Transcript

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this meeting of the London Fire and Tower Licensing Subcommittee, held today, Thursday the 19th of September, 2024. My name is Peter Golds. I am the Councillor who chairs the Licensing Committee and many of the Licensing Subcommittees. As a matter of record, these meetings are being held in person and committee members and key participants are present in the meeting. But some people will be joining us remotely and as you can see, there are screens around the room which you can hear them from. The meeting will be filmed officially for the Council's website for public viewing. I would remind you that we do protect the security of people in the public gallery on filming. So when you actually see it, it will focus on those of us who are the decision makers and certainly not members of the public gallery. You will not be filmed sitting up there. May I urge everybody to speak only when called and speak clearly into the microphones to ensure that contributions can be recorded. May I also request that we have, as you can see, a pretty hefty agenda today. If you are contributing, could you refer to which specific page you are talking about because there is nothing more frustrating than when somebody makes reference and you suddenly look at the members of the panel who will be the decision makers flicking through the pages to see where they are rather than going directly. So we know exactly where to go to, look at our work and listen to what you are saying. I am now going to invite everybody on the top table who are officers and members to introduce themselves. As a matter of formality, I will say now the opening of the meeting and I will continue as we come to each item on the agenda. When we adjourn to make a decision, the decision will be that of councillors and councillors alone. But you will note that when we adjourn, we will adjourn with two officers, one of whom is Ms. Yesman who is sitting there, who is the clerk who keeps details of what goes on and the second is Mr. Melnick who is sitting here, who is the legal advisor to make sure that our decisions are legal or as legal as possible. May I therefore firstly invite the members to introduce themselves, starting with Corinne. Corinne Holland, licensing officer. Simi Yasmin, Democratic Services. Jonathan Melnick, Legal Services. Councillor Rebecca Sultana, Bethnal Gunist. Councillor Ahmadal Kabir, Bethnal Gunist. Thank you very much. Colleagues, formally the agenda has apologies for absence, but there are only three members on the panel. If there were not three members present, we wouldn't be able to have a meeting, so I can assure you there are no apologies for absence to be recorded. Formally, and this is very important, particularly in the world that we live in now, do any members have any declarations of personal or financial interests? Thank you. I have none whatsoever, so that will be recorded. There are no declarations of interest. We have the rules of procedure. In introduction I gave some indication of where we're going. Those who want the formal rules of procedure, they are on our agenda pack pages 9 to 18 and can be seen on the paper copies. And of course for those of you who have phones that can link up to the internet or indeed are sitting with your laptops, they can be found there. So if we can record that. Members, please agree now the minutes of the meeting on the 23rd of July and the 6th of August. Are they noted as correct? Thank you very much. I will therefore sign them following the meeting. I now turn to reports for consideration, which is the hefty agenda we have before us. This is item 4.1, which is the application for a variation of a premises licence for Profetto Pizza, 391 Cambridge East Road, London, E29RA. And for the benefit of anybody following, they are pages 33 to 120 on the agenda. Ms. Yesme, would you like to announce who is here? Thank you, Chair. For this item we have Mr. Kari Azimi, the applicant present. We also have Moshin Ali, the licensing officer and Nicola Kadzo, environmental health officer. 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 will let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda pack in advance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just for formality, if somebody could indicate, is Mr. Azimi actually here? Could you indicate if you are here? Just indicate. Thank you. I can see you. The members can see you. Thank you very much. I now invite Ms. Holland, as we know, sitting over there, to present the report. Thank you, Chair. This is an application for a variation of a premises license for Perfetto Pizza, 391 Cambridge Heath Road. A copy of the existing license is in Appendix 1 on page 450. They are currently licensed until 1am, for late night refreshments only, from 11pm to 1am. The variation application is in Appendix 2 on page 52 to 63. They initially made an application to extend their hours to 5am, Monday to Sunday. But under agreement with the police, they have reduced those hours to Monday to Sunday from 11pm to 3am. But between 1am and 3am will be for delivery only. That's what the police had agreed with them. Maps for the venue are included in Appendix 3 on page 65. Some photographs are in Appendix 4, page 67, and nearby license premises are Appendix 5 on page 71. This hearing is required because relevant representations have been made from the licensing authority. That's Appendix 6 on page 74 to 79, and the Environmental Protection Team, Appendix 7, page 81 to 83. There's also a response from the applicant's agent has been included, that was to the responsible authority, Appendix 8, and that's page 85 to 91. And within that response, the licensing subcommittee decisions from July 23 are included in that. And there were no additional conditions attached to this application within it. And then Appendix 9 shows the hours agreed with the police in Appendix 9, sorry, 93 to 96. And then Appendices 10 to 16, which are 98 to 119, are guidance for the members. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. At this point I have no questions to Ms Holland. Do any of my colleagues have questions to Ms Holland? Rebecca? Do you have a question to the officer? Do you have a question for the officer? Thank you. So we're all okay. In that case, I'd like to now invite the applicant to present their application. For this, you'll have the floor for five minutes. Please feel free to be as relaxed as possible. Although we operate under a quasi-judicial situation, we like to make people to be as friendly as possible. There we are. The floor is yours. Hello. Good evening to everyone. My name is -- I'm coming regarding -- regarding late night license, we apply. Because we are very bad situation, there is no business, too much competition. Because we don't have late night license, and if we have late night license, then we make some business, otherwise we are very bad situation. I need your support from council. Thank you very much. Because we apply already, but the council will give me some time, which is short hour, short time, which is not enough. Thus we apply again for late night license, because if you don't have a license, you cannot make any business there. If council give me some more hour, late night license, then we'll make some business. Otherwise we have liability for the 15 years, how to manage my business, because there is no business, daytime, too much competition, everywhere. And I don't have a license. Because of license, we cannot make any business. So I need some support, please, from the council to give me some late night license to do the business. And there is no one making any complaint. I don't have any complaint from the neighbor. I don't have any complaint from anyone, from the customer, from the neighbor. No one makes any complaint, because we make good business, and we look after the neighbor, to the customer. We have family business, and we don't have any music, we control it nicely, we have a CCTV camera there, everything is a good way to make it by law. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Could you turn the microphone off? Thank you. I'm sorry, I did that. I'm now going to invite the objectors to present their objections. Each will have five minutes each. I will begin with Mohsin Ali, who is online, and be followed by Nikhil Akashar. Age is definitely showing, sorry Mohsin. Age is definitely showing on me, isn't it? And then I move to Nikhil Akashar, who is also definitely present. I'm sorry to anybody else who is here, I can see you're all present, so I won't accuse you of not being present, or being virtual people. Thank you, Chair. As you've heard in the introduction, the licensing authority has made a representation, and this can be found in page 74. The reason for the representation is the premises lie within the CRZ zone of the Brooklyn-Green area. The representation is under provincial crime and disorder, and prevention of public nuisance lies as an objective. You've heard there was a committee hearing 25th of July, 2023. This is when the applicant's current license was granted. On the 2nd of October, 2023, we have a complaint alleging that the premises was trading past those hours that were granted at the hearing. That warning letter was sent to the business on the 2nd of October, 2023. This is on page 78. Since that complaint was made, the licensing authority visited on the 16th of October, 2023, and the officers found the premises to be closed at the time of visit, so no further action was taken. So there is obviously a concern from the licensing authority that the license was granted in July, and in October, there was an allegation that the premises had traded beyond its hours that was granted by the committee. If you look at the application form itself, there's no reference to the premises being within the CRZ, and therefore no additional provisions of how they will meet the license and objectives, and not add to the commitment of impact negatively. The onus is on the applicant to show that there are exceptions to circumstances why their application should be granted, and all you've heard today was that you haven't heard anything about the license and objectives being promoted, or how they will not have a negative impact. You just heard about business competition and the need for later hours, which are not under the license and objectives. So in conclusion, the license authority does not support the application. However, should members be minded to grant the application, we would suggest that lesser hours are granted to the ones that they are seeking. That's a summary of my representation. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mohsin. Nicola. Thank you, Chair. My representation is on Appendix 7, page 81 to 83. I'm looking at the prevention of public nuisance, and as has already been pointed out by Mohsin, the applicant hasn't mentioned the license and objectives of public nuisance crime disorder by operating at later hours, and consideration, as Mohsin has pointed out, that the premises is in the community of impact zone. I looked at the application when they were applying till five in the morning, seven days a week. I appreciate that they have been willing to reduce the hours, and they've agreed that with the police, but there was no communication with Environmental Protection with regards to reducing the hours and the delivery times. And there is some concern that operating for an extra two hours and deliveries, there's been no conditions applied on the application. And as Mohsin has mentioned, there's no mention that the premises in the CIZ, how they're not going to negatively impact with delivery vehicles to, in and fro, into the premises for deliveries between one and three in the morning. And page 83 of my application shows that above the premises there are residents, to the sides of the premises there are residents. And the concern is that an extra two hours on the application, hours given to them, this could have a negative impact, especially with residents so close and the impact of public nuisance. But if the committee are willing to grant the application, I would ask that the hours are reduced lesser than the 3am that they've applied for, and that no conditions were given. But I'd ask that one condition, no idling of delivery vehicles outside the premises, no drivers shouting or raised voices, nor loud music radios whilst the premises is in operation, and that the premises license holder will display notices requiring drivers of delivery vehicles not to leave their vehicles engines idling, because that's a concern outside the premises while the premises is in operation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, that is extremely helpful. We now move to the point where we ask questions, and I would really wish to put this to the applicant, because are you aware of the council's policy and what the cumulative impact zone actually means? Hello, my name is Abdulhadi Azimi. Today I'm going to be assisting my uncle with the application. Yes, we are aware of the cumulative impact zone, and we are aware that the Bethel Green Zone is a cumulative impact zone, however we have had a license for four days from the past, more than one year. We have had this license and we did not have any negative impact on that. We are operating under this license. Also, we've had a complaint to the council, which was a false complaint, and the objectors stated that we visited the premises and nobody was operating for the past two hours. We understand that it's a cumulative impact zone, however we have in place measures and we are using our own drivers, we don't use third-party delivery drivers, for example Uber Eats, Deliveroo and Jesty, because we do not have any power over them. Also, it's a small family-run business, we don't use loud music, no music at all, we don't have loud fans, it's a small shop, it's not that loud, and also there's not too many inside customers, it's a take-away place, so nobody would be shouting customers. We are very quietly delivering a few deliveries after 11 o'clock, for example 1 o'clock right now, if we get extra hours, so those few orders will make a big difference for us. Just eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats website, they cannot make it busy, if you have one day you open, still 11 o'clock, and the second day you open, in three days you open 11 to 11, and four days you open from 11 to 1 o'clock. At that time, if you make it like this business, then it's no good for the online business, because they cannot make it any busy, customers one day order at 11 o'clock, and the second day you close the shop. It does not work, it must be open seven days at the same timetable, then you make some business, because otherwise you are in the very bad situation, you are in the very best situation, there are no businesses. I need some support from the Council, please, please, please, to give you license to make some business there. I think I must draw you back to the point that you are placed within the CIZ, the cumulative impact zone, and you must try and demonstrate to us the reasons why we should grant an application that goes beyond the CIZ, i.e. goes outside of the CIZ hours. Although we can just about take into your business plan into consideration, we are bound by our licensing objectives, and that sadly does not overall take your business plan or your business viability into consideration. You have to give us a good reason why we should go beyond the CIZ. I'm trying to do my best to help you as much as possible here. Thank you very much. Thank you for your help. We understand it's a CIZ zone, but we are operating, as I said, from the past one year, we are operating under the CIZ, we had license, we can prove that there was no disorder in our shop reported or anything. And also we are very careful about our operation. We try our best and we do our 100% not to have any negative impact in the area. As I mentioned, the way we operate in our deliveries inside the shop, I think we will not have any extra impact on the CIZ. There are many other problems. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. As from your presentation, it looks like you are not very happy with the timing, so my question to you, are you happy with the timing granted by the authority right now? If not, why? Thank you. Can I ask which timing? It's given by the... The one which we already have? Yes. As we mentioned, it doesn't help at all because the businesses on that road are struggling every year. Most of the businesses, they close within a year or two when they open. Our neighbours within six months, four months, they open the shop and then they close because there is not too much business in the area. Otherwise, if we don't get license, our business will close as well. Thank you for your application. Basically, you just mentioned about the business, you're losing business, you want extra some more hours. What kinds of steps you've taken for the hours you wanted? Is there any particular step you've taken? You're stopped by the bus stop and what kinds of, you know, the delivery comes and how do you manage this kind of, you know, busy area? Is there a very busy road and what kinds of steps you've taken and do you have any security for the late night or what kinds of steps you took already? Or what's the plan? Yes, as I mentioned before, we use our own drivers, basically, and it's a family-run business, I do the delivery or he does the delivery. We are very careful with the way we conduct our deliveries, not like other people. We have parking, there is parking, we use the parking, like for example, we don't horn, we don't play music, we are very careful, we understand the importance of our neighbours. We've had a notice put on the shop and in the news for two months, actually. The requirement is one month, but we had two months because there was something wrong in the application and none of our neighbours put any representation against us, nobody made any representation against us. If we were conducting something wrong, obviously they would have a representation made against us. Because we pay for the advertise and they do not give you a report to the council. So we had to make two months notice to everyone and in those two months nobody made any representation against us. I come back to the issue, one of the biggest criticisms we have, and I make no criticism of your operation, are when we have to take away of the increasing noise there are from the little motorbikes, the pop pop pop motorbikes, which can drive residents absolutely mad. However quiet you are internally, those little motorbikes can really cause problems. If you switch that off, when I call you, I say switch on, otherwise you shut, you block me out. That is one of the big issues we have when we are considering people who are seeking to do what you're doing. What would you like to demonstrate to my colleagues, myself and officers, how you will manage that situation of the transport because you're a take away business, therefore stuff is taken somewhere. Yes I understand your point, it's an important point as well. However we have taken measures, for example we are not using old vehicles which are, new vehicles are more quiet. For example he has a hybrid car which doesn't make any noise and the motorbike, if we use motorcycles it's not going to be like an old motorcycle. I understand it makes a lot of noise but new motorcycles don't have too much noise which can have any impact. Nowadays there are electric vehicles available as well which can have very little noise. Also it's a main road, there would be noise from other vehicles. And one other thing, you know the daytime, they make a film, they struggle as well. I think people are very aware of it being a main road but if you have a little motorcycle going pop pop pop under your bedroom window it's very different to a car passing or something else. Yes I understand that but as I said we have a car which is hybrid and it doesn't make too much noise and newer vehicles are very quiet, they're not as loud as they used to be. They have much better technology now to make better vehicles with lesser noise so we don't have the old ones. If the Commission were minded to grant the application would you be willing to have a condition firstly that it is only your own delivery drivers and secondly that deliveries would be done either in a hybrid car or electric vehicle and no petrol-engined mopeds? At the moment it's really, at the moment we have a hybrid car plus we have mopeds which is petrol but electric vehicles and you know sometimes it can be difficult to charge. However if not right now, if in the future we will try to use electric vehicles. Just to go back to the question, fair enough you may not have an electric vehicle at the moment but you say you have a hybrid car, cars and motorcycles are very very different. You said you're not going to be using third party drivers, firstly are you willing if the committee grants the application for that to be a condition so you can't use Uber Eats people like that, do you understand? Yes we will follow the conditions if the cars are... Then going on for that since you're using your own drivers are you willing perhaps to a condition that you will only use the car after one o'clock at night so that you're not using the mopeds for example at three o'clock in the morning? Yes we will try our best to use cars and obviously in the night time it's better to use cars because motorcycles are raining and stuff. In the daytime you use motorcycles because you can get quicker and there is too much traffic but in the night time the roads are empty, we prefer cars as well because it's much quicker than motorcycles in the night time. I did specifically say about using the car after a particular time not all day because the noise of a motorcycle during the day is very very different to the noise of a motorcycle at night. Can I just go back to officers because I'm trying to make notes and I think I've lost more. What would be the hours that the police have recommended and the applicant seems to have concurred with the police? We've lost the five o'clock haven't we? We're not going to the five o'clock. It would be three o'clock when? Every day? Monday to Sunday what they've agreed so far is Monday to Sunday till 3am but between 1am and 3am it would be delivery only as in no one member of the public attending the shop. That's seven days a week basically isn't it? Thank you chair. As you know the licensing officer mentioned the police agreed about the time on three in the morning and one in the morning you need to stop and those two hours delivery only. Do you accept those hours if we allow? Are you asking until five if the police agreed up to three? If you guys help us because the business is a very low situation, if you guys more our help we are more happy but if not we agree with this hour. I need some support from the council. No, it's not about the council. You're asking for help. We are here to help everyone. You need to look after CIZ zone as well and you're asking help. This is not the help. You need to take a plan and if you want the hour what kind of step you take or why you want to do this and how you're going to manage those hours. You will live right next to the pizza shop and other next door neighbour, the resident as well. Across the bus stop as well and many things so what kinds of steps you take and you're asking help. I know this is not the right explanation just only you asking for the business and we just help you. This is not the right explanation. I have to confer with my colleague. You keep asking us to help you. We have a licensing policy and you wish to go against that licensing policy. We're asking you to demonstrate why we should break our rule. It's not helping you. You are seeking to break the rule so why do you wish us to break the rule against our policy? Why do you wish us to break our policy? We respect the law. We like to respect the country. We like to respect the council. We like to respect the neighbour to everyone but as a request if the hour you guys are happy we are very happy as well but if you give more support more is going to be good. But it's okay. The police are making the decision for seven days a week and one o'clock collection and three o'clock delivery. We are happy with the hour. It's the three o'clock. I think the sticking point for us is the three o'clock delivery seven days a week. Let me remind you our policy is this is what the council policy is for where you're located. Sunday up to 22.30. Monday to Thursday up to 23.30. That's 11.30 in the evening. Then Friday and Saturday up to midnight. Now you want to go beyond all of that into three o'clock in the morning. That's what I think is taxing. The thing is we use third party, for example we use UberEats and Deliveroo for taking the orders but we don't use their drivers. The way their algorithm is working is for example if you don't have one set of times they will reduce you in the for example for the customer they will reduce you from the list. For example when it comes ups and downs then you will not receive any orders. The way they are designed in the algorithm you have to have for example one set of hours. That's how they work. My issue is that I'm not an issue I think it is at least complimentary to your business there has only been one complaint about you and that has not been sustained so I think we can knock that off the record. There was an allegation and the allegation has not found it but it is still this issue that you want to go seven days a week up to three o'clock in the morning. We are obviously discussing so do you wish us to adjourn the committee? I was just explaining to him, I'm sorry. He said if it's not possible like for example in the weekdays time, Monday to Wednesday it's fine if it's till one o'clock and then in the weekends till three o'clock it's fine as well. Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Thursday. I see so what you've actually said is go to one o'clock on weekdays and two o'clock on the weekends. Sorry to request you again, I'm very apologies for that. With respect to the load everything but we are the very best situation to be honest. We are the very struggling situation. Daytime there is make it you know opposite there is a some place they make it most of the day is coming make a film and they object our customer because you cannot make any business if I don't have a late night license. I want to shut down my business because many shop that is closing. I need more support from you guys please please to make a good hour to do some business. I'm asking you why we should break the rule for you. Because there is 24 hour shop I see next to me. There is 24 hour coffee shop open and other shop is open late night as well as many shop is open is you know, next to me there is next to my shop there is a BP petrol and coffee shop you see is open 24 hours. No no this is my shop 391 is next to me either is no fuck is three minute walk three minute walk. You're next to you you have young vegan pizza which closes at 10 o'clock. Let me see sure yeah. 8 9 that's a supermarket 11 o'clock there is a stumble kebab and biscuit box they're opening till late very late later than what we are asking to be honest. Some way down the road. There's some way down the road and I haven't got pictures I don't know what they're like in terms of exact location and what the residential is on them I mean 5 your 391 this is 503 that's some way down. I think we've done this a lot I think we've got the picture here. May I suggest that we now move to the concluding remarks and firstly I invite both the objectors to object for a minute and I'll give you both a minute each after you've heard the objectors rather than one minute between the two of you. You've heard about there was one complaint there are previous complaints for the reason I didn't mention it was already battled out in the prior hearing where they got the house granted. So there are previous complaints prior to the last hearing and that was already discussed which is the reason why didn't bring it up. So the one I mentioned was the one since last hearing which is why I emphasize that one. So in conclusion the premises remains in the CIZ and I don't think you've heard enough today for the applicant to show you how they would meet the license and objectives. The view of the license and authority is that there are too many premises within the CIZ any extra will just add negatively to the community of impact and therefore the occasion should be rejected. Thank you. Thank you. Now would you like to sum up. I'll give you a minute each. I understand it's a community of impact zone but however we operated in this zone we did not make any negative impact. We did have complaints prior which were solved and they were wrong because there was no any, as he mentioned, after the grant of license we did not make any commitment that we closed at one o'clock which was wrong as well. Also as she said it's three o'clock as I said if in the weekdays till one o'clock and in the weekends three o'clock we can do that as well. If that doesn't make any impact on the, and I don't think we have made any impact on the CIZ because we have operated and we do our best not to have any impact on the CIZ because we will try our best and we will take all the measures that are constant. If you say in this town there is many shops open as a pizza shop if I give you some example there is too many shops open till five o'clock in the morning. I don't know why they have in the same situation in the same area they have a neighbour, offset plant, everything, same road. Many shops that is open in Tower Hamels Council they open till five o'clock in the morning. How they give a council to them license and I have a neighbour shop that is very close to us, it's open 24 hour. Which is BP, next to BP there is petrol pumps, sorry there is coffee shop in here. There is coffee shop, it's open 24/7, 24/7 days a week. I think you're talking of the garage aren't you? Yes. Page number 66, Wild Bean Cafe, I think he's talking about that. The Wild Bean Cafe is part of a service station. And also there is other shops for example as he talks about that. We understand this, we've got them before you, I've already commented about, we've got the locations which we will look at in your application view of everybody else. May I say to everybody thank you very much for coming along. The Subcommittee will deliberate in a private session after this meeting ends and you will receive a letter from Simi Esmin within five working days informing you of the decision of the Committee this afternoon. The letter will tell you whether it was a majority vote or whether it was unanimous or we voted by majority on receipt of the letter and I cannot anticipate what the decision will be. It will be up to you to accept the decision or if you wish to appeal it, you can appeal it as can anybody else. Thank you very much. We now move to our next application. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to everyone. By my record, and I'm going to call out some names and people I'd like to tick them off so I know they're here. Mr Butt? Yes, good evening, Chair. Just for the signal, by a process of inimination, I assume that I can work out who Lisa Insani is. Felix Faulkner, are you around? That's the gentleman there. Jonathan Edwards? I'm aware of that. Thank you very much. I'm sure they can wave themselves. Mr Toby Wareham? Thank you, you can wave. Mick Blair? Salma Belgrada? Oh, I have got it wrong. And Torben Anderson. There's no Torben Anderson. Oh, gosh, we are there. We've got a full house. And I can see one objector. Thank you very much. And we've got two virtually. Lavey Ripker? Yes. Thank you very much. Sebastian Fernandez? He hasn't joined. Oh, he hasn't joined. Okay. Thank you very much. So we've got one person in person and one person virtually. Oh, surprise, surprise. I think I've worked all this out now. I can now get Ms Holland who can present the report to us all. I'll start again. This is an application for a new premise license for the pickle factory, 11 to 14, the oval. And an E29DT. The application is just described as a license premises. No further than that in the actual application. A copy of the application is in appendix 1 on page 138 to 156. The hours that have been applied for are in the easier just to refer to section 3.4 of the report on page 122. But essentially, till 5 for those licenseable activities, till 5 o'clock on a Friday and Saturday for alcohol, 6 o'clock in the morning, Friday and Saturday for regulated entertainment and late night refreshments. And then Monday to Wednesday, 11 p.m. for alcohol, midnight for regulated entertainment and late night refreshments. And Thursday, 3.30 in the morning for alcohol and 4.30 for late night refreshments and regulated entertainment. A copy of the existing premise license for the pickle factory is in appendix 2 on page 158 to 170. For information purposes, there was a premise license for 11 to 12, the oval, which we had called oval cafe, but I think it's also called canvas. And that's recently lapsed, but it had been granted in February 2022. And that license hours are on page 122 and 123 in the report. Site plan for the venue is included in appendix 3 on page 172. Maps are in appendix 475 and photographs are shown in appendix 5 on page 177. Nearby license premises are in appendix 6 on page 181. The hearing was required because relevant representations have been received from various people. In the report, Nicola Cadso was shown as making representation, but that's now been withdrawn. Her withdrawal and agreed conditions are shown in appendix 44, which is page 283. But there is sort of resident representations from appendix 8 to appendix 14, and this is page 191 through to 204. And then there's supporting representations, and these are from appendix 15 through to appendix 31, which is pages 206 to 241. There's an email which was received from the applicant regarding a residence meeting that was sent out. That's in appendix 32 on page 243. There's also two supporting agenda packs. So I've got the page numbers all for their documentation. Their page numbers are sort of two pages out, just the way we put it online. But obviously, yeah, so they're just generally two pages different. But I have actually got all the correct page numbers if you need reference. Conditions within the operating schedule shown in section 7 of the report are on page 126 through to 131. And there's actually 38 conditions that have been volunteered by the applicant. And then appendices 33 to 43 are guidance for members, which is pages 246 to 283. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Ms. Holland. That's very, very helpful. I'm now going to invite the applicants first. Can I remind you exactly as Ms. Holland did was when you're speaking to us, refer to the page. Obviously, I'm going around like this, and it can be very frustrating if somebody refers to something and I have no idea where I'm looking. But that would be very helpful. And how are we breaking it all down? Ms. Jesmyn. Mr. Burt, you'll be doing the whole -- you're about to be presenting. And if necessary, one can call upon your vast array of supporters. Before I begin, in relation to pagination, we don't have a paginated set. So in my written submission, I've referred to the internal pagination, because we only online receive the various appendices. But I think we'll find our way through. Right. I'll see what I can do. As always, the array of supporters has supported you brilliantly. Thank you very much. This application presents a considerable opportunity for the local area. You have ten minutes to make a presentation. Thank you. So the application presents a considerable opportunity for the local area. We also accept it presents considerable challenges. And what I want to focus on over the next ten minutes is how the committee can accept the opportunities that this application presents. Whilst also promoting the licensing objectives. If the application is refused today, then the license at number 13 to 14, the oval, will continue much as before. The premises will continue to trade with hours more or less identical to the request with a reduced capacity. But with the opportunity for considerable investment, refurbishment, noise attenuation, and development of the area having been missed. So I want to focus on three areas that are at the heart of this application. The first are the benefits to the community which would result if the application were granted and how that relates to the statement of licensing policy. The second is how we propose to deal with dispersal from the premises if the variation is granted and in effect the capacity is increased. And the third is the refurbishment project and in particular how that's going to deal with sound attenuation from the premises. We set out a paragraph 11 and 12 of our written submission. How the current operation works and that the premises have some nine years now traded until 5am at the weekends for sale of alcohol and have been open to the public until 6am with a capacity of 270. It is important to note as we set out a paragraph 24 to 28 of our written submission that these premises are not the same and the applicant is totally different in terms of being a different legal person to either the building or the management of oval space. And I'm sure the subcommittee is aware that that premise is a difficult history, there was a shooting at those premises and the license was unsurprisingly revoked. These premises could not be more different to oval space in terms of the clientele, in terms of the management, in terms of the operation, the style of operation. They are completely different, they are chalk and cheese. There is no connection between these premises and oval space that could possibly be relevant to the licensing objectives. At paragraphs 15 to 18 of our written submission we detail the plans for the refurbishment of the venue and you will have seen at paragraph 17 to 25 of our evidence bundle which I don't think is included within the agenda. Chair, we would ask that you look either now or later on at pages 17 to 25 of the bundle to get an idea of the level of investment which we are proposing and the transformation to this building in the event that the license is granted and both 11 to 12 and 13 to 14 are licensed. You can see from the computer generated images the work that's proposed and the improvements that will bring to the local area. The investment is very significant, the project overall will cost somewhere in the region of £1.7 million in order to bring the building up to scale. But also, and I'll come onto this in a moment, in order to put in the very significant noise attenuation work which we accept is necessary if an operation at this scale is going to be introduced without compromising the licensing objectives. This is not just a benefit for the applicant or for the customers who visit the pickle factory and would in the future. The premises have for some time been a very important part of the local community. We've set out a paragraph 18 of our written submission extracts from the Tower Hamlet statement of licensing policy which I know the subcommittee will be very familiar with. They recognise the importance of the music and dancing to the borough not just economically but also culturally and in particular premises that promote diversity and work with diverse community groups. And that's repeated in the statement of licensing policy at 24.1 which refers to the desirability of live music and dance venues where they exist for the benefit of the wider community. The subcommittee will be able to see from our evidence bundle that the pickle factory has for some time worked with the community both in terms of events directed towards and organised in combination with the BAME community, the LGBTQ+ community and we have letters of support from numerous groups who use our premises. The committee will also see the work that the premises have done with local charities. There is a representation for example from the Wicca charity that works with young black men in particular in East London and with the Hackney Night Shelter. Both of these charities have written to express their support and how important it is for their charities that the work continues at the pickle factory and they are able to use our facilities if the licence is granted. The level of support the premises have from grassroots music community and the black, Asian and minority community is evidenced by numerous representations in support by local residents, by community groups, by the black artist database and by Amy Lamay, the Mayor of London's night star. That is part of the application but obviously the subcommittee cannot take advantage of these matters even where the policy speaks to them if it is not going to otherwise promote the licensing objectives. We address crime and disorder at paragraphs 24 to 28 of our submission. We repeat at the outset that there is no connection whatsoever between this operation and Oval Space. I know that is not much of a boast but it is important to make clear because understandably some of the representations raise a possible connection between these premises and those. But sir you will know from sitting on that review and looking at the individuals present here and the support we have in our evidence bundle and the fact that the police did not object to this application that that could not possibly be so if the two premises were connected. To the extent that a number of residents raised concerns about low level anti-social behaviour on the Oval, we address this at paragraphs 29 to 33. First of all we make the point these problems are not connected to our premises and to be fair it is not really suggested that they are. Problems such as graffiti and borderline legal barbecues being hosted on the street, public urination, vandalism are not problems connected to our premises. But if the refurbishment which we are seeking to introduce is enabled and if for example we have a security presence on the Oval throughout the night time that would actually be of considerable benefit to dealing with anti-social behaviour with what can be a dark and deserted turning off Hackney Road. Of course with a late licence and the proposed capacity the subcommittee will want to be satisfied that dispersal has been thoroughly thought through and we address that at paragraph 38 to 40 of our written submission. The premises has submitted within the evidence bundle detailed policies dealing with dispersal and security and those proposals include staggered closing times for the bars, music to be turned down in the hour before closing and two to three SIA guards to be deployed outside the premises on the Oval to supervise dispersal during peak hours. The full dispersal policy is at page 114 of our evidence bundle and you can see the security bundle at page 117 which also details diagrams showing where SIA operatives will be deployed inside and outside the premises at the most sensitive times of the operation. Implementation of that policy would be mandatory according to proposed condition 19 of the licence. But it may be the case that the subcommittee is more concerned about noise breakout from the premises because that appears to be the primary focus of the representations where they relate to the pickle factory as opposed to understandable but more general concerns about public nuisance in the area. We accept that there have been a limited number of complaints concerning noise breakout from the premises. There may be a disagreement about precisely what level of disturbance has been caused and there is no enforcement history certainly at the premises but we do accept certainly that these premises need to have a degree of noise attenuation and they need refurbishment more generally. We've commissioned an independent acoustic sound consultant who is present here today should you wish to ask any questions and that expert has been to the premises both 11 to 12 and 13 to 14 and has looked at what is required in order to soundproof these premises and very significant work is proposed. It will involve at a minimum the replacement and upgrading of the doors at the rear of the property to acoustic material in filling all windows and doors that are not currently in use at the rear and air locking and soundproofing the bridge between the premises. A significant feature of the license being granted if that were the decision is that there will be movement between pickle one and pickle two which couldn't take place obviously through the courtyard without causing significant disturbance. Therefore what we propose and you'll see this within the CGI graphics of the premises is an acoustic bridge in between the two premises that will enable customers to move from 11 to 12 to 13 to 14 without any breakout of noise. The courtyard is to be both conditioned and acoustically sealed. The conditions will require that there are no more than 110 people in the courtyard at any one time and that regulated entertainment will cease within the courtyard at 10pm. It will also be enclosed with an absorptive barrier running to the height of both buildings with high rated acoustic folding doors and high performance secondary glazing. That is just a summary of the summary we put in our written submission. The subcommittee will have seen the full report of the sound engineer, which is in our bundle at pages 39 to 40 and at page 47 you can see a detailed plan of all of the acoustic work that is proposed at the premises. Once that work has been completed, it is the opinion of the sound engineer that noise from the premises will be at a lower level within nearby residential premises than current background noise. So if the license is granted and if the work is done to the premises, the noise within the nearest residential premises and 24 the Oval in particular is obviously of concern will be improved to the current position. Now I can understand there could be a degree of scepticism. The subcommittee might say well your acoustic expert says that, how can we be sure? How can we be guaranteed that would be the case? Well first of all of course if that isn't the case then these premises would face a review. But more importantly we have agreed a condition that all regulated entertainment will be by way of a noise limiter and the level of that noise limiter to be set by environmental health. So if there is noise breakout from the premises then the music will be turned down and we will not be able to change that level. So the sound proofing works or the noise is turned down to a level whereby it cannot possibly cause any noise nuisance. I summarise some of the conditions. We have put together a very full set of conditions in consultation with the police and the environmental health officer. That is the reason why, despite the fact that granting this application, if that's your decision, would involve an increasing capacity, there is no representation from the police and no representation from the environmental health officer. As I say this does present a real opportunity for the local area and it presents a real opportunity that the premises can be refurbished and everything can be improved for the benefit of both the community, the local residents and also the applicant. So you can see we have lots of people here in terms of those who are experts in the operation, the dispersal, the running of the premises, the proposed DPS, Mr Edwards who is the director of the company and also Mr Anderson the sound consultant. And they are all available if you have any questions during the committee led discussion afterwards. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for introducing your array of people. We now come to the objectors. I think Petrus, you're here aren't you? You're first off. I've been living in the oval and working in the oval for 25 years. First I faced this problem when the license was given to the oval space in 2012 and we as residents were concerned about future problems and I was present in this licensing committee at that time. We expressed that already we had problems about anti-social behaviour, noise, the circumstances, public urination on the church door and on walls and furthermore the oval space was unmanageable completely. On our street we had two shootings and one stabbing and then the oval space was closed. I do understand that there is no connection between your company and the oval space but we are living in the oval space, our church is in that corner and we have concerns, huge concerns that could be repeated the same pattern. And we object to late hours, literally nightclub. We don't object to entertainment until 11pm, no problem at all. But we live there and the noise is huge from people who are leaving, who are dispersing, from the already working in Pickle's factory and through years from Pickle's factory, five years ago there was no problem literally. But noise is increasing and noise from music is increasing and also when people are leaving club premises they are used to big noise and suddenly they go out in the quiet street and they speak to each other in loud voices and we cannot sleep literally. Because our church and the presbytery is above the pavement, exactly on the same street and noise goes up. We are on the first and second floor. And there are more people living in impressed works, there are flats, also in Broadway East on the backside of the oval, more than 500 flats are going to be built. At present time there is building work and we are really concerned about these future problems and I mentioned past problems because we have very specific problems, what we had and we needed to live through. I don't want to live through anymore. It was a nightmare. It was promised that we will discuss, we will reduce noise and nothing was fulfilled. This is my statement. Thank you very much Reverend. I now turn to Levi Riepup. Hi, do you hear me? Can you hear me? We can certainly hear you. May I suggest you don't speak quite so close to the microphone otherwise we will all jump under the table. That's fine. Thank you. I am speaking on behalf of the residents of 24 the Oval. Is it not on? Let me see. Is it working? Yes. Hi. I am speaking on behalf of the residents of 24 the Oval. Let me first start that most of the people living in this building, we are a group of young professionals from all walks of life. We enjoy the nightlife, we enjoy culture and we appreciate the way music brings together people and we think it is very important for this city. Also we appreciate how it was just pointed out that the pickle factory stands for diversity which is a very important topic. But I don't see how this has anything to do with expanding the club and increasing the noise. So coming back to that is that the noise is our primary concern. The main problem for 24 the Oval is the courtyard because it's the backside that echoes the loud music and the vibrations and the people outside smoking, talking very loud. That echoes through to the backside of 24 the Oval which has already impacted our sleep over the last year. But also we are just all very concerned for even though they are trying to do noise reduction, we don't really see this as helping us so we object to the late hours. Currently we just can't get our 8 hours of sleep over the weekend and that's very painful and it's just an unhealthy situation. So clearly we want to object to this. So that's basically it from 24 the Oval. Thank you so much. That was very quick, thank you. Hello Mr Fernandes, can you hear us? Yes, sorry I'm late and I'm actually on a taxi. Can you hear me? Yes we can. Can we see you as well or is that difficult? Can I please request to intervene in like 5 minutes? That would be difficult because we're in the middle of the meeting and we must proceed according to the agenda. We're happy to listen to you. In that case I'll go ahead. I'm not going to repeat what has been said before. I'm a resident of Impressworks. I'm actually surprised that many of the residents didn't join the call. It's a bit sad to see that there were at least 20 letters of opposition to the license extension. We have a few people here. But I also appreciate my life. I like to go out and pursue diversity but I really enjoy sleeping. Thank you so much. And this extension of the license, despite all the guarantees and all the works, we just don't feel that they're going to allow us to sleep as we should. I went through the details of the license. I went through the acoustics and reports. They are exactly the same that we received for the Oval Space. They are exactly the same that we received for the club that was applying for license in the premises of the previous Oval Space before and so on and so forth. So it's not the problem. We are opposing the late hours. And as much as much work as you do as much as you do, there is no way to decrease the noise to a level where the residents in the area actually can sleep and live there. That's the first thing. I appreciate the work that the company is putting on this. But you don't need to think about the context of the area. This is an area that is a residential area now. It's developing further with more cuts coming in. If you accept this license, you will have more and more problems in the future from residents after having granted the license, which is going to be a lot of pain for all the parties. The noise vibrations is a problem. I've read the acoustics reports. Yes, they are, I guess, industry standards for acoustic levels and decibels and so on. But that doesn't really capture that vibration. I have a history of more than a year and a half WhatsApp exchanges with the manager of the premises asking them at one or two in the morning to just reduce the sound. It's always about asking them to reduce the sound. That should not be the baseline behavior. So, I do want to reiterate my opposition to the extension of the space. I love the space that it is. There are issues, there are things to improve. Extending the space, I think, is just unsustainable for the residents. And extending the hours as well, I was comparing the licensing hours that they're requiring. They're actually asking to extend the hours on a Sunday to 3am. That is unacceptable for the residents and we really oppose that. So, yes, for a nice party. Yes, for diversity and culture, but not Sunday 3am. And hopefully not with 200 people making noise, screaming, being drunk, piecing around the area. Because, yes, the problems are linked to the people factory. This is not from the people. We have seen them vomiting in our doors. If these are clients of the people factory, I have seen them. So, just to summarize, I appreciate the work that you guys are putting in here. But, sadly, with the context of the area and the noise, there is no way you guys can guarantee a peaceful conversation with us. Especially, even though the current premises are supposed to be top notch, acoustic, but also give a small answer every weekend. Thanks for listening and sorry for the lack of noise. Thank you very much and we're sorry we caught you where we did, but we do have the process to go. There will be a number of questions and I know colleagues are sickening for questions. And I will commence, I have two questions, one to the applicant and one to Ms. Holland. If we could look at pages 181 to 4, are we sure that the list of premises there is accurate, that are functioning at present with all the various licenses? I can clarify, I probably am. There are references in there to 29 to 32, so there is the Broadwick Venues at 29 to 32. That license, that was an application here, it was refused, appealed and the appeal was withdrawn. So, as far as I am aware, there is no license granted there. Lock Studios was also, that came in at the tail end. I understood that that was coming before the committee and then either it was withdrawn or agreed. I don't actually know what the outcome was, so that one may in fact be correct. The Broadwick one certainly seems to be inaccurate. Then obviously I think we still got 11 to 12 on there, the overall cafe. So it's just making sure that we know which ones are definitely liked. If you need a little bit of time it might be easier perhaps if the chair can... I mean obviously it's going through what we see now. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, Corinne if you... Yeah, I do know. Lock Studio, that might have been granted under delegated powers, I don't know. Really? Corinne, if we carry on, if you could just hold, but thank you very much, that would be helpful. And I have one question to direct to Mr. Butt and to his colleagues. What are you planning with the existing license for the Pickle Factory? Because there is a current license, what do you intend to do with it? I anticipate I'm about to receive instructions that if this license were granted then once it became operational it would be surrendered. So the existing 13 to 14 license would be surrendered. Once the work had been completed we began trading under the new license. You have received the instructions so when we adjourn we can actually put that on the table for our consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you chair. I have a question to the objector before I come to applicant. When you mentioned that from 2012 this license was granted, so my question is have you ever negotiated with the applicant or tried to resolve this matter? You know, the surrounding area, what's happening, I'm in charge and the road as well. We have got lots of concerns and issues from the residents and you as well. Thank you. I think three management teams have changed during these years and we tried a lot of times. We had meetings in the oval space, we had meetings at the church premises, at least 20-30 meetings and they didn't solve. Simply because there were more and more and more noise, more and more unsocial behaviour and they couldn't help. They were saying sorry, yes this Saturday there was too many people, we didn't have security enough because it's too expensive security and so on and so on. There were so many times, I cannot count even, and communication, there was constant communication from us, to them and from them they tried. I'm not saying they didn't try but they didn't succeed at all. Can I just clarify, the question is obviously about the contact that you've had with the applicant, i.e. at Pickle Factory and obviously when you initially mentioned your first references to oval space and I think it's really important that the committee know if you've had dealings with this applicant or the management team that they understand that because otherwise it risks confusing everyone. So if you could please clarify. Sorry, because I was talking about the oval space through years because the question was through years what we have done. It's about this applicant. When we are talking about Pickle Factory, until two years ago there were no problems. People were quite quietly coming and leaving and we didn't have problems but recently as the Fernandez said in one and a half years time the noise is increasing. Again, to clarify sir, the problems have only started according to you with this premises about a year and a half to two years ago but really with Councillor Sultana's question it's really the one that just needs to be answered and it may just be a yes or a no. Excuse me, is what attempts you've made if any to resolve problems with the Pickle Factory, not oval space? Yes, until now I didn't do anything because when we compared to the past noises it was still bearable. Thank you. I've got a question to the applicants. I know that we are fully aware and from the objective as well, it was a shooting incident at oval space. I know that it was in connection with the Pickle Factory last year but it was absolutely a threat to public safety and was very dangerous. So what hope will you give to local residents and the community to prevent this from happening again? Thank you. We've been trading at the Pickle Factory for over ten years. We've never had any problems like that. There have never been shootings, stabbings, any problems with the police. We just don't attract that kind of a crowd. Virtually every event at oval space was promoted, external promoters, and that was the problem they had. They were also, as you all know, ingrained with gang culture and in fact numerous criminal trials were ongoing at the moment in relation to that venue. We're completely different. If you look at the letter from Amy Lamay, if you read the letters from the Hackney Night Shelter and the Wicker's charity and our customers and the local residents, we just don't attract that sort of a crowd and that's what's going to continue going forward. Our concern though is the current operator took over 18 months ago and wants to bring this investment to the premises. In order to do that though we have to be able to refurbish. Our concern is if the application isn't granted we don't trade from both premises. This operator will have to move on and who knows where this license is going to end up. So we actually think that if you keep this license in the hands of the current operator that is going to remove the possibility that that kind of element comes back to the oval. I have a question for the applicant. Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned a lot of benefit about the borough and area. If we grant the license you can benefit. But you did not mention the effect of this life of the oval, such as littering and individual behaviours and many others. And you've got a team here, you mentioned the Noises teams who can improve their premises and you're going to refurbish over a million pound investment, things like this. But you apply for, it's most likely double of the people. It's like now you can, 274, I'm not wrong? Okay, so you're asking around 600 people. So how are you going to manage those people and you might manage inside the venue but what about the people who come in, while they're coming, while they're going? How are you going to control these people and how are you going to control these areas, I mean, interstitial behaviours and things like that? Do you have what kind of plan you have? To be fair to the applicant, we did talk about the residents of the oval. We did talk about littering and antisocial behaviour. If you have our written submission, we deal with that from paragraph 29 through to paragraph 46. And we deal specifically with the really important question about, first of all, ASB on the oval and secondly, dispersal. In terms of antisocial behaviour, you've rightly picked up on what the residents talk about, graffiti, these barbecues that are taking place on the oval, urinating in the street. It's an absolute disgrace and it's awful for the premises as well. We want this to be a premises that trades throughout the day and into the night. We are victims of this ASB just as much as the residents are. What we propose is that by having these premises refurbished and open and by having an SIA security presence outside the premises, we will deter that antisocial behaviour. There is no question, these barbecues on the street, they have nothing to do with the pickle factory or our customers. In terms more directly about the increase in capacity and dispersal from the premises, I referred to this in my submission. But if you look in our evidence bundle, perhaps most directly at pages 121 and 125, that's our security procedure and policy which supplements our dispersal policy. That sets out exactly how SIA security will disperse on main event nights and there will be three SIA operatives from the exit of the premises up to the top of the oval where it meets with Hackney Road. And in particular, around the location of the church, around the location of 24 The Oval, and their only job is going to be ensuring the swift and quiet dispersal of customers. The reality is, premises like this can trade in areas like this, which are mostly business and industrial but also with residents nearby. They can trade in these areas if they have the commitment, the right people and the investment. And with our dispersal policy, our security policy, our staffing policy, the training that we have, we can do that. I understand that you mentioned your plan and how you're going to manage those people and areas. But do you know that this license was issued about 13 years ago and the areas I'm talking about, the oval, it's been changed rapidly the last few years, it's been changed a lot. There's the office areas and there's the residential areas. As I mentioned, he mentioned already there's a lot of new building blocks coming up. So, of course, you've been talking about 13 years back, the license you're holding 13 years back, but now and then it's a huge difference in area as well and the people as well. And many people, as you mentioned, in the oval, in the night time, there's a lot of boys and drugs and things like this. I even witnessed many people there, the issue outside. But as you mentioned, SIA, maybe one or two SIA can put from Hackney Road to your premises. But how are you going to control those people? You don't have anything to connect those people to listen to you or you don't have any right to control them. And especially a huge amount of people, double of the amount of people, 600 people. And also there are a few other studio bars, cafes, so ended up in the weekend, there are many people, how are you going to control them, how are you going to know which one is your customer, how are you going to control them? You make a really good point that the area is changing, but you also have the same problems that you still have the drug dealers and then the delivery drivers gathering around the oval, but you also then have the new residential developments. One of the things that is perhaps unusual about this application, given what we're asking for, is the degree of support, including from local residents, including from residents from the new development who are in favour of what we're proposing. Because the kind of refurbishment we're talking about is exactly what's going to drive that kind of criminal element out from the area. Now, the dealers you're talking about and the low-level ASB a bit further down, that is nothing to do with us. It is likely that the more supervision you have, the more security you have, the less it becomes a sort of dark, deserted turning off Hackney Road, the more you'll deter people. But of course, as you'll be aware, the committee has to take its lead in terms of crime and disorder from the police. They are, under the national guidance, they are the experts in this sort of arena. The police have no concerns about our application. We work very closely with the police. They do not think granting this application will add to crime and disorder in the area. So we can't solve directly existing problems, but what we can do is make sure they won't add to them, and we do that by our dispersal policy and by our security policy. But we are very confident, and you can see it in the representations in support, as are other local residents and businesses, that if you grant this license and bring the investment and refurbishment in, we're going to push that element out. I've got a rather strange question because I was just looking through a number of things. The applicants make a great deal of point that they're involved in community activity, but a lot of it is directed to Hackney, not the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. You refer that you support charities. I'm delighted you support charities in Hackney, but you're coming into the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. What outreach do you think your clients would do to sort of embed themselves with the community within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as opposed to the community of Hackney? As Toby's worked on the venue for the last nine years, we've done a lot of community outreach, and I think that taking your points, we will do a lot more to work with local community partners and charities in Tower Hamlets. Although to be fair to the premises, we are right on the boundary between Hackney and Tower Hamlets, and in terms of, I mentioned just two of the charities, the Hackney Night Shelter and the Wicca Charity. Both of those do work in Tower Hamlets as well. I personally know that the Hackney Night Shelter has outreach programs and has a number of events held in Tower Hamlets, as does the Wicca Charity. In terms of the community events, there is no specific borough requirement that you are Hackney or Tower Hamlets. It's the local communities. I think it would be almost unfair to penalise a premises that is very close to the boundary of Tower Hamlets and Hackney, because it benefits both communities. I think we've also talked about offering the space to local community and residence groups as well for free for residence meetings, and that would forward in Tower Hamlets. For a second penalising, I just noticed that a number of the organisations that were supporting you were Hackney based, and obviously we would love to do something. Indeed, one of your charities addressed their representation to Hackney Council, and we ain't Hackney. It is a difficulty when the premises are off Hackney Road that people might naturally assume that it would fall within Hackney. It is just in Tower Hamlets. In London it often happens. Let's say that postcode fashions change. I raised a great deal of eyebrows when I sat in one of these meetings, only to discover that somebody had decided Whitechapel was now Shawdinch. This is probably one for Mr Anderson. If I heard Mr Fernandez correctly, he seemed to suggest that the absorptive bridge in the courtyard might well help to attenuate noise, but wouldn't necessarily address any vibration issues. Perhaps Mr Anderson could explain whether that would be the case or not, and if not, what other measures might be there to address specifically vibration. I think there's probably also a condition from Nicola about prohibiting vibration anyway, but if Mr Anderson is able to answer that. I think it's a part condition and part technical question, so I might answer the boring part quite quickly. In terms of vibration from noise, of course, there are two conditions for the courtyard. They are, first of all, regulated entertainment must cease at 10pm, but secondly, all regulated entertainment must be through a noise limiting device, and inevitably we are aware of how that device is going to be calibrated. Secondly, there's going to be an absorptive barrier at the top of the building, and he can explain the technical effect of that. From the premises point of view, we hope it works, because the noise level will be set. From a licensing point of view, if it doesn't, you can't have any entertainment in the courtyard. If Mr Anderson could do that and perhaps do it in English for the likes of me, that would be very helpful. Is that better? I've broken the equipment, sorry, not good for an acoustics person. I won't go too early, and I will focus on the specific question of vibration. If you want to ask questions about noise, I can do that also. Vibration is probably getting misconstrued as base noise transfer, because if we're specifically talking about the courtyard area, the source of vibration would be people moving, people dancing, and I don't think it's realistic to assume that people dancing will create a vibration problem to nearby residents. So I think what's being considered here is vibration, which is low frequency noise, and in the courtyard, the music noise that will be permitted is very, very low, so the courtyard won't be able to be a source of base noise. So then we consider the two separate venues themselves, which will have high levels of base, and they will be acoustically treated. The speakers themselves will be on acoustic anti-vibration mounts so that they're not transmitting vibration into the building structure to protect, or to control noise emissions better. The sound insulation will be significantly increased, and as Mr. Butt mentioned earlier, this is all governed by a noise limiting device anyway, so if I've got my calculations wrong, I've got a very unhappy client, but also those music noise levels are reduced to the point where they are not causing any level of disturbance or audibility to residents. This will be for Mr. Butt. Again, Mr. Anderson makes reference in his report, it's in the supplement, I think pages 41, I've got a note somewhere, 41 to 42, and I think 44 to 45, something like that. He makes some recommendations about the work that's going to be done, such as infilling of doors, and what have you, given of course the issues that have been raised and obviously accepted by your clients that do arise, what would your client's position be if the committee's minded to grant to actually impose those as conditions? I appreciate you obviously need a few minutes to take instructions. Could I take instructions, I'll just do it. Absolutely no problem at all. So the condition would be that, well we could, before license activity would take place under this license, the noise attenuation works as set out within Mr. Anderson's report be completed. Very helpful, thank you. I think, unless anybody has extra questions, Councillor Kabir, Councillor Sultana, no? I think we're all okay, I've run out of questions. We now come to the concluding remarks, I would invite the Reverend Petrus on behalf of the objectors to quickly sum up as brevity is always supported, and then we will have Mr. Butt as the applicant to sum up. Perhaps if you could try and keep it with me in a minute or so would be very helpful. Sorry about that, if Ms. Ripper and Mr. Fernandez would also like to exercise your right for a minute each and Mr. Butt will have therefore equal time, if that's okay? Still, in my opinion, too much is going to be noise because of late hours entertainment. Especially when people will go out to smoke and you will not be able to manage these people because they were used to dance in the premises and when they will go out to smoke and they will make much more noise. And also when people will be leaving premises, it's going to be impossible to manage after noisy environment, dancing, going into the quiet oval without talking, without shouting. I don't see the point and I object to license after 11pm. Thank you very much. If you'd like to turn off, I think now I'd like to invite Ms. Ripper just to very quickly sum up. To quickly sum up, I just want to say that we as the residents don't get enough sleep to healthy go on with our lives. So please take that into account. Thank you. Mr. Fernandez, if you've landed from your taxi. He just texted me that he has no signal, but he sticks to the points he was making about the noise reduction and about the vibrations coming from the low base. And that's very harmful. That's what he said. Thank you very much. If you could tell him, we've taken that on board. We now move to Mr. Butt for your closing remarks. I will be equally brief. I have been receiving many instructions about community work that is done in Tower Hamlets and I'm being told that a poor job explaining it to you. As someone who moved to Hackney 20 years ago because the estate agent lied and said N1 was an Islington postcode. It is easy to see how people can come become confused between different boroughs. All I'll say is this that paragraphs 2022 of our skeleton, we set out the references and the evidence to the work we do in the community. There are numerous references to Tower Hamlets within those paragraphs. This has really been the exemplar of a committee led discussion. There have been powerful and reasonable representations from local residents. And over the course of this application, in fact, there have been meetings between residents and the premises that have been beneficial. If the noise problems have only really featured two years ago, it is very hard to see how that can be linked to these premises, as that includes the period of time when oval space was operating. In the honest and candid representations that you have heard this evening, the focus of those really has been on noise. Noise breakout and the noise from base at the premises. And we do accept that there is a problem with the fabric at the building and that does cause noise breakout from time to time. So there are really two options here. You refuse the application and inevitably someone else will come and take over this operation at some stage in the near future. They will still have a 5am/6am license unless and until it is reviewed or curtailed. But it would not be good for the local area. Or the committee could seize this opportunity with this applicant. We have an operator in Mr. Edwards who is extremely experienced, as is his company. You can read the endorsements from him, from Mr. Kil who I know you are aware of, from Ms. Lamay who is the mayor's night czar speaking about what a good operator he is. He wants to bring investment to these premises. So on the one hand you will get that investment and the work to the building that can be conditioned, on the other hand you have an uncertain future. When the real problem is noise breakout from the premises, a refurbishment and a noise limiting condition will solve that problem. And as Mr. Anderson said, he might have a very unhappy client if his predictions are wrong. How the solution there would be, turn the noise limiter right down even to the level where there is no regulated entertainment. A secondary issue really has been dispersal. As I say, it is possible, even with some residential units in the area, for premises like this to trade without causing disturbance at dispersal time. Please look at our dispersal policy and our security policy. Please see that that is a condition of the licence and that we will have three SIA operatives in the exact area where you have heard about noise problems, 24 the Oval and the Lithuanian Church. So it is an opportunity, it is a challenge, but in my submission, the only way to promote the licensing objectives is to take the applicant at their word, grant the licence, impose these stringent conditions. We would not be here if EHO were making a representation. We would not be here if the police were saying you will have the problems that you see at Oval Space. It is unusual for an application of this kind to be in effect supported by the responsible authorities or certainly there to be no representation. It would, in all the circumstances, promote the objectives to grant the licence. Thank you very much. OK, Mr Melnick. Sorry, I am going to be a pain. I had a note and completely forgot. There were a couple of things I noted on the conditions that just need clarifying. I don't think anything is likely to arise out of these, but if they do, then I will obviously advise the chair to let anyone else have a say on it. Condition 23 about training, again obviously this is all if the committee's mind is to grant, there has been no number inserted about how often staff are to receive training apart from an induction. Can I suggest if they grant six months? And on the second, or the next condition, condition 24 about waste materials, if there is no collections to take place on Sunday 0900 to 2100 hours, and it says in brackets after that mid-day, so I am not sure if the 2100 is actually a typo and should read 12. I assume probably because of the brackets, but I just want to check that. Thank you. That was all, chair, and I don't think anything arises out of that. Thank you, I think we're all OK on that. Oh, Corinne, yes, please do, that would be very helpful. Right, well, obviously Oval Space has gone, as we know. I think there's confusion with it, then another application for Broadwick Studios came in, but then that was appealed and I believe they've all gone now. Although Lock Studios is an existing licence, which obviously is what was Oval Space, and that was granted in November 23, and then obviously the Oval Cafe is the one that is under consideration, but that has lapsed now. OK, thank you. So those hours are what the Oval Cafe did have to do. It is a matter of record, I should say, that the company that was running 11 to 12 years of Oval Space was dissolved by company's house, so that's pretty emphatic. Just as a matter of fact, for record. Thank you for your contributions today, the committee will now dissolve into a joint private session after the meeting ends, and as I've said before, and you heard me, when we adjourn, we'll be supported by Mr Melnick and Ms Yesman. Ms Yesman will take notes, Mr Melnick will be available for advice. Our decision will be communicated to you, and the decision will say whether we're unanimous or by vote, and it will arrive in your inboxes within five working days, and it will be obviously up to everybody to decide what to do subsequent to the decision. Thank you very much. Item 5 is our little formality, which is the expansion of decision deadlines. Are there any extensions similar? Yes, please ask members to extend the decision deadlines for the following applications T garden 138 Whitechapel Road, London E1, the Melbourne 387 Roman Road, London E3, 7 and seven h one rice limited 46 Brick Lane, London E1, the cave basement alpha group at 83 Smead Road, London E3, one club bro London E1. 5 Newfoundland Place, E14 4BH, 10 Newfoundland Place, London E14 4BH and Australia, one Nicholls and Clarks Yard, London E16 SH if they can all be agreed to the 31st of December 2024. Thank you.

• Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]