Transcript

First of all, please only speak when invited to by the chair. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand and direct all communication by the chair. Please ensure that your mics are muted when you're not speaking. When speaking, please be succinct and do not exceed the allocated timeframes. If referring to any written submissions, it is really helpful if you please refer to the specific page number in the agenda pack. Any new evidence can only be submitted at the discretion of the chair and the agreement of all parties. If you're having any technical difficulties, please let us know through the chat function to alert the meeting or dial in using the details in the invitation. Please do not use the chat function for putting formal questions to the subcommittee. Any persistent disruptive behaviour will result in removal from the meeting. Once the application has been considered, any remaining parties will be asked to log out of the hearing. Please do so promptly so that councillors have the opportunity to deliberate and make a decision. Each party will be notified of the decision as soon as possible. However, the licensing service may be able to inform you of the outcome within a few days with full details of the decision to follow. So I'll now hand over to members and invite them to elect a chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Lufkin and welcome everyone to this licensing subcommittee meeting Tuesday the 18th of February at two o'clock. There we go. Fantastic. Yeah, I think we'll just start with introductions. First of all, I mean, we can do all the introductions really, I think, because it's not that, you know, there's a lot of people on here, but we'll do them all anyway. So I'm Councillor Smith, Chair of Licensing and also Councillor Stock Newton Ward. Councillor Lufkin? I'm Councillor Richard Lufkin for Checo Ward and I'm Vice Chair of the Licensing Committee. Thank you very much. Councillor Young, just tell people why you're here. Hi, I'm Councillor Sarah Young, Woodbury Down Ward Councillor, and I am here observing as part of my training. Thank you very much. Licensing Committee. Thank you. And then on to officers, Channing. I'm Channing Revere, Principal Licensor, and I'm representing the licensor for today for item two. Thank you very much. And Subha? Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Subha Sriramana, Principal Licensing Officer, and I will be presenting the reports. Thank you very much. And Amanda? Hello, good afternoon. My name is Amanda North from Legal Services, and I'm supporting members this afternoon. Thank you. And thank you. Mark, just explain that you're the Governance Officer. You should do it. I'm the Governance Officer responsible for the meeting. Hello, everyone. And then we have Anwar on the call, who's doing our IT. Thank you, Anwar, for that. And then I've got, is it Method? Hi, good afternoon. It's Mehboob Muller, and I'm here in support with Niall Ford. Okay, great. Thank you very much. And Niall? I don't think you've introduced Councillor Troughton. Not yet. I was coming to Councillor Troughton. Thank you. Mr Ford. Yeah, I'm Niall Ford. I'm presenting the first item. Thank you very much. And then finally on to Councillor Troughton. Good afternoon. My name's Councillor Troughton. I'm one of the ward members in Kings Park, and I'm here to object to the application. Thank you very much. And Mr Dadds, finally. Yes, good afternoon, Councillor. I'm David Dadds, and I'm here for the second item. Okay, great. So for the second item, I think the first one shouldn't, in theory, take too long. But if you guys want to kind of chip off for a little bit, I mean, you know, keep us on the background. You can come back and say, I don't know, 10, 15, 20 minutes or something and see how we're getting on, if that's okay. Yes, thank you. Councillor Lufkin? I think we didn't hear from PC Griggs. Ah, Amanda, sorry. Amanda, please. Hello. Yeah, PC Amanda Griggs here for the second item. Yeah, sorry about that, Amanda. That's all right. Okay, so I think we can kind of start with the official agenda. So we have agenda item one, election of chair, which we've done. Agenda item two is apologies for absence. Apologies have been received from Councillor Bajana Thomas today. And then agenda item three, declarations of interest. Do members have any declarations to declare at all? I don't. Thank you very much, Councillor Lufkin. There are no minutes to consider today. And then agenda item five is the hearing procedure, which I'll just run through very quickly. It works in steps. So step one is the appointment and introduction of chair. Step two, licensing officer will present the report over five minutes. And then the applicant will present their case, step three or five minutes. Then we will have responsible authority coming in. And on Mandeville, you don't have any because environmental health have withdrawn. And then we have other persons will present their case over five minutes. Step six is discussion phase over 15 if we need it. Step seven, closing remarks. Step eight, final points of clarification. And then that'll be it. And then we'll move off this item on to the next next one. So everyone happy to continue? Yeah, brilliant. So we'll move on to step two then. So I will invite our principal licensing officer, Subha, to present the report today. Thank you, Subha. Thank you, Chair. So the first item we are going to consider is for an application received under the Section 70 of the Licensing Act 2003 for a premises license for the premises, the Glen Arms, one to two Mandeville Street, to authorize the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises from 12 to 1 a.m. Sunday to Thursday, and from 12 to 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. The environmental production have withdrawn their representation based on the agreed condition, which is there will be a maximum of eight patrons in the designated smoking area, the Rare Garden only. We have received an additional submission and some proposed conditions from the applicant's agent, and this document has been circulated. Representation remains from other persons, and I have nothing else to add. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Subha. Any points of clarification at this stage, Councillor Lufkin? Happy to move on. Yeah? Yeah, I mean, do we need to mention at this stage that this is a shadow license? Well, it's for a shadow license, folks. So there we go. Yeah. So it's slightly different to a normal. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks very much, Councillor Lufkin, for that. OK, let's move on to the applicant now. So I don't know if it's Neil or both of you, Mahbub, that's going to speak to this. So you've got five minutes to present your case. Off you go. Thank you. OK. Well, thank you for confirming that the additional submission email was sent to all parties last week. So in that case, I won't go over them again as I only have a short time to speak. And I'll just briefly summarise my key points. I'm here to present the application and Mr Muller is here as he represents the property's managing agents. Mr Muller's company manage both the license premises and the adjoining residential properties. This application is subject to three representations from local councils and local residents. As you've heard, the environmental health representation is now withdrawn. I think the key point with that is we've actually, although this is a shadow license, he's spoken to the existing license holder and that's been incorporated into the day to day management of the existing premises. So we have listened to his concerns and put it in place for the existing license. And it's now part of the management practice for the venue. The term shadow licenses describes the situation where premises license is granted to one party in respect for premises where another party already holds a separate license. The concept of the shadow license approved under the modern licensing regime in a high court case between Extreme Oyster and Star Oyster Limited versus Guilford Borough Council. It is therefore embedded in the statutory licensing case law, which is unusual for licensing act actually. Quite most cases are settled in the magistrates court. We appreciate that the councilor submissions, if this was a new application in the location, then their comments about call hours could be taken into consideration. But it's not a new application. It is a shadow license application. And if there were policy concerns, I know your licensing authority would have made some permissions in this case. The premises already has the hours requested and has had these hours since almost the very start of the licensing act coming into effect in 2005. It should be noted that the freeholders for applicant also own the rest of the building and the nearest residential properties are actually their tenants. And so it's even more important that the premises license is managed in line with the licensing act provisions and fully promotes the licensing objectives. So it's therefore reassuring that the current tenants are managing the premises or high standard. If you saw the letter that was in the bundle, I did provide the mobile number and the email for the licensee to anyone who had any questions about the day to day running of the venue, as he was happy to speak to them directly. It is not a new application. It's simply a shadow license to protect the asset, as if the existing license came insolvent or bankrupt, this license would lapse. They also act to safeguard if the license was reviewed. A shadow license is granted on the same terms, the existing license being operated by the tenant. And they are the hours and activities in front of you. As discussed, we have offered three extra conditions to protect the license as they're in, as you're in the bundle. I won't I won't read them out. So if this license was granted, if there were issues, the existing license, then responsible authorities, interested parties or ward councillors still have the option of reviewing both this license and the existing license at the same time. So their interests are protected. The owners of this thing already have five other shadow licenses with properties they own. This application is simply part of their due diligence for venues where they own the freehold. In respect to shadow licenses, 99% shadow licenses are never used. And we really hope that this is the case if this is granted as well. So therefore, all that will happen if this is granted is the licensing authority simply collects two fees, including your late night levy contribution for the premises each year instead of one. I don't have anything else to add. So if you have any further questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Fantastic. Thank you, Mr. Ford. That was great. Very succinct. You came in at three three minutes, 47 seconds. That's fantastic. Thank you for that. Any points of clarification at this stage, Councillor Lufkin? Okay, so as we've had environmental health withdraw, we have other persons. Mark, we had three indicated, and I believe just one of them is here, B3. Is that correct? That is correct. Councillor Troughton is the only one who confirmed. Okay, fantastic. So Councillor Troughton, would you like to make your submission, please? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Gilbert. And thank you, Mr. Ford, for the very clear presentation. The issue we have with, you know, the granting of a shadow licence is very simply that we have no experience whatsoever of the applicant in terms of, you know, any current, you know, licensing activity, which is not to say that, you know, they're not exercising, you know, their licences in a fully proper manner. The thing really is that if an application, a new application was to go forward for that premises today, it would be granted on the basis of the standard hours, which would be closure at 2300 Sunday to Thursday, and probably midnight on Thursday. on Fridays and Saturdays. I think, and that is the sort of licence, you know, we would fully understand and support, you know, the applicant were, you know, the applicants, were they willing to amend their application according to that. I note Mr. Ford says that it's most shadow licences and not invoked. So any objection to our request can't really be, you know, if it's unlikely to be invoked, you know, there can't really be much of an objection to it. So the thing is, this pub is the only premises of its kind, and in fact, the only, there's no restaurant, there's not even late night shopping in that area. It is like a morgue in Gilpin Square, after 10 o'clock at night. So anything that is going on at the Glyn Arms is audible, you know, all around, you know, the Clapton Park Estate and the closest of Mandeville Street. It is so quiet there, it is so quiet there, you can't even imagine. The only noise you would hear would be vehicles. There is one bus route, which is unreliable. So we would envisage if, you know, the thing is, at the moment, the licence isn't causing any problems, although it was interesting to see one of the objections to the shadow licence actually was referring to noise at night. So, you know, I will be following up with licensing, but there have been other complaints, you know, and how they are being addressed, because possibly, you know, time is nigh, you know, for reviewing this licence to see whether, you know, a late, you know, a late night licence is appropriate in this particular position. You know, you know, it's completely residential around there. There's a block for elderly and vulnerable people within a very short distance. There's, within 100 metres, there are about 1500 properties, you know, there would be, there's only one route in and out due to road closures. There would inevitably be, you know, an increase in the number of minicabs driving down there, you know, if the licence, you know, if the licence did change hands and was used by someone who operated a different business model, which could, you know, could quite easily be done under the shadow licence. At the moment, the turnover, the traffic seems to, and the premises seems to be very localised. It is local people that use it, so they're walking to the venue. It could even be people who are living above the, the premises that are using the venue. It is, as far as I'm aware, just a single person that is operating the pub and not making, probably, and not seeking to make a huge profit. But someone new coming in, of whom we have absolutely no experience, you know, might take a completely different approach and, you know, look for a much wider appeal. We just don't know what the future would hold, and that's the, the anxiety and, and uncertainty that has prompted us as ward councillors to object. Chair, if you just give me a moment to look at my notes. Yeah, just 30 seconds. Yeah, if there was, you know, the applicant did mention the option for requesting a review, that is certainly something we will consider, you know, going forward. But in any case, I think, Chair, you know as well as I do, members will know that, you know, removing someone's licence is very, it's not an easy thing to do. So, so, yes, I think I can, I can leave it at that for now, I think, Chair. Okay, thank you very much, Councillor Troughton, for that. So now we can move into, well, sorry, I'm happy to take questions as well, if anyone. Yeah, we can, we can do that in the discussion phase. That's great. So we'll move into the discussion phase now, providing there are no others, Mark, is that correct? There's no others on the line? That is correct, yeah. Yeah, fantastic. So we'll move into the discussion phase. I mean, my observations, Neil, about this licence to start with, I think some of the conditions on your current licence do need to be tidied up, but I don't want to sort of dwell on that issue because it's sort of separate, but it's more of a recommendation. I would say it might be good to consider a condition 18, page 21, update to challenge 25 on that one. And 28 and 34 are conditions around the noise limiter. So there's two conditions in there, and you only really need one. Both of them are saying kind of the same thing. So that's 28 and 34. And then on the garden, and again, I don't want to dwell on this because we're not really dealing with your existing licence, but the garden hours, I would recommend LP6 for that, which is basically close the garden at 10. I'm going to park that there and leave that there as a sort of recommendation in this call. And now we're going to just talk about the shadow licence. Councillor Lufkin, would you like to come in and maybe address some of the points that Councillor Troughton raised? Yeah, I mean, my point, Councillor Troughton raised some important points, but I mean, the whole difference is that this is a shadow licence. The place can carry on using its existing licence as is. And we don't have, you know, we've got environmental health haven't raised any objections to it. We don't have a history of complaints about it or anything like that. So my feeling is that shadow licences should be granted to match the existing licence. Otherwise, we're going to get into all sorts of places, going to have two licences on the same premises. So, I mean, the place to object to, if there were problems with it, I would take, I might take a kind of different view, but it's been operating for a number of years with no problems and it is a shadow licence. So that's kind of my, where I'm coming from. You know, I mean, it's an unusual case, you know, with a shadow licence. We don't, I think this might be only the second one I've ever done. But I do think it should match the existing licence. And if there are problems with the existing licence, then the review, the review process is what should be used for that. Yeah. Thank you, Councillor. I would like to say, just to sort of lead the discussion, Councillor Troughton, I think Neil needs a bit, I'm sorry, is it Neil, Niall? It's Neil, sorry. Neil needs a little bit of reassurance really about the use of that shadow licence, some reassurance about, I mean, I know it might be hard for you to do that, but you might have protocols in place where you say, well, absolutely, you know, we will be taking on this particular person. They will be running this establishment in the same way as it was before. Yeah. I think basically the shadow licence is simply a shadow licence. If something happened to the existing licence, they would then go and find a suitable person to operate. The freeholders have no intention of ever running this premises themselves. As I said, they've got eight, I think it's eight self-contained residential units within the location. And honestly, part of their concern is towards all of their residents and all of their tenants. So they wouldn't put anyone into that site if, but this person is actually doing quite well and I think that they are, they are good tenants. They would never put anyone into this site that would actually jeopardise or cause any nuisance to their existing, their existing customers and tenants as well. So I think there is a, there is a catchment that the whole building is operated by the same people. So there is a safeguard that actually, that the first people who would be complaining would actually be their own residents. So that they're, which is why I have someone from the managing agent on the phone. So they, on the call, if they had any questions, so they would be, I think they would get the call first if there were any things or there was any late night noise. So we would hope that anything would be, would be dealt with by, by, by themselves anyway, before it ever came to anything else. I think that's the key. Yeah. And just on the, on the other person's submission around, they mentioned bass tone is thumping. They can hear the bass sort of from the premises. I mean, it doesn't obviously say where these people live or whatever in, in relation to the, to your venue, but you do have, have a noise limiter in there. Um, and I just wonder if that noise limiter really needs to be recalibrated. I can, I can take that up. I think because I've got, I can, I can relay that back to the. Yeah. Because I think if it was recalibrated properly, um, in conjunction with the local authority. So we might put a recommendation on this particular license to do that. Um, uh, and obviously it'd be nice about if that could apply to the existing license, uh, as well. Um, just given this opportunity, if that makes sense. Um, yeah. So, so, and just, just to cancel Troughton, if that limiter was in effect, um, you know, ultimately in theory, that bass noise that he's talking about wouldn't be felt. Or wouldn't be heard in theory. Um, I'll just put that out there. But, Custer Troughton, do you have any, any observations or reflections? Any questions you'd like to come in with at this stage? Um, well, yeah, clearly if a resident, you know, who's living nearby can hear, you know, I mean, what does she say? She's, uh, or I'm assuming it's a. Dibbing to sleep, especially when bass tone is thumping. Yeah. Um, you know, I mean, that's clearly an indication that, um, you know, the limiter isn't effective or isn't being used, you know. So, so it's definitely something that, as, um, ward councillors, we will be following up. Um, I think, you know, the problem with Gilpin Square is it's an area where there has been, it's a very troubled area. It's an incredibly deprived area and it is a troubled area. So, um, there is a lot of, um, crime. There's, there's not a high level of crime, but when crime occurs, it is serious. It is a stabbing, a murder, you know, and, or, or, or a gun. Yeah. But nothing, as far as you're aware, connected directly to the pub. In, I, from my, from my, from memory, and I can't say if this is connected to the current, um, license holder, but there have been issues in the past connected with the pub. And our concern as councillors is that we, at the moment, you know, notwithstanding the current, um, you know, the, the complaints or the representations made within this application, um, you know, there have been issues of noise, of fights, you know, and crimes occurring, emanating from the venue in the past. Now, it's been very quiet there. We've had not had any problems there probably for five years, but by granting, you know, I think the point is that if the, if the, if it was a fresh application, it would be the standard hours, you know, and that would give a degree of reassurance around, you know, the potential for more people. Because most of this crime that occurs in Gilpin Square, it's not people who live in and around Gilpin Square, it's people who come to Gilpin Square. And that's why in the past, you know, problems have emanated from, from the pub. So that's not happening at the moment, you know, and I'm certainly not having, um, a, a go at the current license holders, you know, they're clearly operating a business that isn't causing problems. Um, but, you know, we'd have no reassurance that were the, the shadow license to be invoked, that, that, that, um, peace and quiet would continue. Yeah. I mean, they have put on the public record, um, through this recording, actually, that there is a bit of reassurance there. I mean, I think Niall has basically said that ultimately because of the tenants upstairs, they would be the first one to complain. So it's not in their interest to, uh, annoy them really, uh, because they're paying them rent. So there is a bit of public, there's a bit of reassurance there on the public record. Um, Councillor Lufkin, any further questions? I mean, I think I've heard, I've, I've heard enough really, you know. Yes. So, I mean, it's a shadow license. Do you know what I mean? I mean, there, if there are problems, there is a licensing review process and that's what needs to be used. But this is a, this is a shadow license mirroring exactly what's going on in the existing license. Yep. Thanks. Amanda. Yes, Chair, I was just going to clarify that it is a shadow license. It is a shadow license, which basically, um, the, um, passers would never have an experience of the landlord operating the premises because they don't generally operate. It's just more of a protection for their site, for their building, um, should anything happen. Um, for example, like the license lapsing or, um, uh, something happening to the company who's operating the premises. So it's just a protection to ensure that the premises doesn't suddenly, um, fall by the wayside and let them continue operating. But it's essentially the same license that's been operating so far. Um, so, um, any changes to that license will be a new application. And at that point we can make, um, changes in accordance with the council's, um, licensing policy. Yeah. Thank you very much, Amanda. Okay. I think that's, that's it folks. Uh, Niall, if you could just note those, um, uh, sort of recommendations that I made earlier, and you can do with those that you'd like, but yeah. Um, I think that's it. Thank you very much. Uh, Chair, sorry, before you go, um, what about conditions, um, 18, 28 and 34, um, did, um, um, the applicant's representative have a review on those? On the challenge 25, was it? Yeah. If you want to update them as part of the decision, we're, we're happy with that. Okay. Yeah. I mean, could we, um, basically, you know, formulate these conditions a little bit better. So basically take, you know, 28 or 34 out in relation to the knowledge numbers because we don't need two. Um, and on the garden, would you be happy to go to 10 LP6? Um, I'm fine with that. That's fine. Okay, great. Fantastic. That's really. Can I just ask, um, uh, does, um, Mr. Ford want to, um, amend the conditions, um, himself or does he, is he happy for us to just send an amended condition, uh, between 28 and post. If you want to send amended to condition as part of the decision, that's fine. Yeah. And then we, we can, cause I think the difficulty with the, with the resident who made representation of this application, obviously their details was redacted. We didn't have any direct comp. So I can reach out to Mr. Gurch and see whether he wants to speak to the residents to see if there's any noise testing or anything that might need to be done to make sure that they're not, they're not inconvenienced by the current operation. Yeah. Great. Fantastic. Um, and obviously the recalibration of that unit would be good. Uh, Councillor Troughton. Could I just clarify please something that, um, Ms. North referred to, which was that if the shadow license was invoked, that there would be, that we could come back for a review of the hours. Is that correct? Sorry. Did you hear that Amanda? Yeah. Sorry. If, if it's revoked, um. Invoked. Invoked. Invoked. Invoked. Invoked. Invoked. I'm not quite sure. If the shadow license becomes operational. Okay. Yeah. Once the license, the existing license falls away, then the shadow license comes into effect. Um, and, um, when a new applicant applies to, um, take over the premises license, then the app, the hours could be amended together with the shadow license. Yep. Okay. So basically a new application would need to be submitted if something went wrong, but temporarily, on a temporary basis, the shadow license will take over and then, uh, that will take effect effect until the new application has come before the committee to, um, approve and consider the, um, conditions and hours. Okay. So, so there, so it's not, it's not completely lost, you know, and there is an opportunity for you to make recommendations later. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you very much, everyone. So that's that agenda item six, uh, completed. You will get a skeleton decision tomorrow. Thank you, customer Troughton, um, and a written decision within five working days. So thank you very much. I hope it goes well. Try not to cause any problems. Take care. Thank you. Bye. Um, okay. So we will move on if everyone's happy and we've got Mr. Dads here. Yes. He's here. Everyone here. We need to be here. PC Griggs, Channing. Yep. Brilliant. Um, okay. So we're moving on to agenda item seven, which is the application for a premises license, uh, Flora, Flora path, 91 to 93 great Eastern street. Um, so if I could invite, and we all know each other, don't we? Yep. So good. Um, so if I could invite, uh, Subha, our principal licensing officer, please to present this one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. So the second item we are going to consider is again, a premises license received under the section 17 of the licensing at 2003 for the premise, for the premises, Flora path, 91 to 93 great Eastern street. The application seeking permission for live music, recorded music, performance of dance, and anything of similar description from 10 to 2 AM Monday to Thursday, and 10 to 5 AM on Friday and Saturday, and from 12 to 1 AM on Sunday. Late night refreshment from 2300 to 2 AM Monday to Thursday, 2300 to 5 AM on Friday and Saturday, and from 2300 to 1 AM on Sunday, and authorize the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises from 10 to 2 AM Monday to Thursday, 10 to 4.30 AM on Friday and Saturday, and from 12 to 1 AM Sunday. And authorize the supply of alcohol for off sales from 10 to 2300 Monday to Saturday, and from 12 to 22.30 on Sunday. Representations remains from police and licensing. We have received nine video clippings from the police. In this video clippings, dispersal 1, 2, 3 are from the police, and the clippings from 1 to 6 are submitted by the police on the request of the applicant. And we have received an additional submission from the applicant, and all these documents have been circulated, and I have nothing else to add. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Daz, I believe you had a problem with those videos. May as well cut to the chase. No, I've seen them now, but I just thought that you would be aware that submitting them so late, you know, it causes some difficulty in viewing them and making comments. So all I would say is that I have seen them. I will comment as we go along. Yeah. I think it's not in good faith to just push them over the day before and with no statement and just disclose them. Yeah. I think it would have been done in advance. So that's all I say. I'm going to try to make progress and not hinder. Okay. But you'll take that into account, yes? Yeah. Yeah. So it's a procedural point, really. Thank you for that. And fairness. And fairness. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. The applicant then. So, Mr. Dads. Yes. Thank you. Over to you. Good afternoon. You'll see that the application, I've set out a summary of submission. The premises has been operating over 10 years, never been subject to any formal enforcement action or review. We work very well with our neighbours, seek all ways to work with local community. We have been accredited by Hackney Knights and the manager promotes the licensing objectives, particularly prevention and public nuisance, works with our neighbours. You'll know that this application for extended hours, we have three o'clock at the moment. We've been using tens without any objection from the police, environmental help, any complaints from neighbours. We've gone for five, but we say that one o'clock we promote the licensing objectives, two o'clock, three o'clock, four o'clock. There's no reason why we wouldn't do it at five o'clock. And we've evidenced that. So we work well with the community. No resident or local community, including more councils, have raised any objection. There's no primary evidence before the committee. So that's today of any complaints about noise or public nuisance, breakout noise, any noise in the smoking area or any noise from dispersal of patrons and customers. The background levels outside the premises are very high throughout the night. You obviously are probably very familiar with the location and it has a high vehicle movements. We respectfully submit that any patron leaving our premises, even outside that area, cannot and does not disturb any local residents. And that's proved by having no complaints regarding our dispersal from members of the public and local residents. We do manage it and we manage it, we say well, and we will continue to do so. The environmental team would be bound to raise an objection if they felt that there would be. I've given you a snapshot figures of some car movements and noise background. And you can see from, you know, three to four is still very high. Four to five, very high. Five to six is a constant. And you'll be aware, Councillor Smith, that the tube station is just around the corner and it starts to open just after five. So, you know, this time works very neatly with that too. And the background noises and the levels of the noise and traffic is particularly high in that area. So, in effect, what we do does not impact on any of that noise environment. The premises and the management are always courteous and polite to the police service, the responsible authorities. We work together in partnership in the nighttime economy. As you know, that we've offered the robust conditions within the application. They've also joined Licensing Connect, which is a digital platform and provide independent training for members of its staff regarding law and vulnerability. As you know, we have got accredited with Hackney Knights. It's not just a tick box process. It's quite robust and it's been accredited. Hackney Knights crime data ensured it shows a reduction in crime disorder since its implementation of the scheme, particularly where we are. I've made reference at paragraph 12, 13, 14, 15, etc. to the two matters that the police raise. And we say that we've addressed those issues. But in any event, there should be no blame or accountability, in effect, directed at us. When you investigate it, there was no further action. That shouldn't be a reason why this application is rejected. No further action taken by the police service on both those matters. I've dealt with them in my submission. And we put steps in place to make sure that there's no reoccurrence. And we can discuss that in the discussion phase if you wish. In relation to the, obviously, the position of law, we know that you will look at its evidence-based and that you look at primary evidence, witness statements, evidence provided by the police. They are, in effect, the burden is on them, not on us. Because there's no cumulative impact, the burden rests on them. Why? They say that between three and five, we can't promote licensing objectives. And as we say, we have already been granted tens between three and four without any matters arising, without any complaint. So we know already from 12 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, we promote the licensing objectives. Why wouldn't we between four and five? And we say we will, and we do. So, obviously, you've looked at the speaking note. I think we promote the licensing objectives. We encourage a good working relationship. So, for example, with regards to the matter on the 29th of December, we ring the police because we see someone turning up, selling knocks. We're proactive. That's our standard process. The police have the index of the vehicle, the individual, CCTV. But we understand they make no arrest. They don't deal with the cause of what they say is a concern. And it wouldn't be right or fair that we should be blamed for that. And we're not. We're actually proactive working with the police. And it would be disproportionate, like a sledgehammer cracking up saying, because you're open later, potentially you have people pulling up outside selling knocks. Well, you deal with those people. That's a policing matter. And it's not a premises venue problem or matter. Obviously, we work with the police. We had 10 law supervisors out there moving people along. But there is a there is a sort of a line that we can't cross. We can't arrest these individuals. That would be a matter for the police. I've set out the law, the position. We work very well with the police. As I say, we work well with the responsible authorities and no resident, no ward counsellor, no environmental health complaining about noise. Crime is de minimis. As you can see, any matters of crime disorder are very low or anything of any concern. Minute and a half over. That's OK. Yeah. So so I thought that it would be helpful if I did a speaking notes that you can see the points that we wish to make. Yeah. Thank you very much. We have read all that, by the way. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And so any point of clarity at this stage, Councillor Lufkin? No, I think I think we just move on when we go into the discussion, really. Yeah. OK, fantastic. Thank you. OK, so let's invite PC Griggs to come in with your submission, please. PC Griggs and apologies for missing you earlier on. That's quite all right. No problem at all. Many thanks. We have been talking about the transportation to be found at B1 in the pack today. I won't go into it too much and I'll keep it very smoothly brief. Police concerns are generally around the community cumulative impact in the area. The cumulative impact assessment in 2023 that was commissioned by the Council highlighted the Shoreditch Triangle, of which this is on one of the corners of. It still contains the highest concentration of licensed premises and dominates nighttime crime. Any later hours here, police suggest, would have a greater impact on this cumulative impact and in turn a greater impact on the local residents there. The venue itself is on the corner of a pedestrianised area and it is in front of this pedestrianised area, the hotspots for theft and nitrous oxide sellers and one of the deployment areas for Hatton United officers. We have been targeting that. We have got a specific camera out there looking at that area because it is quite important. It's a hotspot where we get thieves gathering and the nitrous oxide sellers gathering to basically wait for people coming out of venues. The later the venues go on, the more they're going to be there and the later they gather. The two incidents that I've highlighted in my representations on one occasion on the 6th of December, a 17 year old girl was found by medics extremely intoxicated. She's been inside the venue. She was identified as entering at 10 to 6 in the evening PM and was standing at two o'clock by medics. She'd been in there after showing ID on her phone. So she had a copy of a passport picture on her phone that she showed to security to get in. She was in the venue from 10 to 6 until she found medics around two o'clock. Extremely intoxicated and clearly underage. It turns out she was quite a vulnerable female and then police spent many hours working and sorting that one out. Again, the 29th, as Mr Dads raised it, again, it's in there. Yes, we had trouble with dispersal. I don't want to show the CCTV that has taken us a week to get those clips because we can't send it any bigger than the minute and a half clips that we've been sent over. It's something to do with our firewalls and we're looking into finding ways of sharing the CCTV in a better and more effective way. But at the moment, we can't do anything more than that. And it has taken us literally a week of getting the CCTV from the council to be able to download it into these full chunks. So I apologise for the lateness of getting it, but it has literally taken us all week to try and find a way of doing it. And this has been colleagues of mine working on their own in the evening, using their own computers and things, trying to figure out ways of doing it. The CCTV was just a highlight. And the extra bits that she said to Mr Dads as well just show that you can see the people hanging around outside before the venue shuts from 3 to 3.30 when the venue is then closing. You can see more and more people gathering outside and you can see that at the time there is no security dispersing them. And when security do come out eventually at the third clip of our original third clip that we sent, they do start moving off eventually. But in that time you've got people there doing balloons and saying nitrous oxide and everything outside. Should the later hours be granted, then this is going to push this later into the evening. There is noise outside the venue and that's on Great Eastern Street, which is the main road. Lots of these people then go down Tabernacle, which is a quiet street and doesn't have that traffic noise at all. That is more residential than Great Eastern Street. And the tents that have been running haven't gone till 5 o'clock. There's been 3.30 for alcohol, 4 o'clock for music. That's the latest we've tested this venue at. And that's police's submission for now, Chair, if there's any questions. Thank you very much. Yeah, I've got a couple of points of clarification. Well, not to have occasion, just questions, really. So on Knox, because Knox has been made illegal by the government. Is that still presenting a problem down there? And is it as bad as it was? Because I would suspect it has improved a bit. There's been slightly less a bit during the winter months because it's cold and they'll be like standing out in the cold and the wet in the rain. And it's very difficult to target people that have got a single balloon on them because any evidence of them taking nitrous oxide, as soon as they let go, that balloon's gone. So our evidence has disappeared. We've got a balloon left. We've got no nitrous oxide. So we have to target those that have got the canisters and go for it that way. Week in, week out, we are getting people arrested or given community resolutions or PNDs for possession of nitrous oxide. So we're getting there slowly, but it's not going to be a quick fix. It is going to take time. We then have to, all these people then get dispersed. So once they're dispersed, they've got to stay out in the area for 48 hours. Once we've got to that, we need to build up a picture. We've done it so many times. We can look at then getting criminal behaviour orders and stuff to ban them from Shoreditch, but it is a long process and it takes quite a while to get there. Yeah. Listen, Daz, do you want to come back on that a little bit? Yes. Chair, I think in my mind, I've got a couple of questions through you. Is it in effect, you know, was anyone arrested that evening? It's not, we're not talking about an individual holding a canister or a balloon. We're talking about, we've given the index number. We've called 15 minutes before we close. We've given the car, the index number. They've got pictures of the individuals. Were there any arrest that night? Right. And the reality of it is, is that are we saying that lawful businesses can't go around doing their business because the police are saying there are people out there selling NOCs? And surely it's the other way around. The police should be dealing with the intelligence that we provide as a licensee and a premises and a business. And then target those individuals that are in effect supplying the NOCs. We're talking about not, as you say, it's been now classified as a Class C drug. An individual turns up on their motor vehicle and they get out then with boxes and balloons and start to try to sell. And I would have thought that that needs to be targeted. And that's my question. On that night, when we gave the intelligence, when we gave the information, the index number, the details, have the police dealt with that individual or are they saying, well, actually, all premises in the area, you can't have or expend your business lawfully because we have not dealt with that? Yeah. I mean, we could probably go to and fro about this one. We sort of know roughly where the boundaries are. I mean, in the guidance, Mr. Dads, it does say that venues should sort of adopt a holistic approach to what goes on, sort of, you know, within a small distance of their premises, but it's not their responsibility. And I think you're right to point out that it's the police's responsibility really to sort of sort that stuff out. Well, I disagree only in part on what you're saying. I say we work together on it. We work in partnership. So it's not just the police. Yeah, that's the holistic element, isn't it? Yeah. And that's the point. I think the premises is accredited by Hackney Knights. We are told by Hackney Knights and the council what to do. We've done our part by calling it in, giving the intelligence, the information. We work together. We've gone out to try to move people on. And at the end of the day, we are doing our bit. We shouldn't be held back or blamed for that. It's not one of our customers. They're not ours. It's like akin to, for at the moment, mobile phone theft is prolific across London. It's like saying, well, at the end of the day, we're not going to deal with the fees. We're going to say to people, you mustn't use your mobile phone in public. Oh, that would be absurd. That's the same here. Don't run your premises. Don't apply for extra hours because we're concerned that fees might come outside or people with drugs selling to the venue. And we say, well, look, we've identified the index, the individual. We got CCTV and we did it 15 minutes beforehand, took 45 minutes before the police arrived. Yeah. And the next question that I've got for you, piece of grease, you can come back to it on his point whilst you answer my question on this next one. On the tens that they had on the various dates, page 74 of the documents, they had, I think it's, how many tens was it? Eight tens listed there. On those tens nights when they went till four, did you have any problems on those tens, those evenings at all, piece of grease? No, we didn't. I'm just having a look through the tens, dates and times and I will get back to that one in two seconds. With regarding the, what do police do? To start with police that have to deal with the whole of Shoreditch. So if we're busy dealing with stuff, we cannot drop what we're doing and run to a call from CCTV because there's a car pulled up with some knocks. Unfortunately, we've got the rest of Shoreditch to deal with, which is really busy. And with a couple of van loads of officers to do that. By at 2.30, 2.45 when the rest of Shoreditch is generally kicking out and most venues are leaving, they're extremely busy and tied up, helping with putting off any kind of issues then. So no, we didn't get there for a while because we were dealing with other things. However, we do know the registration and the vehicle that was given to us and we will have made inquiries and that will be looked at. It's not just a, we'll go and do what happens on the night. There is ongoing work being done constantly about looking at the knocks problem we've got in Shoreditch and how to get rid of it. So officers got there when they were able to, and when we had a free unit to do so. The guys at the time, they're just trying to find that page. Okay, well, I'll wait for you for that. Mr Del, can you just wait to the discussion phase, this bit? Or is it going to be quick? It's going to be very quick. Look, we will work with the police. I make no criticism of the police, but I don't think we should be looked at as this being a reason to stop our application. I would say this. We called the raid radio snow. We identified the individuals. They said that they would keep an eye on them. So when the police arrived, we knew that they were what they were wearing tracksuits. We were able to identify the vehicle, the individuals. So when they arrived, they knew the individuals because we'd been working and sharing intelligence, keeping the radio system up to date with what was going on. So actually, we really did go over and above what would be expected of a licensee working in partnership. Excellent. Thank you very much. And that shouldn't be held against us. Thank you, Mr Dads. Okay, so let's move on now. If you're happy to move on, Councillor Lufkin, just nod if you are. Great. To our licensing authority. So Channing, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. You can see my representation at appendix B2 of the report. I'm using the online report for reference. I'll try to be as quick and concise as I can. I'll just start by clarifying that the points I raised about various conditions in my representation have been clarified and resolved prior to the hearing. Is that condition 22 around the off sales? Yes. 22 is reflected in condition 30 on the online report and then condition 16 leaving quietly reflected in condition 26. Okay. And dispersal policy again is reflected in condition 14 of the report. I just want to clarify those first. Okay. Thank you for that. So our representation relates mainly to the LP3 core hours one and LP12 cumulative impact. As the police officer said, as Amanda said, this area does suffer from cumulative impact, the volume of licensed premises. And our concern is that to extend further beyond the core hours in a locality that does suffer from issues related to the NTE. It may contribute further to those issues. That's our primary concern, really. If you look at the council's independent report on cumulative impacts, 612 says overall observations showed that on Friday and Saturday night, the former CIP area is extremely busy and at times very chaotic. The triangle remains the central hub for the CIP's NTE, retaining people drinking on the street until 4am for options to eat until 5.30am. So whilst we appreciate that it's not a special policy area at the moment, the area still does suffer from issues associated with cumulative impact of licensed premises. And it's our concern that extending hours further may lead to the contribution of those issues, which in turn would undermine the objectives. We appreciate the comments that applicants made to sort of resolve and address any issues. But we still have those concerns, and especially when it comes to extending further beyond our LP3 core hours policy. So nothing further to add at this point, Chair, unless you have any questions. Yes, I wouldn't mind, Channing, just on condition 14, page 79, they've got a list of policies there, which I'm sure that you've had sight of, dispersal policy, et cetera, all that kind of stuff. Do you think that those robust measures, the measures mentioned in those policies on page 79, condition 14, have been robust enough up to now to, in order for that venue to basically operate sufficiently as for you not to be worried on the current hours, bearing in mind the current hours are until 3am. So, are those conditions and all those policies, have they been robust enough in order to run a healthy and safe venue that doesn't cause problems? So, with regards to the policies for this application, I haven't had the opportunity to view those actual documents. What I would say is that, in relation to how the premises has operated historically, in my experience, it hasn't raised significant concerns in terms of us needing to take formal action against the premises, if that makes sense. Yeah. So, that would suggest that, with them operating with those policies at the moment, to the hours they have now, then they don't really have any issues at the moment. Yeah, and just one question on the 10s that they had until 4am, were you aware of any problems that were presented during those periods at all? We weren't aware of any issues during the temporary event notices. So, they operated until 4am and, as far as you're aware, it was all fine. Pacey Griggs, just to come back to you about the 10s, have you found out any more information about those? Yeah, same with Channing. So, when they had the alcohol to 3.30pm and music and closed at 4pm, we haven't had any issues that were noticed on the temporary event notice. Okay, so until 4pm on those 10s, it was all... Apparently, kind of okay, all worked out okay. No complaints, no evidence. Councillor Lufkin, do you want to come in? I'm sure you've got lots of things to say and questions to ask. So, would you like to come in? Yeah, just a couple of points, really. I mean, first of all, I was deeply disturbed to read about... To hear about the incident with the lady who was found to be underage, who was deeply intoxicated, who got into the venue. I mean, Amanda, can we take that into account, when we're looking at this operation? Amanda? Yes, sorry. Yes, you can... Well, the thing is, is that they did say that it has been investigated and there was no follow-up action taken. However, any negative impact on the area, you can take that into consideration. Fine, thanks. Okay, the second point is this. Look, we're being asked to approve a licence till 5 o'clock in the morning. Well, it's 4.30 for our viewers. 4.30, closing at 5 o'clock in an area with... you can't get an area with high cumulative impact. Okay? You know, it's just the absolute epicentre. And we're hearing from the police that they've got a problem policing that. You know, particularly in regards to the late night activity, how late it is. So, I mean, I would just like to hear from the applicant about why they think that that's okay, bearing in mind that the police have objected to it and you are in an area at the absolute epicentre of the night-time economy. And it's not just a bit late. It's till 5 o'clock in the morning. So, yeah, that was my... those are my points. Thanks. Mr. Daz. Yes. Firstly, Councillor Larkford, sorry, I can't see your name. Lufkin, Lufkin. Sorry, Councillor Lufkin, sorry, thank you. Could I just answer the first observation about the young person? Please, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I haven't gone into too much detail, but I've written it within my note. But what we do know is that the individual did attend the premises. We don't know when they left. We don't know that. But we do know about them being asked for ID about 5.36 o'clock and the ID was shown on the phone. So that has been identified, investigated and corrected. And we do employ door supervisors. Now, in relation to the individual, we do know that the individual was dishonest with their first account that they gave to the police and actually the second account. So we know that they gave an account that they entered the premises via a rear door. And we were able to show through the investigation that that was not true. And we were also able to show how they what ID they said they used an Oyster card or that type of device. And we were able to show that that wasn't correct either. So we we do not know. And the police can't tell you either is that what time she left our premises and where she went from there. So certainly we have we've done the way training, the welfare and vulnerability engagement. If we found or had anyone leaving the premises intoxicated, we would have intervened ourselves like we intervened with asking for ID. So I don't think it's I'm not we regret that that individual was able to be omitted and we understand the seriousness of it. But we think it is isolated. We have addressed it. We've fully cooperated with police and we don't believe that that should hinder us in this application. Notwithstanding, I understand the concerns you've raised and we accept that too. And we've addressed that. So and the police have taken no further action. So that's the evidence before you. In relation to the second point regarding the cumulative impact and trial triangle, we do know that the Golden Bee is not operating at the moment. We know that Road Trip has a license to 530 across the road and they don't operate that until that time. And certainly where we are and we believe that we can operate safely at promoting the licensing objective to five o'clock without causing any impact on the cumulative impact. Now, what is alleged as the cumulative impact? Because obviously there is no cumulative impact policy. The burden is on the police and they have to provide you, in effect, the evidence in this submission in their in their representation. They have to enclose the evidence that they seek to use. So, for example, in even if it was like 200 metres from our premises, they could have provided you the crime data immediately outside our premises. But they haven't. And we we have been operating more than 10 years. And you can see from the comments from Mr. Rivera about the there have been no issues of note that's drawn their attention to the licensing authority. The police have granted us in this environment that you describe as being the the the such a busy concentrating area. But the police have been willing and been able to grant us to four o'clock without the need for any intervention. And we've had those four o'clock operations that any cause of concern. So we've been able to demonstrate that that we can operate to that time without any cause of concern. And and as I say, in relation to our premises and immediately outside our premises or any of our patrons, I don't believe that the police have provided any evidence that our patrons, people that come to our premises and leave our premises causing any crime disorder or undermine the licensing objectives. And remember, if there's not a cumulative impact policy, the burdens on the police to show that our operation is having a negative impact on cumulative impact or we are having a negative negative impact on the licensing objectives. So the burden is on them to provide the evidence today to say, and Amanda will clarify, they have to show that we as our operation individually, not collectively, because there's no cumulative impact that our operation, our customers that come or go are impacting on undermining the licensing objectives. And I've seen no evidence of that in this pack or this agenda. And lastly, the very short very point is that we do work really well with our local community and we've had no local resident or councillor raise any complaint about noise, disturbance, dispersal. We do and will update our dispersal plan. We will always work with the council and the police and we do. And we do. That's why we are accredited so that we we say that we can promote the licensing objectives to five o'clock and the tube station opens. Look at the traffic numbers. Look at the noise. If we go to five, people will leave and go and use the tube and go home. PC Griggs. Can I come in there just before PC Griggs answers those points? And PC Griggs, you're the guys that are going to have to work with these operators. How, how, how have they behaved? How much confidence do you have in them? You know, are they, you know, are they as, you know, reputable as Mr. Dad says they are in terms of, you know, how closely they work with you? Could you address those in your remarks as well? Thanks very much. Councillor. Yes, I mean, we do work with the venue. When we ask for CCTV or information from them, then it is forthcoming and they do listen to what we say. And we do ask for things. We do get a response from them. And just on the temporary event notices, they're very different from having a permanent licence. On eight occasions, including New Year's Eve last year, they've had these temporary event notices. So there's eight to ten last year. That's very different to having these hours every single weekend. And I say, and that was only till four o'clock. So that's very different having a permanent licence to this time. So, yes, the TENS are, by their very nature, easier to grant and for us to say yes to, because if one goes wrong, then they don't get the next one. If there's one incident on a permanent licence, you need much more to then be able to review it. It's much easier to come and go with the temporary event notice system than it is with the actual permanent licence. But, yes, as I said, they do work with us and they do cooperate when we ask for things. So we've had no issues in getting them to do bits and pieces that we've asked for. I mean, just to comment, I mean, I place a lot of weight on that. Do you know what I mean? I mean, if you guys think that you can work with them and they have proved to be helpful and stuff in the past, that carries quite a lot of weight with me in terms of my decision. I mean, if you're saying, oh, we've had all these sort of problems with it, you know, that makes me very sceptical. So, I mean, Mr. Dad's highlighted that, you know, they had work close in. That is your experience too. Is that right, PC Griggs? Yes, they do. As soon as we asked, we spoke to them about the incident of the 17-year-old girl, especially if they found the CCTV of her coming in and looked at that for us. And we're quite happy to go through. As soon as I could get, I say, I provided them a description of the female they were looking for. And they found her. Bear in mind, we didn't really know what time she entered the premises themselves. So they will go and do things. They will listen to us. They will work with us. They will come into meetings. So, yes, we've not had an issue with working with them like that. Yeah, I mean, look, I'm not saying we are granting or not granting it, but, you know, Mr. Dad, if we if we do want to get you got it, we would expect to hear that that is going really well. Do you know what I mean? I mean, because Councillor Smith and I, as the chair of the vice chair, will play very close emphasis on what the police say in terms of our relationship and your your client's relationship with the police. You know, we don't want to. Yeah. OK, fine. Thanks. And can I say that the client's gone over and above because I, with some colleagues, have designed a system called Licensing Connect. And that literally is a digital platform that records any refusal, any incident, training or waive, licensing. It's completely all in one app service that digitalized so you can share it. Your police can view it. So the reality of it, we're we're at the very highest standard of operation with the accreditation of Hackney Knights and Licensing Connect. Yeah, thank you. Basically, on the on the ID situation. So that was presented digitally. So how did we discover that she was that this person was underage? Did she have other ID with her or did you kind of were you able to check her out some other way? We were dealing with a she'd made her way. She's only over in the Arts Hotel, which is literally directly opposite where she was found by the medic. Oh, she was picked up to that side. We took her inside. And once we'd got her actual identification, found out her name and everything else. We found out her date of birth. And let's say she was a more vulnerable customer than we'd like to have in Shoreditch. But yeah, that was what we dealt with. But yeah, we found out her ID once we were dealing with us. Yeah. So she was using a false ID. It was a it was a photograph of a passport that was on her phone. Right. So whether it was her passport that had been the date of birth been tampered with or somebody else's passport details that had her photo on it. I don't know how it had been done or quite which way around it was. OK, OK. But it was somebody else's ID or a false ID somewhere along the line that she was using. Yeah. Mr. Daz, just to pose this question to you. Eight tens. They all went well. The police are saying slightly nervous about having those longer hours for the whole time rather than just those eight specific events. How would you feel about us offering you until four? Just putting a direct question to you, because obviously to five, it just seems everyone's a little bit worried. So you would go to four, shut at half four and then, you know, you've got half an hour to walk the tube. Yeah, we would we would we would obviously be satisfied with that. We'd obviously be delighted if we could have what we applied for. But obviously we would then be able to demonstrate to you we can do it. And it may be that we come back in, you know, six months or whenever and then pick up the extra time. I would say that you can have confidence with what we are doing and we will work. So it may be that that's a way forward. Yeah. But obviously, certainly I would want I would want people ideally to be walking off to the tube. It may be that you take the view actually people to five o'clock. People would be then walking to do. But as I say, we wouldn't be objectionable to the four four. Yeah, I could take my client's instructions if you want me to to say if we want to amend it. But certainly they're my submissions at the moment. OK, but we're very clear where you are. Thank you very much for that. Councillor Lufkin. Yeah, thanks for raising that chair. I think that's important. I'd be much more comfortable with that, to be perfectly honest. Just just on the issue of the tube. Can I just ask, doesn't the tube at this location operate 24 hours a day at? Well, I thought it what I thought one of the services did, but I had a look online. It looks like it's from five o'clock. But I thought they were running 24. But unfortunately, I couldn't find any more detail about that. But as I say, we we would in spirit of compromise working. So as we've got the alcohol to four and everyone can buy four thirty. Yeah. We would be satisfied with that. Yeah. And that kind of sort of staggers things a little bit with the other venue across the road. You know, the disperse line, I mean, in the general area. So we've got yourself filling out at four thirty. The other one's filling out at five. And that kind of just takes the pressure off a little bit. Yeah. Yes. I can see that sense in that. Yeah. OK, great. Well, look, I think we've sort of reached the end of the discussion. We are a couple of minutes over. I think about four minutes over or so, but that's fine. So closing remarks. Let's start with just reflections, really, and how you feel now about it. P.C. Greggs. Thanks, Chair. I won't go over everything else that I've already said already. Police concerns remain about later hours. But do concede that the 10 that finished at four o'clock didn't run too badly and were OK. We didn't have significant issues from them. Police will be concerned still with later hours because of the issues in the area. But you've heard it all. You've got all the information. So I should leave at that. OK, thank you very much. And Channing. Thank you, Chair. I would say that our concerns around cumulative impact and further extension beyond core hours remains, although we have heard the submissions and nothing further to add, Chair. OK, great. Thank you very much. And then, well, Amanda, I'll bring you in a minute, Mr. Daz. Just Amanda first. Amanda. I just wanted to check that the non-standard hours, the police are happy with those. Fine. Ideally, New Year's Eve would like a time on it. If it was the same as the weekend hours, then we'd be more than happy with that. OK. Could you just repeat that again, Jim? I didn't quite hear you. Sorry. Yeah. Because the guys on New Year's Eve, I mean, the others were an extra L, wasn't it? I don't know if they were to solve bank holidays and vixen pieces and stuff. But New Year's Eve hours, if they could reflect weekend hours granted or something similar, then that would be appreciated rather than an open-ended time. OK, thank you. How does that sound to you, Mr. Daz? Yeah, very short. Pardon? Just that point that Amanda just raised about the non-standard hours. Yes, I think what I've heard from the police is that just to mirror those that would be the weekend to be the non-standard hours, that's fine. OK, brilliant. Excellent. So, your closing remarks, Mr. Daz, please. I'll be brief. You've got the speaking note. You've got the history and how we've operated. The onus and the evidence is on the responsible authorities. I think that the evidence before you, you can grant it. You've heard that we will be satisfied with 4 o'clock, 4.30 close. We will work with the responsible authorities and police throughout, as we've always done, and working in partnership. So, I hope that you will grant the licence to at least that. But, obviously, that would be a matter for your good sales. Thank you. Yeah. Great. Well, thank you very much, everyone, for attending today's call. Councilor Lufkin? Just to clarify, the other branch of the Northern Line is the one that's open 24 hours, although I do note that you're not very far from Liverpool Street, really. And I normally, when I go there, I always walk from Liverpool Street, it's about seven minutes. Okay, yeah. Thanks. Thanks. Great. Okay. Thank you, everyone. One second. It's not quite finished just yet. The final part of the agenda is 10s, and I've received a notification that 10, due to be considered by this subcommittee, has been withdrawn. So, that's it. So, there being no further business for consideration, the meeting has come to an end. Thank you very much, everyone. Bye. Have a good evening. Good afternoon. Good evening. Thank you all. Thank you, everyone. Bye.

Transcript