, so that we're clear where it shall be by waiter and waitress service? Very short question. Your premises is near to the tunnel, isn't it? Your premises shop is near to the tunnel, food tunnel. Now, let's just move on. Is there anything else anyone would like to say? Members? As I say, that cafe and that park and that area is right behind George's school. And as you know, that part of the island is also very, what am I going to say that this gentleman knows as well, that young people hang themselves up there. Is there a question for anyone? How do you prevent the people from George's school to come and try to buy alcohol from his shop? The question was how do you stop people from buying alcohol, young people rather, not just any people? How do you stop children who are potentially going to come and try to buy alcohol from you? How are you going to deal with that? I mean, I will train the staff asking for IDs like we do elsewhere. And you know, this is how we're going to deal with it. So you run, just to clarify, so you run other licensed premises? I run a license in a restaurant and another cafe, which is exactly the same, similar layout, similar food, similar alcohol, we sell alcohol, very similar. So this will be the third one. Thank you. Let's go on to concluding remarks. I'll go to the objector first. I suppose the main thing to reinforce the fact that any alcohol being consumed outside on the tables should have some signage to reflect that, that taking it away from the tables will be a breach of the license condition. If we've got it all contained within the cafe and the small area outside, then I don't have a big issue with it. Thank you, Ralph. You have one minute to say your last bit. Once again, we will try to contain as much as possible. We don't want to disturb, so it will be signage as well, to show the staff will be trained not to sell alcohol offsite and go. Again, possibly signage on the table, only alcohol sale at the premises with the food or with, I don't know, cafes and so on. We'll do our best to make this work. Thanks. Thank you for all your contributions today. The subcommittee will deliberate in a private session after this meeting ends. Simi from Democratic Services will write to you all within five working days. Thank you. Chair, item 4 is the extension of decision deadlines and I can confirm there are no extensions required. We have two more. Thank you for all your contributions today. The meeting is now closed.