Transcript

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Licensing Subcommittee Meeting. My name is Councillor Siliconmith. I am the chair of the Licensing Subcommittee 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 is 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'll start from my left here. Members, please be thinking. Thank you chair. Good evening. All my name is Councillor Farouk. I have nothing to declare as well. Hi, I'm Councillor Irifika Sultana from Bethnogden East. Thank you. David Wong from Legal Services. My role here tonight to provide legal advice to the council is to assist them. Assembly has been democratic services. Motionally licensed in section. Thank you, everyone. Members, can I ask, is there any apologies tonight? No, chair, no apologies, perhaps, since. Thank you. Do members have any declaration of disclosible peculary interest? I have nothing to declare. Thank you. Can members please not the rules and procedure have on page 7-16 of this agenda? I would like to ask Simi to announce those in attendance tonight, please, Simi. Thank you chair. For this item is 3.1 application for a new premises license for a club, London E1 6JX. On behalf of the applicants, we have Mr. James Anderson and Felix Fultner, who from Popoloston and Ireland. We have James Dyer and Ben Jean-Libbeltsky. I'm on behalf of the applicants. Those that made representation, we have Kathy Driver representing the licensing authority. She joined us virtually and Nicola Cazzo representing environmental health, and she's here, present. After the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of 10 minutes to make their representation. The objectives will also be given 10 minutes each to make their representation, or let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda packet advance. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Simi. Can I ask, motionally, the license, obviously, to do a stir report. Please. Thank you, chair. The application in front of you is for a new premises license application for Naval Clubs, one club row, London E1 6JX. Going for the report, if you look at Appendix 1, which is pages 28 to 38, you'll see a copy of the existing license, which is held by the premises under a different license holder. More specifically, page 36 has the ground floor and the first floor license areas. If you should, members, wish to compare the previous license to the current application. 3.2 of the report shows you the license where activity is. It's just phone 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 license of activities and timings that have been applied for 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 license venues. Appendix 6, page 72 shows you the holding representation of environmental protection. Appendix 7, the representation of the license and authority, pages 74 to 77 and the resident representation is in Appendix 8, which is pages 79 to 80. The representations are under the free license and objectives of the provincial crime disorder, provincial public nuisance and public safety. 7.0 of the report shows you the conditions that are being 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 have seen additional supplemental agendas submitted by the applicant provided you with further evidence in support of the application. Now, there has 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 way is agreed and which is not agreed in their submission. That is a summary of the report. Let's members have any further questions. Thank you. Can I ask members, do you have any questions for the officer? Can I ask the applicant to present the application and you have 10 minutes. It will be reminded of a minute left. Members of the committee, thank you. Good evening. I am James Anderson representing the applicant. To my left is Benji Leibovitz and to my right is James Dye and Felix, my colleague sits at the end there. I am going to speak to you briefly and then I shall bring in James and Benji when appropriate during the application. You have had quite a full disclosure from us in relation to what we are trying to do here. Just briefly in a nutshell, this is an opportunity to bring back into life an historic pub in the Shoreditch and Tower Hamlet area that has been closed as a pub for probably 20 years. It has had a couple of go's as a restaurant but they have not been terribly successful. Two entrepreneurs in dependence see this as an opportunity to bring back into life a building that has been completely closed for two years. It is a magnificent building. It is a listed building. James and Benji have got approval from your colleagues in planning and listed building to do one or two minor alterations inside. We hope quite an exciting opportunity. There are some minor changes which they propose. The ground floor is a fantastic pub space and you will 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 are going to be trading that very much as a pub because that is culturally and historically what we think it always must be. We are 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. It is oysters and cocktails and steaks and that type of New Yorky feel and then a private dining room on the second floor which is new. The ability to provide food is being extended. On all three floors in fact, well on the two floors, the ground floor and first floor and new kitchens are going in. Food is significant. James comes as you all have read from his CV from a restaurant background. Good quality food is very significant to what is proposed. The ground floor will be a pub. There will be traditional real ails available from a local supplier. It will be in some ways going back to the old days but with a more premium modern type twist. That is what is 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 license in force which we are following almost exactly. If anything, we are more restrictive because we have more conditions. We have agreed with the police such as Norman on Friday and Saturday and we are accepting that our first and second floors must trade as a restaurant and those conditions are not on the existing license. It is license for license if you like so we are not adding anything to the cumulative impact area in that sense. Secondly, the conditions which we have agreed are more up to date, more modern and more enforceable than on the existing license should have them forbid things go straight but I am sure they will not. Let me turn to perhaps the area which again motion touched upon that unfortunately means that both Nicola and Cathy are here today and that is the issue of the external area. The premises 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 Road and the paving around both areas does have a ballast raiding. So we are 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 is 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 Alan Pussycat. I do not know whether you are 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 are 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 do not 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 Ben should do not want to employ people. They want to employ people to check that they are okay to come in. They do not want to employ people to tell them that they cannot go out. It is 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 are other conditions that we have offered. The 9 o'clock is the principal condition. I think we are quite close with Nicola. I shall probably tell me in a minute that we are not but I think we are reasonably close. Nicola is okay with most of that but wants a number on it. We do not want a number on it. There will not be that many in reality because our occupancy on the ground floor is 60 to 80 people and 55 on the first floor which is a restaurant. So it is not a massive pub but of course monitoring a number is difficult and also we think possibly not practical and probably it does not go to any root cause of concern which I think is noise of those customers. Now the application has not brought out a vast amount of residential objection. It has fortunately brought out quite a large amount of residential and business support. So we do not 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 endeavors 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 six smokers must be inside by 9 o'clock. It 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 are other licensed businesses around us, few restaurants and cafes but we could be a real focal point of the local community. We think it is quite a high profile site. If there is no one outside in the summer or we cannot have anyone outside in the summer, then that is going to be bad for us business-wise, frankly, because we are going to lose customer. 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 is 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 is no cover there, so this is not going to be in use every day. It is most likely to be in use during the warmer months, which being generous would be March 2 September, probably. Chairman, members of the committee, I am coming to the end of probably my 10 minutes, but my representations. I am going to ask, I am sure you will ask questions, but I am going to ask James or Benji, if you have got anything to add to what I have said about your plans and one minute. Do you want to add something, James? I think we are just really excited about reviving this kind of public building, and I think for us to not have to be able to have anyone outside would be really difficult for us to operate that as a building, and we would really have to consider that again. We think that there is with so many public closing and so many restaurants closing and being so hard to run hospitality businesses that we kind of feel like anything we can do to help support them is really important. That is the main thing. That is right. I mean, Sholdich has lost, sadly, Sholdich and Tower Hamlet's generally has lost. We have submitted that and has lost a large number of pubs, and this is a listed building, and I am forgiving on 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. Stem can pass you, I think, very much for a presentation. Can I ask the objectives now to present their objections? You also have ten minutes. Can I ask Ketty-Dryer first, please, to present your objections? Good evening, Chair. I hope you can hear me okay. Yeah, I can hear you fine. Thank you. Right. Apologies for being remote this evening. In terms of the eliciting authority's view, the concern, obviously, stated by the applicant is essentially that the area of dispute is the outside of drinking of the customers, and we believe this is the only area of dispute, which despite obviously trying to negotiate, we've sort of become a stalemate essentially, in terms of what we can agree, what we can't. Obviously, the application seeks off-sales with which the old lax licence, and indeed the shadow licence that's held that's currently still live, had restrictions of which had no off-sales, no drinks outside, and alcohol, and sedere to a meal. Obviously, this crime 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 of 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 ratings one side, and violence entries the other. Obviously, we appreciate the offer in the conditions, particularly 20 to 23 in the supplementary agenda at page 6, and these start being offered. However, the premises are in a very high social behaviour area, particularly club row and rail at the corner into Arnold's Circus, where customers from many of them using it around Shelditch, either from Taham, Leets of Ork, or from the Hackney area, attracted people all parping up and then using it, hanging around, drinking a new relation. And these areas had particularly had urinals positions from the late night levees funding, in slates to street opposite, and indeed in sort of Arnold's Circus, especially that person who's preventing the urination from people in this area. We built a truckage with drinking outside related public loosens, and it's likely to affect residents, particularly living in club row, who are in the past, been affected by the historic pavement losses, which was held by the previous premises, in which street. With all good intentions, one of these premises is that 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 supplementary agenda, they're not expecting more than 25 out of that side, however, they don't wish to condition it. And as they would not have security at all times, they say it would be 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 last, as he's held there, not had outside drinking. And I think this is where physicals of concern of complaints from residents in the area, and obviously 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 and enjoying the sunshine, 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 we do, too, we commit outside drinking, obviously, we're stating that there is a concern on that, should be restrictions made on the numbers, so to lessen that risk of public nuisance, or should drink to be limited by tables and chairs, but we still are unclear as to whether tables and chairs were, of course, the intention or whether it's just setting only, and obviously, that depends on whether a pavement, last week, we've committed, obviously, outside for any tables and chairs, but, obviously, that's a separate process. Obviously, in addition, and I know this is, obviously, not been mentioned, but there was no mention of the use of plastic or, or, soon, containers for the off sales. I know, obviously, this is a 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 a long-termity option as well. That really concludes my presentation, and at my presentation, would you share any questions, please? Thank you, Cathy. Can I ask Nicola Kantozo to view of you, please? Thank you. Original bulk of the last of the application. And from the holding rep, met with the applicant and sister, 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 six, agreement was made to three of the conditions, but the one condition, condition two, added shall be limited to 20 persons before 2100 hours. The applicant was not happy with that. I mean, I'm following on from Cathy's representation. Now, I have to consider public nuisance. The area outside is very narrow. I mean, 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 9 o'clock, particularly, I think, as the applicant has discussed, as Cathy 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 have was with the number of people, not restricting the numbers outside before 9 o'clock. I know after 9 o'clock there are only eight people to go outside. Six people, sorry, I'm six feet to get 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. This premises wouldn't be part of the CIZ if there wasn't an issue with a 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 9 o'clock. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I ask, now the members, we'll have the opportunity to ask questions to other parties. Do you have any questions, members? Thank you, Chair. 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 we need the whole building or each floor if you can break, please? Councillor Armed, 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's 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. I just want to ask a small question now. Just for this moment, what is the premises currently, in very short, was this being used as? It's nothing, Chairman, unfortunately. So, we think it closed as a pub over 20 years ago, and since then, it has been a posh French restaurant called Létois Gason. 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 if I may just slightly expand on the point that Cathy made, we don't know the 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 its 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. Excuse me, can I just ask the pictures in the bundle? Yes. What they really reflect, the age of the pictures, and the time is taken? Our pictures of the old pub. The pictures of the supplementary—yes, 1976. Chair, when I think there 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 and 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 point, 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, Ounus, for myself, is, despite the fact that this has been a pub for centuries—we think since the early 1800s, Chair. It has been closed. You are asking for a license that now that it falls within DCIZ zone. How would you justify and make sure that although it has been a pub and this nature of business, but to introduce something again, which is the areas under heavy pressure to control the licenses, how would you justify that they wouldn't add an additional body in the area itself? Yes, Chair. The area is under pressure. There are two issues, I think, if you use the expression under pressure, that may be relevant. One is a crime of 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 and disorder. The other issue is the one of noise, which Kathie Driver mentioned. That principle here is potential noise from customers outside. In terms of the policy point, we are effectively seeking a second licence for a site that is already licensed, so we are not adding it to the acute of impact. In other words, when your policy was introduced and the area was viewed as being a saturation, the nafe of clubs or whatever was operating there would have been included in that. So it's not like we're licensing a building from a fresh, we're simply seeking a second licence. We could use the existing licence, 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 licence, which is the same as the existing licence 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 a few questions. Thank you. We entirely accept that there are going to be people outside, and that comes with potentially shoes and risks. But many hundreds of pubs in the East and in Great London operate in this way, and a good operator finds a way. And the problem is that if you're not going to let people outside, I know I've made this point already, you're going to have a number of potential flashpoints because people want to go outside. It's going to be bad for the customer experience. So we think that nine o'clock is the principal 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. Okay. Sorry, I've got one question from the Councillor Faru Kament, which he asked, so I'm going to have the supplementary question. How will you control when you have 60 people grow in a ground floor? 15, a fast floor, am I right? And 15 in a second floors, people eating and drinking in the same time. So how are you going to control all of these? I'm going to pass that to the operator, Councillor Sultana, but just to slightly make it clear, so the proposed occupants are probably 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. But James, please. So the private dining will be booked well in advance, so that will be only private workings. The restaurant on the first floor will be predominantly pre-booked as well. We tend to find about 90% or 95% of our covers are pre-booked to people these days, don't really send up to these sorts of restaurants without booking, and the restaurant is quite premium. It's a sort of a place you'd go for a special occasion. It's not somewhere you just turn up to. And in terms of the pub, we would have staff trained and managed, we provide a lot of training to around crowd management, and they would know the capacities, and ideas, and all times. Do you have a music, and what sort of music, I mean, in your premises? Yes, so the New York sort of first floor restaurant will have a background music of jazz and New York, stuff you'd expect in New York, lots of piano jazz, and the ground floor will just have background music as well, which should just be a pubs are often places people want to sit around and talk, so we don't want to have real 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 ASIA license holders shall be on the duty of the premises if you have, I mean, if you have any ASIA license? We've, on the license with the police, we agreed to, it's two ASIAs, it's on page. Yeah, it's on page. No, it's in the supplemental agenda page five. Yeah, so it'd be a minimum of two ASIA from eight, five ASIAs to close, 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 manager perspective and from a general crowd control to have them trained in that as well. But that'll be a minimum of door staff, yeah. Thank you, Kassala. I would release to page six some conditions there, conditions offered. I would, I would, say some advice and have fun, David. Can you please repeat that? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes. I'm very happy to assist the Ysup committee members by asking a number of questions of the applicants to help clarify matters. I believe the Chair is referring to conditions 2021, 22 and 23 on page six of the supplementary agenda. Perhaps if I can suggest that if Mr. Faulkner possibly just to assist Master Leeds on trying to clear this one up. The members, I think the members, believe what the members are saying is that 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. Karin Holland on behalf of the licensing authority has proposed three conditions which aim to address the, if I can use a term loosely, because I know you said that there's actually no outside area, but we can court 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 Karin Holland's put down there? Yes, I'm going to address those, Mr. Wineflex. 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 two-fold. 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, again, 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, we can't, 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 our condition on page 74 of the main agenda, you do understand, or you and your client do understand, don't you, that the A premises 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 on a natural wording in the immediate facility, just outside, which that payment area is in the immediate facility. That Mr Wong, and we fully accept that Mr Wong, and we have agreed three. It has come across as 21 on the in the supplemental agenda at page six. 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. I mean, that's a high sanction, but we're prepared to live with that responsibility. And that means from an enforcement point of view, members and committee, if we get it wrong outside, not only could we be at risk of reviewing the removal of drinking outside, but of course, we would be in breach of that condition, possibly as well, so there's a sort of two-pronged area of risk for us. Thank you. Just barely 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 me for a minute. Page 28 of the supplementary agenda. And this is your email for third of October 2024 to the licensing, well, actually to not just licensing, but also the noise team, you refer to the shadow license. You've alluded, by the way, to in one of the reasons why you feel that there will be no addition to the coupons of it back because you're simply no pun intended, shadow, aiming to shadow the shadow license. It's not really an addition, and there's a really sharp report. I can see what you're guessing at, because on page 28 of the supplementary agenda, you're alluding to the shadow license, having basically dropped out of picture, because you say the premises license 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, there's all been monitored and records on the public records as well for the purposes of this meeting. And the company's house website shows that it's Rassam UK limited, who are the premises license, because you're 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 statement. Mr Faulkner has made in, on page 28, to another license, when the premises traded as dirty bones, which I referred to as the casual dining ground floor and bar on the first floor. So that, yes, has, has, has lapsed, we think. But not the license in the papers that is still in force. In the name of the landlord. I'm, it's Mr Dye, isn't it? I'm, I'm sorry, Mr Dye, forgive me if misunderstood you. I'm confused, though, because are you saying, therefore, that Rassam UK limited had not one but two licenses? No, no, just one. So, so, so, Rissem is the landlord and they have the shadow license that's still in effect as of today. But there was another license held by a company called DB Prokko 4, which is dirty bones is trading company, and that fell away when they went into administration. Yes. So, if this, if this application was granted, there would be two licenses. The license in the papers held by the landlord and our license, which we would use to trade, which is respectfully not that unusual. A number of landlords in central London do apply and hold licenses to protect their position. Okay, well, I can tell Rissem Rassam letters being in that respect as well, that helps. Yeah. Sorry, I was going to ask a quick question to you first. About the, those conditions that you said, do you have anything to say on it? Page 74, those three conditions you wanted to, David just mentioned. On page 24. Yeah, we just, just dropped about it. So, sorry, page 74. Yes, in terms of what, comment and obviously requested, we obviously, in terms of trying to limit numbers or hacktapes and chairs outside. I think there was discussions on previous emails that they may have been in intention to hacktapes and chair that night. And I believe that's what, obviously, calling it an offer that are having tables and chairs outside. It does give us an element of, or control as such, is in terms of the numbers that people are sitting sitting at the tables, drinking rather than standing in large groups, which obviously can sort of harden the mood somewhat if people are outside drinking, standing outside. But obviously, you know, we felt that the actual space to that side 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 app and calling was the use of barrels at slide or potentially use of barrels. But, obviously, there's no intention to hack tables and chairs outside. And obviously, that's a difficult decision to make when we got through to the people outside, ever. Just to add, in terms of the licenses held there, there's been a number of licenses held there. Essentially, the application 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 Grand Frapper Transitional Process. That was held to five DB-2-3 limited. And then there was a further application in 2015, also the premises and also last it's told was DB-2-3 limited, which in that case, both that property has dissolved and hence those two licensees last. 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've seen, the shadow license, which essentially is a duplicate of one of the licensees held there to protect the license exists there and is a lawsuit to accompany waxing, which is quite common to do. That just wants to power it on as well, both for you. Thank you. Do you 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 applicant. As you've mentioned about the capacity and hopefully you'll do if we were to ground 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're very much aware about it, all of us. So, do you not agree that there 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 Armond. 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 Saturdays 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 principle 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 have 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. And 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 principle objection to a number was the practical difficulty, the fact that you can have five 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 row, which is quite an unbestful 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're 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, 20 is too difficult, and it's 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, shortage, and tower hamlets. 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 the supervisor. Obviously, you did agree with the police that you will have a supervisor. Yes. Is it just one or two? Sorry, did I miss? Is it two somewhere there? It's two. We're looking at the start of the mental. H5. Indeed. Thank you. Yes, 16. Agreed with the police. So that's a minimum figure, minimum of two, from 8 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Okay, I've got that. Thank you. And also, can I just go back to, as I chair mentioned earlier, about a traditional pub, a hundred years ago, the legislation on the rules and regulations. So if you can turn your microphone off, please. We can hear better. Thank you very much. Currently, you're very much aware about the location of the pub itself, for the purposes, cell falls under C.I.Z. So, automatically, the traditional terms and condition of the pubs, it would be different. Do you accept that? I don't quite understand, Councillor, I'm a different to... Like, a traditional pub, they have virtual drinking, you know, like, and 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 C.I.Z. 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, in 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 would think and probably find the question from me, if we were to grant this licence, would he 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 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've really appreciate the paperwork. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I remember now, can we just move to our conclusion remarks? Can I ask the objective first? You have one minute each. Shall I go for a coffee? Thank you, Chair. I hope you can still hear me. I'm not going to write 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, just being the side of that club throw, opposite that road where the ID is growing, is actually residential, and, obviously, that is that may cause an issue if customers are picking on that side, but if you're mindy to give permission outside, the other thing I may ask you to consider is whether the people are outside on better green roads, they're in mind that's a busy road anyway, if that is permitted, and maybe that is a partial consideration, but see that 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 obviously, I think we're in a difficult position to come to an agreement, and unfortunately, actually, with your decision, I'll talk to you in a later time. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask, Nicola, that's so pleased. 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, I'll, I'll and put the cat on Red Church Street, I would, on a summer's evening, there would be, I'm 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, or a soft drink, increasingly, but all we're trying to do is seek parity. So, it respectfully, it's not an accurate calculation to say that it's 40%. The album pussycat would probably have more people outside than its whole capacity inside, and the same for the brick layers and the same for the, for the last and all of the other pubs. So, you know, it may be that we, we shy away from the idea of people standing outside, but, but in order to run a pub in this area successfully, that we, we, we need an element of people outside in the summer, and we offer greater control measures than there are on any other license as far as we know. The principal one is 9 o'clock, 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 is 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 have had stressful jobs, they want to go and enjoy themselves, they want to go outside for a couple of hours, 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 this will come to the end to most of it. Thank you for your contribution. Today, the subcommittee will deliver it in a private session after this meeting ends, and see me from democratic services. We'll write to you with the decision, with the decision, within five working days. Thank you very much. Yeah, extension of decision deadlines, is there only? Chair, there are none. Thank you. So, we'll keep closing the meeting today. Yeah, thanks. The meeting is closing. Thank you.