Transcript

Good evening everybody. I welcome everybody who is watching this meeting online to this extraordinary meeting of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Licensing Committee. My name is Peter Golds and I am the Chair of the Licensing Committee and for the purpose of the meeting this evening I should be supported by a full range of members who I'd like to invite to introduce themselves so everybody watching on television knows who they all are. If I start from my right. Good evening Chair. My name is Councillor Ahmadul Kabir, Bethnalghin East. Good evening Chair. My name is Councillor Mushtaq Ahmed, Bethnalghin West. Good evening Chair. My name is Councillor Anamia Amfeyeshedor-Wad. Thank you. And officers. Simi Yasmin, Democratic Services. Jonathan Melnick, Legal Services. Councillors on this side. Shubha Hussain. I'm Councillor Rebecca Sultana, Bethnalghin East. Good evening. Councillor Lilo Ahmed, Malenborg. Good evening. Good evening Chair. Councillor Ahmad. Good evening Chair. First of all I'm sorry I'm late. I was praying actually. Councillor Farouk Ahmed, Whitechapel Ward. I would like to welcome, oh and we have two members online. Would you like to say hello? Hiya. I'm Councillor Mina Ali, Bowie's Ward. Sabina. Hello. Hi. I just got my network again. Sorry, I just missed. Did you call my name, Chair? Would you like to introduce yourself? Hi Licence Committee everyone. I'm Councillor Sabina Akter, Sabina Green-Ward. And Norah GPIS. Thank you very much. And as a small formality and a welcome, because this is quite a complex committee and we do a lot of work, I'd like to welcome Councillor Abdi Mohammed to the meeting. I saw him at overview and scrutiny, so we look forward to him working with us and to have an enthusiastic new member. This meeting will be held in person. Committee members and key participants are present in the meeting. However, I've been informed that some members are online and you have heard two of them introduce themselves. In the event of us going for a vote, only those who are present in the room will be entitled to cast a vote. I've already mentioned the meeting is being filmed for the Council's website and for public viewing. May I remind members and indeed officers who are presenting, when I call you to press your button on to speak and then when you have concluded to press it off, because if you leave it on, the next person speaking can't be heard. Ms Yasmin, do we have any formal apologies for absence? Chair, we only have received an apologies from lateness from Councillor Salih Ahmed. One apology for lateness. Labour Party, are any of your members absent? Okay, we have just an apology for lateness. Item number one is decorations of interest. Do members have any decorations of disclosable pecuniary interests? May I remind you, while making a declaration, the member needs to state what it's all about. For the purpose of the record, I have nothing to declare. I have nothing to declare. I have nothing to declare. For the purposes of those viewing, I've looked around the meeting and nobody has anything to declare. Item number 2.1 are reports for consideration. And the major reason for meeting tonight is a report on the cumulative impact assessment policy, which will run for four years from 2024 to 2027. It's pages 7 to 110 in our agenda. And I do say when I call people to speak, if anybody has anything to say and it's specific to a page, could you identify which page you're talking about so we all know where we are. I would like to welcome Tom Lewis, who is the service manager, to introduce the report. When that is done and Mr Lewis has finished, I'll invite members to put questions and then we will note the report subsequently. Mr Lewis, the floor is yours.

Thank you, chair. So this is a noting report for the licensing committee. And it's to note the proposed review of the licensing policy, the community of impact policy, that's being put towards full council on the 20th of November, 2024. It's been through scrutiny and it's been through cabinet. The objectives of the community of impact policy are in essence to reduce crime and disorder and public nuisance where there's high saturation of license premises linked to crime and disorder and nuisance in that area. The having the community of impact policy means that applicants wishing to apply for a license within those zones have to show that they will not add to the cumulative effect and detriment of the area at that time. As some members will know, we've had a cumulative impact policy in place since 2014 in Brick Lane. That was reviewed in 2018 and that created the Bethnal Green community of impact policy. It was reviewed again, both impact policies in 2020. And the results of the review on this occasion is to retain and expand the Brick Lane community of impact policy to its south eastern edge and to remove the Bethnal Green cumulative impact policy, so the Bethnal Green one. The reasons behind that is the evidence supports the retention and expansion of the cumulative impact policy in Brick Lane. It does not support the retention of the Bethnal Green policy, the Bethnal Green community of impact policy. There is a number of appendices which support the evidence. The consultation on this ran from the 31st of January 2024 until the 25th of April 2024 and the results of those can see near the appendices. Just to mention as well, they run for three years and the next time it will be reviewed is three years time from the 20th of November pending. Thank you very much. I will exercise my right to ask a couple of ones. Firstly, with regard to the Spitalfields one, was there any pressure to expand it northwards, to go up more towards within Weaver's Ward, just around the Arnold Circle, beyond the Arnold Circle area? We did have a call, and some members will recall, that we had it in 2020 to expand it into what would be Columbia Road area. We have looked at that and that is actually addressed in the report. If I can draw your attention down to that page number. If you look at the Columbia Road and Bethnal Green extensions, which is paragraph 520, all the way down to the end of page 12, which is 5.56. In essence, as with the review in 2020, there is insufficient evidence, both in terms of saturation and crime and disorder and nuisance, within the zone of Columbia Road to put a community impact zone in that area. But because it was mentioned in the consultation twice by two residents, that is why I have put that in the report before you. Thank you, Mr Lewis. The reason I raised it is because I have had conversations with residents when we have had meetings about possibly extending, but obviously we can't extend something up if there is not a call and there is no reasonable justifying. In terms of Bethnal Green, I was looking at the report a moment ago and I did not identify the page, but the figures I am going to do, Tom, Mr Lewis will know, is although that 40% wish to see it go, if you looked at the other figures, 47% wish to see it either remain or expanded, but they are in two separate columns, so it could be arguable that there is a balance of support there for retaining or indeed expanding the Bethnal Green CIZ. Yes, in the consultation, so it is 40.4% to go with the proposal, 27% to retain in its current form, 27% to retain and expand and then 4.3% to retain but reduce. If you look at the report, which is Appendix 8, which is the consultation report, that actually details where the evidence is for keeping, retaining or expanding the CIZ. Though we can take into account the results of the consultation, we also have to take into account the statistics of the crime and disorder and the saturation in those areas. And when you look at the data maps actually in that appendix, and if I just pull those up in front of myself, if you've got those in front of you, that clearly shows where the evidence is to keep it and expand it in regards to Brick Lane, and why not, there's not the evidence there to keep it in Bethnal Green CIZ. And you can see it over a few years there as well. So if you take the first four maps, they are in regards to the crime statistics, so the CRIS reports, the crime stats reports, and that takes you from 2020 all the way through to June 2023. And then if you go down to the next set of four maps, they are the calls from the 101 numbers. Now these calls have been vetted by a police sergeant, so they're not just the calls, they're calls that have been checked by a police sergeant and then gone on the stats. And again, you can see there clearly there's more sort of 101 calls linked to the alcohol trade within that sort of western edge where the Brick Lane is, compared to Bethnal Green. And also if you look at some of those actually, if you look at the ones on 2020 and 2021, you can see that some of those actual red spots are only in a certain area of the Bethnal Green CIA, not linked to some of the licensed premises further along, because the licensed premises there are the dots. Then if you move through again onto 2022 and 2023 in the 101 calls again, the red spots really are only in one area in the Bethnal Green CIA, and there's not that many around where the licensed premises are. And then you've got it, and you can see that then in 2022. The only anomaly really is when you look at 2023 in the Brick Lane one, where you have seen on the 101 calls a slight decrease. But then if you go back to the Chris numbers, numbers on there, you can see there's not so much, it's not the same in terms of the linking between the licensed premises. I mean it is fair to say looking at, if you look at the maps on our agenda, roughly in the late 90s, you will notice on the Bethnal Green one, about two thirds of it, there is just nothing, nothing there at all, and there is a particular blob in a particular area, where there are, well basically which is Cambridge East Road, isn't it? Okay, I think we will live with that, I think it is important, bearing in mind the police resources that are required for the Brick Lane one, that we know that the amount of complaints that happen on the Brick Lane, Shoreditch, Triangle, exceed those in Covent Garden, Leicester Square and so forth, that I think it would be better that resources are moved there than spread thinly. Right, colleagues have you got questions? Chair, you've got Councillor Sabina Acta, who's had her hand up. Councillor Sabina Acta, I'm sorry, I call you first, then I should go round colleagues in the room. That's fine, thank you Chair. So part of my question has just been answered by the officer about the whole consultation, and the fact that, have we just, has the council just done the conclusion from the consultation, but obviously the council has this explained. No, there were other reasons, and he's shown from what we can see from the screen as well. It was just also my, I just want to speak about the fact that from the consultation, only 47 people actually took part on the survey. So just looking, going forward, how can we improve that to get more people involved? And I know it's not just the officers sitting here, it's as a council how we can improve our consultation processes. And we've seen like 318 visits were made to the site, but not everyone actually participated on the survey. So how do we get more people to participate, and we can have a more better conclusion and kind of more evidence base to go forward really. So it's kind of a note I wanted to mention, Chair. Thank you. Mr Lewis. I'm open to suggestions. I mean, we did do quite a considerable consultation on it. I sent it through to UK Hospitality, I sent it through to Beer and Pub in the evening. I don't know whether or not it's not as snappy, I suppose, as a licensing policy. Certainly when we put it through to consultation in 2020, we did get more interest in it, but I don't know whether that was because we put it across at a time when we were during lockdown, more people were at home, more time possibly for them to look at it. But my view is that the consultation was extensive. We put it out to as many people as we possibly could. Short of going out there and sitting over them, making fill in the consultation, I don't really know what else we could do. As Councillor Sabin Ahmed has said, 318 did visit the site, but they didn't actually take part in the consultation. We did get four responses written, two of them from residents, one from police and one from public health. But if members have got any suggestions of how we can increase our reach, I'd love to hear it because we will be going out for the gambling policy at some point later on this year. Difficult one, that is. If that counts us in the room, any questions? Yes, Councillor. Thank you, Tom. Thanks for your presentation. Basically, I'm not quite clear on this. You know, last call out on 2020 and 2021, and basically Bethnal Green, which is really high, and is there any specific area or what are we going to do about that? You know, the last call out on 2020 and 2021, it is really, really high. If you look at the page number 103. 103. Sorry, which chart were you looking at there on 103? The first, both, or which figure? Yes, both. Bethnal Green, both sides are Bethnal Green, really high. These are in regards to the London Ambulance call out data for 2020 and 2021. They are high, but then if you look at Spitalfields and Bangletown on 2020, that's higher. And then if you go down, you've got St Peter's Ward shooting up there as well, Whitechapel coming up. And then in 2022, you've also got it higher in Spitalfields and Bangletown. The thing is with the CIA, different to how we did it when we did it in 2020, in 2020 it was in guidance. Now, since then, it's moved into the licensing policy itself. So the evidence chain that you've got to show to keep these in place is greater. We can't just look in isolation at one area, we've got to look at the London Ambulance stuff, the crime stats, the public nuisance, so the complaint data as well. When you put all that in together, that's why the proposal was to remove the Bethnal and keep and retain the Brick Lane CIA. In terms of, we all know that things change and expand and move. It doesn't mean to say that removing one CIA policy, even if you remove both, that means no more Commutative Impact Policies. If Bethnal Green in the future rises up, or if another area rises up, then we could consider putting in a Commutative Impact Zone into those areas. The process would be exactly the same, we would go out for consultation again and it would come through the full council. Any other councillors with questions? Yes, Shubo and then Mohammed. Where we're looking to extend, have we consulted all the residents around those areas, in and around? We've consulted all of the license premises, personal licenses in those areas, because they're the ones that affect. In terms of the residents, I try to reach out as much as I can, I've gone to the Safer Neighbourhoods panels, gone through to the Council of the Mosques. I've gone through to yourselves as committee members as well, and we've put the consultation out on our own consultation page. For whatever reason I do, but I put it on my own Facebook page, as sad as I am, as well, to even increase the reach. But that's as far as we've got. We also put it out through our links with our Business Town Centres team as well. But I believe that goes through to the Business Centres. It's more business orientated with a lot of this stuff. But we have tried to reach as many residents as we could do, and we've sent it out to all the residents associations that we've got links for, of which there are four of those. But I also sent in those emails, and we sent reminder emails as well, to say that if you know of any others, or any other residents, please forward on this consultation. ...while supporting business development. Sorry, Councillor, could you repeat that? Could you maybe give us a few examples where the CIA has made successful interventions within those localities, and while supporting the local businesses? Yeah, I can. I mean, I can't give you specific actual examples, because I haven't got those to hand. But what I can say is, certainly since we changed the policy in 2020, when we gave the potential exceptions to the rule, I believe it gave members and officers more understanding on what the vision was within those zones. i.e. it was non-alcohol led premises, it was restaurants and cafes that we look more favourably on, and you wouldn't have the bars and the clubs, those kind of areas, which is more alcohol led. So you then talk about having conditions in place, such as no vertical drinking, alcohol food only, so those kind of things, it's made those licenses within those areas that have been granted, stronger. And it's not, I don't believe it has actually, it's not a complete no, but what it has done is it's made, it's strengthened the license conditions in those areas, and gave a greater control to the council itself in dictating what kind of licenses we wanted. Thanks, Chair. Thank you for that, Tom. I've got a comment and a question, I suppose. The CIA is a pretty blunt issue, isn't it? I think, leaning on from what Shiba was saying in terms of some of the understanding, so we're moving away from having the CIA in Bethnal Green, so what analysis have we done in terms of that, so it's more of a, you have to go through several more hoops, I suppose, to get there. Has there been some analysis done in terms of why, it's seen as a success story, the fact that we don't need one, should we be raving about this, it's just what your thoughts are in terms of the analysis, and has that been written down anywhere? The only analysis we've done in terms of putting this review back is the same analysis that we're required to do under the guidance, so we've looked at it from point of view of is there evidence to keep those cumulative impact promises, or is there not the evidence there. In terms of measuring their success, we've not done that kind of analysis. I'm trying to think off the top of my head what we would look for to try and note that analysis. The only thing I can think of, and this is in the report, is you can see how many licenses have been granted in those zones, and I believe it splits it per delegated authority, which is the officer granting, the committee granting it. In terms of what it's achieved, I do believe that it has actually prevented the clubs and the pubs going into those zones, so it's not going to stop what's already there, what's already there will stay in place. If they choose to put a full variation in, then it would come into effect, but what it does do is, as I said earlier, it gives that greater level of control over those license premises, or those licenses within those zones, so you can put those conditions on so you're not getting those alcohol led kind of establishments, you're getting more sit down, have a drink, have some food kind of establishments within those zones. So I can't be any clearer than that. That is helpful, and I appreciate this, because it's not going to undo some of the current bad behaviour that's there already, but it's ultimately a reset, isn't it, for the area where there's more of a higher bar to receive what you need to do. The other question I had was, I note that in 5.6.2, the Brick Lane CIA was expanded in 2018 to meet the north-western edge of the Hackney CIA. So are we doing analysis with other farmers of Newham and Hackney in terms of air views, so I raised this last week at ONS and I'll kind of keep referring back to it, there's the Hackney WIC, I know it was raised previously, it doesn't quite reach the threshold, I know there's legal requirements now, it's now a statutory point, but it would really be fascinating to see what the analysis is on the Hackney side of it, because if we've done it for the Brick Lane side where it met where the north-western part was, where that border is, it's right where the railway lines are, you go past Hackney station, you go into where the majority of the partying or the hotspot issues can be, but that's not to say that it doesn't travel there, like London's a transient place isn't it, so has any analysis been done in that particular area on what Hackney's data is saying or what Newham's data is saying, I appreciate you can't do a CIA cross further, but if it meets some of the similar data, is there a need to be more coordinated there? I can't speak about Newham so much, but we do talk quite frequently to our colleagues in Hackney, because it's closer, there is a body of water that I suppose prevents a little bit of the transient nature from Newham, and there's more I suppose in the Hackney area that's all come across from Hackney and over from us to Hackney I suppose, as I said in ONS we have done an environmental impact assessment, or the police have carried out the environmental impact assessment in that area of Hackney Wick, yes it doesn't meet the threshold, but we're not blind to the fact that that is becoming more and more of a hotspot in that area, and there is quite a close or cheek and jowl of residents to license premises in those areas. In terms of looking to Hackney of what their stats are, or what Newham's stats are, apart from doing the environmental impact assessment which the police led, and the reason the police led in it is because they don't have to be constrained within a borough, we've not ourselves in the borough done that, that's not to say that we couldn't, we could reach out to them, but unless they've done any kind of similar thing like this, like they've got a cumulative impact zone in those areas, they may not have those particular figures, it would be the same in Newham as well, unless they've got something like a cumulative impact policy or something which they're gathering that data together in that area, they might not have any figures to share with us. I can reach out to the licensing teams in those areas to try and see, but that would probably be the extent of it. I would really encourage you too, because I think unlike other parts of the borough, there's the Olympic site, and the fact that the stadium is there now has been a real pinch point, a real pressure point, so the stadium just falls into Newham, but Hackney Wick Falls, which is the main area that people get off and enjoy them, rightfully so, the area, especially the summer's day, will go to Newham, it's just such an area where it can't be so above a boundary bound, because it's such a, you know, with the Olympic Park, more and more are using it for entertainment, there's the Abba Zone, it's just quite an area that I think if we're not keeping on top of it, I think can spiral out of control. Thank you Jack. I think I'd like to sort of expand a little on what Councillor Mohammed has said, because I remember 20 years ago, before the Olympics came, that much of Fish Island was an absolutely desolate area, and it was almost impossible to cross the borough from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets into Newham from the Fish Island, now of course you've got new road schemes, and you need to stare at the street signs to see which borough you're actually in, and it is very, very difficult, there is a huge population, and when West Ham are playing, as we know from current applications, particularly that we're getting up in the Fish Island area, a lot of people come out of the stadium when West Ham are playing and suddenly discover there's lots of premises actually well into Tower Hamlets, where they can drink and everything, we're not saying that we need to start shutting them down or being difficult, I think we need to look at it and keep it under a degree of observation, would probably be the better word. Thank you Chair, I mean it is under observation, we do look at Agnewick quite a lot, that's why when we had the funding under the late night level, which we don't have the funding this year to do, we were going to do the radio link system within that zone as well, which is also why we've done the environmental impact assessment, we've done a number of NOCSOC operations in those areas, got another police operations as well in terms of anti-spiking and anti-misogyny, that's one of the zones we want to look at as well, so we do know that it's an area which is high in the nightlife kind of area, one thing I might add though I suppose is, if you were going to put the CIA in Agnewick, I'm not saying we are, but if things progress and things change, it's not going to have any impact on those that are already there, it can't, and the other thing is, to really think about is, what are you trying to control in that area, if you look at the Bethnal Green one, the Brick Lane one, it has those possible exceptions which says we will accept non-alcohol led premises, quite difficult to do that so much in Agnewick, on the kind of businesses you're doing restaurants, they are late night bars and clubs, so that would be my only worry about what we could do with that. So I agree with you, and I think different parts of the borough that are more built up, that would be a valid point, but I think the point about Agnewick and Fish Island, and it's likely to the degree that LLDC have been the planning authority, so they've been slightly removed from Tower Hamlets, but that area is only going to be more developed, and actually there's thousands of houses that are going to be built there, yes it's been approved by LLDC and their planning authority powers, are coming back to us and the respective boroughs, but I'd almost argue now's the time to do it, given that actually we know where it's heading to, and the fact that it hasn't got there yet, because with these new houses will be a lot of new entertainment, so actually I don't necessarily know if it's a valid point, but I take the point about what the CIA does, but given the early stages of the area, given that we know it crosses three boroughs, actually. With a new area like Fish Island and Agnewick, how do you come up, what is the threshold? So it's in the Home Office guidance, is the main thing, and it talks about it there, but if I go into it basically, what grassroots you've got to have crime disorder or nuisance linked to licensed premises within those areas, the Agnewick not having that kind of area, if you look at the maps, it does show you that the licensed premises within those areas, and the crime disorder and the 101 calls, there's not that link, there's not that same link that you get in other areas of the borough, particularly the one where we currently want to retain and expand the Brick Lane, which is at the Brick Lane CIA, so you've not got those links in that area, you've not got the high saturation of premises with the link to crime disorder or nuisance, that's the main part of it. Final point for me, and I promise everybody I'll shut up after this, when we have our agendas and we look, the council does have a framework policy which we can use when considering applications, do you think that the framework policy is effective when we look at applications and when we consider very very late night licenses? It can be, it depends, I mean the problem I suppose you've got, if you're going back to say Hackney Wick, if you wanted to use that for the framework hours, whether or not they would want later hours, and then it's a balancing act with yourselves as the chairs and the arbiters, when it comes to you as to whether or not it's right to sort of curtail those hours back, based on are they going to have an impact on the license and objectives. Having the framework hours is good, but they're not arbitrary, you can't just say these are framework hours and that's it, as you quite rightly know, so they're more of something to go by rather than something to set to. The only difference I would say when your discretion is engaged, which is when it comes to yourselves, is the outside areas, which is now in the licensing policy, which does say that where the discretion is involved, or the evidence, that you could reduce the outside areas to nine o'clock, which is in the licensing policy. I think when we do consider applications then we have to look both of what the residents and the needs for a night time economy, because we've got to balance both, there is a problem with the night night time economy in London, but at the same time we do have responsibilities to our residents, it might be worth, when we do come to consider applications in the area, consider what Tom just said very carefully. Colleagues, any further questions? Councillor Ahmed? Councillor Salih Ahmed, apparently you can't take part in the discussion because you arrive late. Even though this is a noticing report, we still want to make sure that everything is dealt with properly. Councillor Farooq Ahmed? Thank you, Chair. Just a simple question. Is there any thought or plan to expand the CIZ on the south side of Allgate East Station? Sorry, Councillor, the south side of? Allgate East Station, Lehman Street, Allgate Triangle. Sorry, I just want to make sure, because there is no voting involved here, so I'm still not allowed to discuss. So we'll come back to your question, Councillor. So if you look at the maps on there, and I've got one here you can pass around if you want. The proposal is to keep and expand the Brick Lane CIA and that will take it past Allgate East, south and then east. One on figure eight, two, twenty-three. Sean is bringing it over to you. The only thing is I will need it back, I've only got one copy. Does that answer your question? Very clear and thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. And the other question, by creating this policy, what are the success rate of what you've achieved? Or what are the areas that you have achieved by creating this CIZ? Thank you, Councillor. Like I said before, it is hard to measure in statistical terms, but the report actually does show you the differences in licenses granted within the actual body of the report. But, as I said earlier, I think the successes, I suppose, of both zones, particularly the Brick Lane one because it's been there for longer, is that it gives greater control over the licenses that are granted there. And it means that the ones that are granted there, because we've got the possible exceptions, are ones that are not alcohol-led. So you've got more of your cafes and your restaurants, but you're kind of saying we might not be granting late night clubs and bars and clubs, which are those that might give rise to more cause of a sort of crime disorder and nuisance. Depending on what they say, it's not a complete no, you might have scenarios where you might grant a club license within those areas, depending on what they say. But that's what I think it does, it gives that greater control, greater ability to strengthen those license conditions within those zones. In which case, we've concluded our discussion. Now, as we know, the meeting is to note the report because it goes before the full Council meeting, which, of course, when it gets presented at the Council meeting, every member will be entitled to say their bit again before the Council votes on it. May I have agreement with all those present in the room to note the report? Can you hear me? Because I had my hand up. Sorry, Chair. Sorry. Sorry, Amina. You wanted to contribute? Yes, sorry, I did, yeah, before you... Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on. Okay, Councillor Ali did have her hand up, so therefore you can contribute. Yeah, just a quick one, really, just on the back of Farouk's question to the committee. Many of us have been kind of like on the Licensing Committee for years, have noted that even when people come before us asking to either extend a license or have a new license in those areas, sometimes we do use the argument about it being a controlled area, but sometimes it doesn't always work. How we know this time the powers will be stronger for us to be able to use, to be able to stop maybe more nightclubs, as you said, or more bars being opened or existing ones trying to extend their licenses so that there'd be more problems with anti-social behaviour. I just want to know that this will be something that will give us members on this committee a bit more teeth, really, because sometimes we don't always manage to use that as an argument, sometimes when we're giving out licenses or looking at reviewing licenses. Mr Melnick can explain that, because it's the presumption, it's the presumption they have to explain why they're going to break the CIZ on an application. Yes, that's essentially it. It reverses the presumption in favour of granting the application. It doesn't necessarily mean that the committee can and must always refuse. You are still required, as you are with any application, to consider it on its merits. As far as I'm aware, certainly many of the ones that I've sat on, it has always been where someone has shown themselves that they can be an exception. It might be, for example, an off-licence selling high-end spirits and beers where the cheapest item on offer is about 10 quid, where it's got a limited offering, or there are food-led premises, small premises within framework hours. I'm certainly not aware of bars and pubs and nightclubs within the CIZ that are getting extensions of hours. And even where they are, again, the CIZ doesn't say absolutely not. If they've got a track record that they can run on that they're not adding to that, then it might well be that a committee can decide that they're going to be an exception. Equally, it might be that they're not. But certainly it does work. The CIZ isn't a, and will never be, an absolute control. It just gives you a greater degree of control over what you can or can't do with an area, because it does put that burden onto the applicant in the first place, instead of effectively onto the objectors to show that they shouldn't be granted. Does that answer your question? Yes, very clearly. Thank you for that. I think our point is that when we discuss, we must be very, very, very focused on the questions we ask. And then when we adjourn, we must be very focused on the decision we reach, and the decision that we reach is absolutely sustainable. If the decision we reach is not sustainable, then the decision becomes wrong. But we have a tool with us to help. I'll detain the meeting for a minute or two. It's a slight probative. I always remember one application, and Simi will remember this, where we went against the CIZ, which was for a little, tiny, high-end Italian establishment on the Spitalfields market site, which remained open only from sort of just before lunch, till just before seven o'clock in the evening, and sold very, very expensive Italian wines. And they wanted the license for that, and an objection came in, but of course that wasn't causing any problems to anybody. It wasn't affecting the night-time economy, because when everything kicked off at night, they'd been closed for hours, as they told us. So therefore, we had a robust decision to go against the CIZ. But equally, if we defended the CIZ, we must have a robust decision to defend it, and that is up to everybody sitting here. We've, having discussed it, have any other member anything to say? No, I can't see any hands up. Members, as I pointed out, this will now go before Council. We have a second bite of the cherry to discuss it at the Council meeting, so Councils can discuss it at their respective group meetings, and potentially come to a decision and see where they go. I will obviously be impartial at the meeting, as I usually am, and make sure, whatever you sum up, you say. Can I add the agreement that members note this report? Is that agreed? Simi, we seem to have an unanimous agreement the report is noted. Thank you very much for coming today. The meeting has closed at 6.53. [BLANK_AUDIO]