Transcript

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Licensing Sub-Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Sillig-Armit. I am the chair of the Licensing Sub-Committee meeting tonight. This meeting is being held in person. Committee members and key participants are present in the meeting room and there may be some joining remotely online today. What the filming of this meeting? This meeting is being filmed for Council website for public viewing. I would remind members at the meeting to only speak to me, speak on my direction and to speak clearly into their microphones to ensure that their contributions can be properly recorded. Thanks. Can members and officers please introduce yourselves? I will start from my left here. Thank you, chair. Good evening, all. My name is Councillor Farouk, and I have nothing to declare as well. Hi, I'm Councillor Rebecca Sultana from Bethnalton East. Thank you. David Wong from Legal Services. My role here tonight is to provide legal advice to the Councillors and to assist them. Simi Yasmin, Democratic Services. Motion and a licensing section. Thank you, everyone, officers and members. Can I ask Simi, is there any apologies tonight? No, chair, no apologies for absence. Thank you. Do members have any declaration of disclosable pecuniary interest? I would like to declare a chair. Thank you, sir. I would like to declare a chair. I have nothing to declare, thank you. Can members please note the rules and procedure as on page 7 to 16 of this agenda. I would like to ask Simi to announce those in attendance tonight, please. Thank you, chair. For this item is 3.1, application for a new premises licence for Nave of Clubs, 1 Club Row, London E1 6JX. Chair, we have on behalf of the applicants, we have Mr James Anderson and Felix Faulkner who are from Poplosten and Allen, and we have James Dyer and Benji Librowski, sorry, pronouncing it wrong, on behalf of the applicants. Those that have made representation, we have Kathy Driver representing the licensing authority, and she has joined us virtually, and Nicola Cadzo representing environmental health, and she is here present, chair. After the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of ten minutes to make their representation. The objectives will also be given ten minutes each to make their representation. I will let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Please note that the sub-committee have read the agenda pack in advance. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Simi. Can I ask Mohsen Ali, Licence Officer, to introduce the report, please? Thank you, chair. The application in front of you is for a new premises licence application for Nave of Clubs, 1 Club Row, London E1 6JX. Looking through the report, if you look at Appendix 1, which is pages 28 to 38, you will see a copy of the existing licence, which is held by the premises under a different licence holder. More specifically, page 36 has the ground floor and the first floor licensed areas, if members wish to compare the previous licence to the current application. 3.2 of the report shows you the licence of activities. It is just for information only, just to make the comparison. Appendix 2, pages 40 to 57, a copy of the variation application is enclosed. Page 57 shows you the floors that are being licensed. 3.4 shows you the licence of activities and timings that have been applied for this particular application. Appendix 3, pages 59 to 60, shows you maps of the area. Appendix 4, pages 62 to 64, shows you some photographs of the premises and the vicinity. Appendix 5, pages 66 to 70, shows you details of the nearest licence venues, sort of premises. Appendix 6, page 72, shows you the holding representation of environmental protection. Appendix 7 is the representation of the licence authority, pages 74 to 77. And the resident representation is in Appendix 8, which is pages 79 to 80. The representations are under the three licence and objectives of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety. 7.0 of the report shows you the conditions that have been offered by the applicant. Some of these conditions have been modified in agreement with the police and that is in 8.0 of the report. The agreement with the police and the agents are in Appendix 9. And also, you'll have seen additional supplemental agenda submitted by the applicant, provided you with further evidence in support of the application. Now, there's been some correspondence between the applicant and environmental protection since the report was written. However, as everything hasn't been agreed yet, the applicant may wish to clarify which is agreed and which isn't agreed in their submission. That is a summary of the report. Unless members have any further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mohsen. Can I ask members, do you have any questions for the officer? Okay. Can I ask the applicant to present the application, and you have ten minutes. You'll be reminded when you've got a minute left. Thank you. Chair, members of the Committee, thank you. Good evening. I am James Anderson representing the applicant. To my left is Benji Liebovitz and to my right is James Dye and Felix, my colleague, sits at the end there. I'm going to speak to you briefly, and then I shall bring in James and Benji when appropriate during the application. You've had, I think, quite a full disclosure from us in relation to what we're trying to do here. And just briefly in a nutshell, this is an opportunity to bring back into life an historic pub in the Shoreditch and Tower Hamlets area that's been closed as a pub for probably 20 years. It's had a couple of goes as a restaurant, but they've not been terribly successful. So two entrepreneurs, independents, see this as an opportunity to bring back into life a building that's been completely closed for two years. And it's a magnificent building. It's a listed building. James and Benji have got approval from your colleagues in planning a listed building to do one or two minor alterations inside. So it is, we hope, quite an exciting opportunity. There are some minor changes which they propose. The ground floor is a fantastic pub space, and you'll see from the photographs we submitted how sadly many years ago it used to be enjoyed by local people as a traditional East End pub. We're going to be trading that very much as a pub because that's culturally and historically what we think it always must be. We're trading the first floor as well. That will be essentially a restaurant, a bit of a New York twist from Benji who spent some time there. So it's oysters and cocktails and steaks and that type of New York-y feel. And then the private dining room on the second floor which is new. The ability to provide food is being extended. So on all three floors in fact, well on the two floors, the ground floor and first floor, new kitchens are going in. So food is significant. James comes, as you'll have read from his CV, from a restaurant background. So good quality food is very significant to what is proposed. But the ground floor will be a pub. There will be traditional real ales available from a local supplier. So it really will be in some ways going back to the old days but with a more premium, modern type twist. That's what's proposed. Let me touch upon the policy because of course we are in your special cumulative impact policy. What we rely on in relation to that is I think two things. Firstly, there is as motionally indicated an existing licence in force which we are following almost exactly. If anything we are more restrictive because we've got more conditions we've agreed with the police such as Dorman on Friday and Saturday and we're accepting that our first and second floors must trade as a restaurant and those conditions are not on the existing licence. So it is licence for licence if you like. So we're not adding anything to the cumulative impact area in that sense. And secondly the conditions which we've agreed are more up to date more modern and more enforceable than on the existing licence should heaven forbid things go astray but I'm sure they will not. Let me turn to perhaps the area which again motion touched upon that unfortunately means that both Nicola and Kathy are here today and that is the issue of the external area. So the premise is effectively to ensure that this effectively does not have like many traditional East End and London pubs does not have its own external area. It relies if people are going to enjoy fresh air and go outside then they must use the highway and the pub is a corner site as you will see on Bethnal Green Road and Club Row and the paving around both areas does have a balustrading. So we're happy to accept that there must be some form of restriction on customers outside but it is very important for the operator that some of our customers are allowed outside for a number of reasons. It is to be a traditional pub important that our customers can have a pint or soft drink whatever they want outside and there's a number of pubs in the area in fact across the border in Hackney the majority of them which do operate in that way the brick makers arms, the Blue Lust and the Owl and Pussycat I don't know whether you're familiar with these pubs members of the committee but they have a range of restrictions on the use of their external area ranging from no restriction at all to 9pm is the earliest. So what we're trying to do is if you like match the earliest nearby pub with that similar restriction and that was something that the police were happy with but it is very important that we can do that if our customers want to have a drink outside then we don't want to be in a position to say no to them that we think will make the business very difficult to operate and we do look back at one of the previous operations which did trade without any off sales which is the mechanism by which we can have people outside and that business unfortunately closed. So James and Benji do not want to employ people they want to employ people to check that they're okay to come in they don't want to employ people to tell them they can't go out it's going to make it very difficult so we think that in our application as amended there is a balance before you that we hope you feel is fair and reasonable and will allow the pub to trade as a pub with people outside having a drink. So there's other conditions that we've offered the 9 o'clock is the principle condition I think we're quite close with Nicola she'll probably tell me in a minute that we're not but I think we're reasonably close. Nicola's okay with most of that but wants a number on it. We don't want a number on it and we there won't be that many in reality because our occupancy on the ground floor is 60 to 80 people so and 55 on the first floor which is a restaurant so it's not a massive pub but of course monitoring a number is difficult and also we think possibly not practical and probably doesn't go to any root cause of concern which I think is noise of those customers. Now the application hasn't brought out a vast amount of residential objection it has fortunately brought out quite a large amount of residential and business support so we don't think that it is a particularly sensitive area in terms of disturbing local residents but they are experienced operators and there are other conditions which require them to monitor their customers outside and require them to use their best endeavours to not create a blockage because it is public highway but we do think that those conditions and a 9 o'clock curfew that means everyone but the 6 smokers must be inside by 9 o'clock is a fair balance and will allow the premises to trade as a successful pub restaurant on the first floor. The other final point I wish to make is that we do think that it may have a knock on impact on the area our view is that this area needs another pub there's other licensed businesses around us a few restaurants and cafes but we could be a real focal point of the local community we think it's quite a high profile site. If there's no one outside in the summer or we can't have anyone outside in the summer then that's going to be bad for us business wise frankly because we are going to lose custom and those customers are going to go to other premises possibly in the cumulative impact area possibly over the border in Hackney and join the people who already enjoy drinks outside those premises so we do think that it's important for those two reasons that we can have some of our customers enjoying hopefully the warmer weather. It will be seasonal of course there's no cover there so this is not going to be in use every day it's most likely to be in use during the warmer months which being generous would be March to September probably. Chairman members of the committee I'm coming to the end of probably my 10 minutes but my representations I'm going to ask I'm sure you're going to ask questions but I'm going to ask James or Benji if you've got anything to add to what I've said about your plans and one minute. We're just really excited about reviving this kind of public building and I think for us to not be able to have anyone outside would be really difficult for us to operate as a building and we would really have to consider it again and we think that there's a you know with so many pubs closing and so many restaurants closing and being so hard to run hospitality businesses today we kind of feel like anything we can do to help support them is really important so I think that's the main thing I've got to add. Yeah that's right I mean Shoreditch has lost sadly Shoreditch and Tower Hamlets generally has lost you know we've submitted that and has lost a large number of pubs and this is a listed building and I'm forgive me I'm slightly repeating myself but other ventures have been tried and we do think not only it needs to be a pub but that it should be a pub. Thank you. Thank you. Stan Campasio thank you very much for your presentation. Can I ask the objectives now to present their objections you also have 10 minutes can Alex get a driver first please to present your objections. Good evening chair hope you can hear me okay. Yeah I can hear you fine thank you. Great apologies for being remote this evening in terms of the license and authorities view the concern obviously stated by the Act is essentially that the area of dispute is the outside drinking of the customers and we believe this is the only area of dispute which despite obviously trying to negotiate we've become a stalemate essentially in terms of what we can agree and what we can't. Obviously the application seeks off sales of which the old lapse license and indeed shadow license that's held that's currently still life had restrictions which had no off sales no drinks outside an alcohol ancillary to a meal. Obviously this premises is essentially seeking the on sales and off sales and an outdoor area. I'd like to point you to photos of the outside area pages 62 and 63 of the main report. If you can see those photos you can see that there actually isn't much room outside on the pavement with railings one side and bollards and trees the other. Obviously we appreciate the offer of the conditions particularly 20 to 23 in the supplementary agenda at page 6 and these staff have been offered however the premises are in a very high social behaviour area particularly Club Row and around the corner into Arnold Circus where customers from many of the venues in and around Shoreditch either from town next door or from the Hackney area attract people all parking up and their music hanging around drinking and urination. This area has had particularly had urinals positions from the late night levies funding enslaved to street opposite and indeed in St Arnold Circus especially that purpose of preventing the urination from people in this area. We believe that people drinking outside will lead to public nuisance and is likely to affect residents particularly living in Club Row who have in the past been affected by the historic pavement license which was held by the previous premises in Whitby Street. With all good intentions when a busy premises is at peak times especially during the summer would staff have the capacity to deal with moving people inside and as stated in page 29 of the applicant's staff supplementary agenda they're not expecting more than 25 outside however they don't wish to condition it unless they would not have security at all times. They state with an unnecessary burden to count the numbers outside at all times. Whilst there's not been complaints obviously recently obviously we've got to be mindful that historically any of the lawsuits he's held there not had outside drinking and I think this is where there's a cause of concern of complaints from residents in the area and opposite of disturbances even before 9 o'clock. If the area is busy in the summer that's the only area they can stand outside. We envisage large numbers standing outside enjoying the sunshine but obviously taking over that pavement and it is quite narrow. So I think obviously this is why essentially we're taking this to the committee and I think obviously the area is do we commit outside drinking obviously we're stating that there is a concern on that should be restrictions be made on the numbers to lessen that risk of public nuisance or should drinks be limited by tables and chairs but we're still unclear as to whether tables and chairs was the intention or whether it's just standing only and obviously that depends on whether a pavement last would be committed obviously outside for any tables and chairs but obviously that's a separate process. Obviously in addition I know this has obviously not been mentioned but there was no mention of the use of plastic or sealed containers for the off-sales. I know obviously this isn't part of the area but obviously we're considering preventing public nuisance from the outside and obviously I think members may wish to consider that as an alternative option as well. That really concludes my presentation and at my representation chair. If you have any questions then please ask. Thank you. Thank you Kathy. Can I ask Nicola Cantuso to have your views please. Thank you. Original bulk of the application and from the holding rep I met with the applicant and to look around the premises. It's a lovely venue, a really lovely venue. But when we were looking at the conditions that were given, that were applied on in supplementary agenda page 6, agreement was made to three of the conditions but the whole agreement was made that the one condition, condition two were added shall be limited to 20 persons before 2100 hours. The applicant was not happy with that. I'm following on from Kathy's representation. I have to consider public nuisance. The area outside is very narrow and I've had issues with other premises in the past anyway, the same kind of thing to people outside. Looking at this application I do feel that if it's not limited the patrons outside are before nine o'clock particularly I think as the applicant has discussed, as Kathy said, in the spring and summer months when people want to stand outside or in warm days there is a concern of blocking the pavement and causing public nuisance. So it's not very long but the only issue I had was with the number of people not restricting the numbers outside before nine o'clock. I know after nine o'clock there will only be eight people to go outside, six people, sorry, six people to go outside, but that is my main concern, not limiting the numbers of people outside because the more people outside talking in high spirits this is going to have an impact on residents in the area and as has been mentioned this is the community of impact zone. There's a high concentration of residents and commercial premises in the CIZ. These premises wouldn't be part of the CIZ if there wasn't an issue with the number of and it's in the licensing policy. So if the application is granted I would ask a committee to consider limiting the numbers outside before nine o'clock. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I ask, now the members will have the opportunity to ask questions to other parties. Do you have any questions members? Thank you chair and thank you to all parties who presented the submissions and that was very nice. This is to the applicant. Can I ask what is the capacity within the whole building or each floors if you can break please. Councillor Ahmed I can. So it's around 60 to 80 on the ground floor, seats for 60, so high level seating but there will be some standing people drinking in classic pub mode, about 55 on the first floor set to table because it operates as a restaurant and it's 24 in the private dining room, the new private dining room on the second floor. So that would be the maximum capacity. Thank you. Thank you. Just want to ask a small question now. Just for this moment, what is the premises currently in very short, what is this being used as? Nothing chairman, unfortunately. So we think it closed as a pub over 20 years ago and since then it has been a posh, I can't remember the name, a posh French restaurant called Les Trois Gassons for a while, I think reasonably successfully for a while and then that closed and then it was operated as Dirty Bones which had a slightly different ground floor, was more of a restaurant and first floor was more of a bar. But it has been closed sadly for over two years and is empty and it has been closed for a long time. And if I may just slightly expand on the point that Cathy made, we don't know the full history, full licensing history of the premises. It must have had off sales when it was a pub because under the old law pubs had on and off. So at some point we think probably before 2016 we don't know it's off sales were lost. We don't know why. I mean it's, we don't know, the area may have changed, we simply don't know why. Can I just also ask the pictures in the bundle? Yes. What really reflects the age of the pictures and the time it's taken? The pictures of the old pub? The pictures of your supplementary pictures? Yes, 1976. When I think beer was probably slightly cheaper than it is now. But yes, so this is 1976. These are available on the internet. They are archive pictures. There are a number of organisations who cherish the nature of the East End pub and they write about them and they collect information about them and so this is one of those and you'll see people, a mix of people enjoying themselves. It probably, dare I say, had an occupancy in excess of what we have because less chairs in those days. The mirror that you'll see with the gentleman, the rather eccentric gentleman with his pint, that and its two neighbours are still there which is marvellous. So when you go into the pub, if you turn to the left, you'll see these three fantastic and historic mirrors with writing on it and they happily are still there. Just one more question I want to ask for myself. Despite the fact that this has been a pub for probably centuries. We think since the early 1800s chair. It has been closed and you are asking for a license now that it falls within the CIS zone. However, how would you justify and make sure that although it has been a pub at this stage of business but to introduce something again which is the area is under heavy pressure to control the licenses. So how do you justify they wouldn't add any additional burden on the area itself?

Yes, chair. The area is under pressure. There's two issues I think. One is that the crime or disorder but after discussions with the police who obviously are responsible for policing the area, they are satisfied that if you grant the application there won't be a risk of an increase in crime or disorder. The other issue is the one of noise which Cathy driver mentioned and that principally here is potential noise from customers outside. In terms of the policy point, we are effectively seeking a second license for a site that's already licensed. So we're not adding to the cumulative impact. In other words, when your policy was introduced and the area was viewed as being at saturation, the nave of clubs or whatever was operating there would have been included in that. So it's not like we're licensing a building from afresh. We're simply seeking a second license. We could use the existing license, of course, which is in the papers but that is in the name of the landlord and following discussions we have decided to apply for another license which is the same as the existing license in terms of hours of operation. We are applying for entertainment but we are also limiting the first and the second floor to restaurant use. So if you like it's a balancing exercise. The principle difference in our application is the use of off sales which as we've tried to point out to you respectfully is very important. When the pub has traded for the majority of its life, so probably for about 180 years, it would have had off sales and people would have been drinking outside. So the absence of off sales is a relatively recent loss in the history of this pub and the way it's traded. So we are really simply asking to go back to the way the pub was but a better version of it with investment in kitchens, in decor and making it a really nice place. And we don't think that, sorry, forgive me if I'm slightly getting off your question. Thank you. We entirely accept that there are going to be people outside and that comes with potential issues and risks but many hundreds of pubs in the East End and in Greater London operate in this way and a good operator finds a way and the problem is that if you are not going to let people outside, I know I've made this point already, you're going to have a number of potential flash points because people want to go outside, it's going to be bad for the customer experience. So we think that 9 o'clock is the principle reason why it's not a massive difference between what is already on the licence and it's a greater restriction than the pub has historically had. I've got one question from the Councillor Farooq Ahmed which he asked, so I'm going to have the supplementary question. How will you control when you have 60 people in a ground floor, 15 in a first floor, am I right? And 15 in a second floor, people eating and drinking in the same time, so how are you going to control all of this? I'm going to pass that to the operator, Councillor Sultana, but just to slightly make it clear, so the proposed occupants are probably a maximum of 80 on the ground floor, 55 seated customers on the first floor and 24 on the second floor. Obviously the second floor is a private dining room so that will operate really through a booking system in any event. So the private dining will be booked well in advance so that will be only private bookings. The restaurant on the first floor will be predominantly pre-booked as well. We tend to find about 90%, 95% of our covers are pre-booked, people these days don't really turn up to these sorts of restaurants without booking. The restaurant is quite premium, it's sort of a place you'd go for a special occasion, it's not somewhere you just turn up to. In terms of the pub, we would have staff trained and managed, we provide a lot of training around crowd management and they would know the capacities and adhere to them all the times. Another one. Do you have a music and what sort of music, I mean, in your premises? Yes, so the New York first floor restaurant will have a kind of background music of sort of jazz and New York stuff you'd expect in New York, lots of kind of piano jazz and the ground floor would just have background music as well, which would just be a, pubs are often places people want to sit around and talk so we don't want to have really loud music, we don't want it to be a club, we want it to be a place you can sit around a table and talk amongst your friends and family. Sorry, another question. So how many SIA license holders shall be on the duty of the premises if you have, I mean, if you have any SIA's license? On the license with the police we agreed to two, it's two SIA's, it's on page, what page is this? Yeah, it's in the supplemental agenda, page five, members of the committee. So it'd be a minimum of two SIA's from eight, and we often, in my other premises we often train our actual bar team in SIS principles as well because it's really good from a crowd management perspective and from a general crowd control to have them trained in that as well, but that would be a minimum of door staff, yeah. Thank you, Councillor. I would release to page six some conditions there, conditions offered. I would seek some advice and help from David, can you please repeat that? Thank you, Chair, yes. I'm very happy to assist the license subcommittee members by asking a number of questions of the applicants to help clarify matters. I believe the Chair is referring to conditions 20, 21, 22 and 23 on page six of the supplementary agenda. Perhaps if I can suggest that if Mr Faulkner possibly leads on trying to clear this, would you mind trying to clear this one up? I believe what the members are saying is they can see what you're trying to achieve there in addressing concerns over the possible impacts of having patrons in the pavement area outside. However, what's not escaped their attention is if you keep your thumb in there but go to page 74 of the main agenda, and you will see that Ms Corinne Holland on behalf of the Licensing Authority has proposed three conditions which aim to address the, if I can use the term loosely, because I know you said that there's actually no outside area, but we can call it an area outside the premises, that's proposed to be used by patrons. What's wrong with those? Why do we need 20 to 23 instead of what Corinne Holland's put down there? Yes, I'm going to address those, Mr Wyne, if that's all right. We can't agree those. The third one we have agreed, or something very similar, which is obviously putting as a condition our obligation to ensure that we look after our customers outside, that's clearly very, very important. The problem with one and two is twofold. One, we don't have necessarily or we won't get necessarily tables and chairs, that's a separate licensing system. From my visit to the premises today, frankly, I don't think we would get tables and chairs because I think the pavement is probably too narrow and the barriers would prevent it. But the principle reason we can't agree them is, again, forgive me, I'm slightly repeating myself, is they're not consistent with a pub operation. Some of our customers in the warmer months will want to have a drink, a pint or soft drink, whatever it is, and go outside and stand up and chat and have a pint, as they are used to doing in the majority of not all of the pubs in the general area. So we can't force people, even if we've got permission from your highways department to put tables and chairs, just as we can't really say to our customers you can't go outside, it's equally challenging to say to our customers you've got to have a seat. So it just wouldn't work. I understand what you're saying, but in relation to particularly paragraph number three of what Corinne Holland is suggesting by way of conditions on page 74 of the main agenda, you do understand, or you and your client do understand, don't you, that the A-premises license holder is still responsible for what happens in the immediate facility of the premises, and the immediate facility, I believe, includes not just what happens indoors, but, well, the natural wording in the immediate facility just outside, which that payment area is in the immediate facility. We fully accept that, Mr Wong, and we have agreed through. It has come across as 21 in the supplemental agenda at page 6. So, as I did indicate respectfully, there's absolutely no difficulty in having a condition which requires us legally to look after our customers and the breach of which has the sanction of being a criminal offence. That's a high sanction, but we're prepared to live with that responsibility. And that means from an enforcement point of view, members of the committee, if we get it wrong outside, not only could we be at risk of review and the removal of drinking outside, but of course we would be in breach of that condition possibly as well. So it's a sort of two-pronged area of risk for us. Thank you. Just bear with me for a minute, Mr Faulkner. I've got one more question to ask you, Mr Faulkner, on behalf of your clients, and this pertains to -- bear with me for a minute. Page 28 of the supplementary agenda. And this is your email, 3 October 2024, to the licensing -- well, actually to not just the licensing but also the noise team. You refer to the shadow licence. You've alluded, by the way, in one of the reasons why you feel that there will be no addition to the cumulative impact because you're simply, no pun intended, aiming to shadow the shadow licence. It's not an -- it's not really an addition, and it's really a -- A point, exactly. Yes, and I can see what you're guessing at, because on page 28 of the supplementary agenda you're alluding to the shadow licence having basically dropped out of picture because you say the premises licence holder went to administration. Do you want to reconsider that, Mr Faulkner? I say that because -- and this is not evidence, but it's in the public domain. As you and your clients will be aware, Companies House keep an open register of, of course, limited company matters. I'm saying this because, of course, this is all being ministered and recorded on the public record as well for the purpose of this meeting. And the Companies House website shows that it's Resam UK Limited, who are the premises licence -- I can see you nodding. They are shown as active, not in administration. Moreover, they're shown as having filed with Companies House a document to do with their share allocation yesterday, and last month they also filed a confirmation sentence. Yes, Mr Faulkner, so there's more than one licence, so the license that is in the papers is enforced, that is, in the name of the landlord. And the reference that Mr Faulkner has made on page 28 is to another licence, when the premises traded as dirty stones, which I referred to as the sort of casual dining ground floor and bar on the first floor. So that, yes, has lapsed, we think. But not the licence in the papers. That is still in force. In the name of the landlord. I'm -- it's Mr Dyer, isn't it? I'm sorry, Mr Dyer. Forgive me if I misunderstood you. I'm confused, though, because are you saying, therefore, that Resam UK Limited had not one but two licences? No, no, just one. So Resam is the landlord and they have the shadow licence that's still in effect as of today. But there was another licence held by a company called DB Prop Co 4, which is Dirty Bones' trading company, and that fell away when they went into administration. Yes. So if this application was granted, there would be two licences, the licence in the papers held by the landlord and our licence, which we would use to trade, which is respectfully not that unusual. A number of landlords in central London do apply and hold licences to protect their position. Okay, I can clarify some matters in that respect as well, if that helps. Yeah. Can I -- sorry, I was going to ask a question to you first, about those conditions that you set up. Do you have anything to say on it, on page 24, those three conditions that you wanted to -- David just mentioned. On page 24? Yeah, we just talked about it. Sorry, page 74. Yes, in terms of what Corinne had obviously requested, we obviously, in terms of trying to limit numbers or have tables and chairs outside, I think there was discussions on previous emails that there may have been an intention to have tables and chairs outside, and I believe that's what obviously Corinne had offered, that by having tables and chairs outside, it does give us an element of sort of control as such, in terms of the numbers that people were sitting at the tables drinking, rather than standing in large groups, which obviously can sort of heighten the mood somewhat if people are outside drinking, standing outside. But obviously, you know, there is no -- we felt that the actual space outside was probably not adequate for tables and chairs anywhere, and I think there was a discussion through the emails that I looked at between the applicant and Corinne was the use of barrels outside, or potentially the use of barrels. But obviously, if there's no intention to have tables and chairs outside, then obviously that's difficult decision to make when we've got groups of people outside. Just to add in terms of licenses held there, there's been a number of licenses held there, and essentially the applicant's solicitor is correct in what they state, is that there was actually three licenses held there at one stage. Two of the licenses -- one was granted in 2005 during the grandfather transitional process. That was held by DB Property 3 Limited, and then there was a further application in 2015, also of the premises, and also license holder was DB Property 3 Limited, which in that case, that property has dissolved, and hence those two licenses lapsed. There was also the shadow license, which is the one that's in the papers of the committee report, which obviously is live, and essentially that's held by the landlord as what we deem a shadow license, which essentially is a duplicate of one of the licenses held there to protect that a license exists there and isn't lost due to a company's accident, which is quite common to do. I just want to clarify that as well for you. Thank you. Do members have any more questions? Thank you, Chair. The line wasn't really clear, so the sound quality was quite poor, so I couldn't really understand everything. But nevertheless, I've got a question to the applicants. As you've mentioned about the capacity and hopefully if we were to grant the license, you're expecting to have a good business there, and obviously the area is quite busy as we all are aware about it, and the population do pass around on that particular area. Again, we are very much aware about it, all of us. So do you not agree that Nadesh could be, if not chaos, but difficulties when you have sitting capacity or some of your customers will be outside, hanging around, either smoking or drinking, will cause problems? We don't, Councillor Ahmed. We think that bringing this pub back into life is going to have a beneficial impact on everything, including having a building that's got people in it that arguably it's quite a when I went early evening, it's quite a quiet, relatively dark area, so we will be bringing light activity on Friday and Saturday's door staff who are not there, so these arguably would be a positive impact. We are experienced operators and we certainly feel that we can control our customers sufficiently well outside, and we are used to dealing with customers outside on the highway. Sometimes that highway is used by other people who are not our customers, and the principal reason for that is the 9 o'clock curfew, so we think that that will, our customers then will have to be inside at 9 o'clock, so we think that if there is going to be any risk of issues, that these are more likely, and this was the view of the police, these are more likely to happen late at night when our premises will still be lit and we will still be accepting customers, but we won't have any customers outside, so we think it is possible to manage our customers outside without causing any problems. If I may mention this, I was going to mention this in my closing remarks, but there has been quite a lot of discussion about numbers outside, and we had a discussion when we went to the premises, and our principal objection to a number was the practical difficulty, the fact that you can have 5 noisy people outside, but 20 having a conversation, you know, it is rather sticking a pin in it, but if the committee do have concerns about numbers outside, then we would offer a restriction on numbers which would be 40, so that would be the maximum figure that we could ever have, because it would be our intention to allow our customers to use both Club Road, which is quieter, and Bethnal Green Road, which is noisier, and we think our premises are quite large, probably about 20 metres in length, so we would be able to accommodate that number, we think, comfortably, and it may be that you, members of the committee, consider if you are with us in principle on the application, together with all the other conditions, that that would give you some more comfort than you currently have, but we do think that 20, greatest respect to Nicola, 20 is too difficult, and is going to cause us a lot of problems, particularly as our competitors, if you like, whilst they have a limit on time, they have no limit, none of them have any limit on numbers, and they seem to operate in that way, in very busy areas of Hackney, Shoreditch, and Towerhamlets, as far as I know, without any problems, and it may be that one of the reasons why they do that, is because there is no limit on the number of customers that they can have outside. Thank you for that. Another question about service. Another question about the supervisor, obviously you did agree with the police that you will have a supervisor, but is it just one or two? Is it two somewhere there? It's two, we're looking at the start of the supplemental. Indeed. Thank you. Yes, 16 agreed with the police. So that's a minimum figure, minimum of two, from 8pm on Fridays and Saturdays. Thank you, and also can I just go back to, as our chair mentioned earlier, about a traditional pub 100 years ago, the legislation of the rules and regulations. So if you can turn your microphone off, please, so we can hear better. Thank you very much. Currently, you're very much aware about the location of the pub itself, or the purpose itself falls under CIZ, so automatically the traditional terms and condition of the pubs, it would be different. Do you accept that? I don't quite understand, Councillor Ahmed, different to... Like a traditional pub, they have virtual drinking, you know, like going out with the drinks and things like that, hanging around, there wasn't any limit for people to stand outside, things like that. And currently, obviously, that's within the CIZ, and that would be different. I mean, do you accept that it would be something different? Yes, it would be something different. We are offering the return of a traditional pub, but with a modern flavour, and with more food, and with conditions more in keeping with a licence that would be granted these days, and in a cumulative impact area. So in that way, respectfully, I agree, we are promoting the licensing objectives, I would say, and promoting the policy, because whilst we're replacing one licence with another, our licence, with the possible exception of the off-sales, has more up-to-date conditions, such as the door staff condition, which is not on the existing licence. I'm going to think, and probably find the question from me. Chair, if we were to grant this licence, would you accept the condition has been recommended by the officer? The only condition that we can't accept is the limit of 20. I've tried to, I mean, it's tempting 20, but it's going to put us in difficulties, and I know that your job is not to promote local businesses, essentially, you are a licensing committee, and you're looking at the licensing objectives, but this is an opportunity, and it would be, I think, a little bit frustrating for James and Benji, who have invested quite a lot of their time, and genuinely Benji lives in Hackney, he's moved from New York, he's a local man, it would be a little bit frustrating if they operated this pub with one arm tied behind their back, because I do feel that there's a lot in the paperwork that means that you can trust them to do something good to the area, and that, you know, they will respect the area. The area has changed, the area, although it remains residential, there's a lot of businesses now in that area that they will be looking to attract during the day. Thank you for the answer. We do, I mean, I do welcome any businesses within the area, but within the rules and regulations, we really appreciate. Thank you very much. Thank you, members. Now, can we just move to our concluding remarks? Can I ask the objects to first, you have one minute each, so should I go for Catherine? Catherine, please. Thank you, Chair. I hope you can still hear me. I'm not going to add too much, obviously with a short period of time, but the only thing, thinking about how you're going to make this decision, looking at one of the pictures on page 64, it just seems to me that the size of that club row opposite that road where the ivy is growing is actually residential, and obviously that is, may cause an issue if customers are particularly on that side, but if you're minded to give permission outside, the only thing I may ask you to consider is whether the people are outside on better green road. Bear in mind that's a busy road anyway. If that is permitted, and maybe that is a partial consideration, but that seems highly your choice, and also obviously there's been no mention of, if there is permission outside of the use of plastic rather than glass, but that really concludes my remarks, but I think, obviously I think we're in a difficult position to come to an agreement, and unfortunately, that's your decision unfortunately, but thank you, Chair. Thank you. Can I ask Nicola Gottschalk, please. Thank you. From the numbers, there's 13 for me. Thank you very much. Can I ask the applicant? Yes. I mean, it depends how you look at it, Chair. I mean, I take Nicola's point, but if I went, if it was a summer's evening in July, I went into the Owl and Pussycat on Redchurch Street, I would, on a summer's evening, there would be, I'd get probably 150 people outside, I would go to the bar and there would be no one there, because the reality is, whether we like it or not, the reality is that in these pubs that are landlocked, people who work all day in offices, whatever they want to do, they do not want to sit in a pub on a summer's evening, they want to stand outside and enjoy a beer, so, or a soft drink increasingly, but all we're trying to do is seek parity, so respectfully, it's not an accurate calculation to say that it's 40%. The Owl and Pussycat would probably have more people outside than its whole capacity inside, and the same for the bricklayers and the same for the last and all of the other pubs. So, you know, it may be that we shy away from the idea of people standing outside, but in order to run a pub in this area successfully, we need an element of people outside in the summer, and we offer greater control measures than there are on any other licence as far as we know. The principal one is 9 o'clock, I take the point about the residents, but from 9 o'clock, the only people outside are going to be persons passing by who we know, there may be a number of them, our customers will be inside. We have a condition requiring us to look after that area, we will train our staff, we will deal with any issues that arise, and we have further proposed a figure of 40. It may sound a lot, but it's a maximum figure which may never be reached, but at least it gives us, as the operator, a little bit more freedom and a better relationship with our customers that we don't have to say no all the time, because people who've had stressful jobs, they want to go and enjoy themselves, they want to go outside for a couple of hours, print typically, and they want to enjoy beer, and we want them to be our customers and not go somewhere else. In relation to the plastics, my final point, we would prefer not to have plastics, we want our customers to enjoy glasses. This is a premium pub, the beer is going to be an eye-watering for a man from the north of £6.50 a pint, so it's a premium product that is best enjoyed in an appropriate drinking vessel. There is another condition which requires us to sweep the area at the end, so we were fully mindful of any risks of broken glass, and we will sweep it up promptly and make sure that we're proud of the external area in the front of the premises. Thank you. Thank you very much, I think that's coming to the end, tonight's debate. Thank you for your contribution today, the subcommittee will deliver it in a private session after this meeting ends, and Seimi from Democratic Services will write to you with her decision, with the decision, within five working days. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Extension of decision deadlines, is there any? There is no chair, there are none today. Thank you. It's close now. Thank you.

• Thank you.
• Thank you very much.