Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Licensing Subcommittee. My name is Councillor Shubha Hussain and I am the chair of the Licensing Subcommittee. This meeting is being held in person. Committee members and key participants are present in the meeting room and there may be some joining us online today. This meeting is being filmed for the Council's website for public viewing. I would remind members at the meeting to only speak on my direction and to speak clearly into the microphones to ensure that the contributions can be properly recorded. Can the members introduce themselves, please? Could the officers introduce themselves, please? Thank you. Do we have any apologies? No chair, no apologies. Do members have any disclosable pecuniary interests? None, chair. None for me as well. Members please note the rules and procedures on page 19 to 18 of the agenda. Can members please note and agree the minutes of the meeting held on the 19th and 24th of the agenda. Thank you. Simi, could you announce the application, please? Sure. Thank you, chair. Item 4.1 is the application for a new premises licence for Z&H, one vice limited, 46 brick lane, London E16RF. Chair, for this application we have Xin Zhao Hu who has joined us virtually today and those that have made representation, we have Mr Moshen Ali from Licensing Authority joining us in person and Mr O'Leary who is the Environmental Health Officer who has joined us virtually. After the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of five minutes to make their representation. The objectors will also be given five minutes each to make their representation. I will let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda pack in advance. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Simi. Could I ask Levin Miller-Johnson, the licensing officer, to introduce the report, please? Thank you, chair. This is an application for a new premises licence for Z&H, one, rice limited. This is at 46 brick lane, E16RF. This premises falls within the brick lane community impact area. The applicant has described the premises as a restaurant. The hours that have been applied for are for late night refreshment, Monday to Sunday from 2300 hours to 0400 hours the following day. A reduction of hours has been agreed with the police and amendments have been made as follows. Sunday to Thursday from 700 hours until 0000 hours. Friday and Saturday from 700 hours until 0100 hours the following day. Opening times, Monday to Sunday from 700 hours until 400 hours the following day. Opening hours that have been agreed with the police are Sunday to Thursday from 700 hours until 0000 hours and Friday and Saturday from 700 hours until 0100 hours the following day. A copy of the application can be found at appendix 1, which is pages 60 to 76. Site plan of the premises can be found at appendix 2, which is page 78. Maps of the surrounding area is at appendix 3, which is page 80. Photographs of the premises can be found at appendix 4, which is pages 82 to 83. Official licensed venues can be found at appendix 5, which is pages 85 to 90. Representations that have been received can be found at appendix 6 to 92. Representations from responsible authorities is appendix 6 and 7 and that is pages 92 to 99. Other representations at appendices 8 to 9, which is pages 101 to 105. Conditions that have been agreed at pages 107 to 117, this is set out clearer on page 53. Airlines can be found for members at pages 119 to 144, which is appendices 12 to 18. Thank you, chair.

Do members have any questions to the licensing officer? Mr Hu, can I ask you to explain what your relationship is with the company? I am the creative director of the company. The problem that we've got is that the formal director of the company is someone called Dongrong Yu, the application was made by the previous director Mr Xiaobing Chen, I assume it's Mr maybe Miss, do you have a thought, are you authorized by the company to speak on its behalf? Can you say again, please? Pardon? Can you say again, please? Sorry. You're not a former, you're not a director of the company, as far as company's house is concerned. Do you understand that? Yes. Okay. So you're not an officer of the company as far as the law is concerned. The application was made by Mr or Miss Xiaobing Chen when they were a director. They have since ceased to be the director and there is a new director of Mr or Miss Dongrong Yu and are you authorized by them to speak on behalf of this company? Yes. You can take that at face value, chair. Can I now ask the applicant to present the application? You have five minutes. Sorry. You have five minutes. Mr Hu, you can start presenting now. Sorry, just a second. Mr Hu? Mr Hu? Did he? Mr Hu? Mr Hu, you have four minutes now to tell us why you want this license to be approved. So basically, now we're a Chinese restaurant and we opened about two months already and now we have the -- we also have the personal license for selling alcohols. I just applied for like one month ago and it's already -- it's already passed the exam but it's still licensed on the way and yeah. Would you like to say anything else? So yeah, I think that's it. Mr Hu, this is obviously the company's application. The premises is operating in a cumulative impact zone. Can you perhaps address the subcommittee about what you understand by that and how you're not going to adversely impact on that? So basically, I think as you all know, I already passed the exam for the personal license. So all the questions I have been answered is through the exam, yeah. Mr Hu, congratulations on passing the exam. But could you explain to us what your understanding is of the Brick Lane CIA, the Communicative Impact Assessment? Could you explain to us what you understand about the CIA, the Communicative Impact Assessment, the Brick Lane Communicative Impact Assessment? Sorry, just a second. This is a -- when we come back -- >> Sorry, can I suggest that we defer this and get into the suggestion that they -- >> Mr Hu, Mr Hu. I think for the moment, if I may, maybe the thing to do for the moment. If we adjourn this application, we can move on to the next one and then we can deal with Mr Hu after. It's not fair to the other people who are here. Mr Hu? Yeah. I think we'll have to explain that when we come back. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Mr Hu, Mr Hu, we're going to adjourn this meeting. We're going to go on to the next agenda and after -- Sorry. Mr Hu? Do you think it's okay to have a point for another time because I think my preparation is not right, as you can see. That's sensible. Okay. If I may, obviously there are representations from other people, so before you make a decision on that, do Mr Ali and Mr Alire have any objections to this application coming back on another day if the committee minded to agree to that? Chair, I wouldn't have any objections to it. It's only fair that he's prepared for the hearing. Yeah, some applies to me. I do not have any objection to that. I think it would be in the interest of him to -- we can defer this. Thank you. That being so, you've got the authority to do that under the hearing regs if you think it's necessary in the public interest to consider the representations. Clearly, Mr Hu is struggling and I would suggest perhaps you want to -- you might wish to direct Mr Hu or whoever represents the company on the next occasion to appear in person so they can give the committee their full attention rather than appearing remotely. Mr Hu, yeah, we can -- you can come back another time, but next time if you could come in person, that would be better -- if we can. If we can. If we can. Would the 12th of December do for you? 12th of December might be not, yeah. Is there other dates? Yeah, can we take this offline? I suggest that you maybe contact the applicant and suggest that you liaise around it, because it doesn't need to be now for all of us here. I mean, strictly speaking, under the regs you are meant to fix the date on which it comes back. I think what we do is I'd advise you that you fix it for the 12th of December. If that's problematic for the applicant, then they can always apply for further adjournment. Mr Hu, we'll make the next date for the 12th of December. If you have an issue with that, you can get in contact and we can change the date, if that's all right. Okay. Nice one, Mr Hu. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Can I just suggest that as we didn't know the identity of Mr Hu at the beginning, if we get some sort of a formal letter or something or an email from one of the directors perhaps authorizing him to act on their behalf, it's just a suggestion that might clarify who -- or what his position is in relation to the company. Good idea. That's fair. And if you could do that, Mr Hu, if you got that. Yeah, sure. Or ideally Mr Hu, turn up with whoever the director of the company is at the relevant time. It's Mr or Miss gone wrong year, if they're in per person, then that should deal with the issue. Okay? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Hu, you're welcome to leave, okay. Now, Simi, could you -- >> Thank you, Chair. Item 4.2 is the application of a variation of a premises license for Baldwin, Kisses from Nonna, 387 Roman Road, London E35QR, chair for this application we have Mr Paul Greeno who will be representing the applicants, Mr Dominic Gibson and Mr Gareth Jones who's joining in -- yep, if I say -- in regards to the applicants, persons who are making representation, we've got Mr O'Leary who's joining us virtually, and we also have Mr Ben Pribble who is here as a supporting -- as a supporting representation. After the application is presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of ten minutes to make their representation. The objectors will also be given ten minutes each to make their representation. I'll let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Simi. Can I ask Livin Miller-Johnson, the licensed officer, to introduce the report, please? Thank you, Chair. This is an application for a variation of a premises license for Baldwin, Kisses from Nonna at 387 Roman Road, London E35QR. The applicant has described the variation as to extend the closing time sale of alcohol recorded music at the premises by one hour and add late night refreshments for Friday and Saturday plus New Year's Eve. A copy of the existing premises license is enclosed at Appendix 1, which is pages 152 to 161. A copy of the variation application is enclosed as Appendix 2, pages 163 to 182. Maps of the venue are included as Appendix 3, pages 184 to 185. Reaches of the premises can be found at Appendix 4, pages 187 to 188. Details of the nearest venues the nearest licensed sorry, details of the nearest licensed venues are included at Appendix 5, page 190. Representations have been received by Environmental Health. This can be found at Appendix 6 to 9, pages 192 to 223. We also received a supporting representation. This can be found at Appendix 10, pages 225 to 226. We also have a supplementary agenda, which was the objectives. Thanks very much. Thank you, Levine. Do we have any questions to the Licensing Officer? Can I now ask the applicant to present the application? By the way, could I ask everyone, the applicant to present the application, you have 10 minutes. Before we do that, is it all right if we can ask you all to introduce yourself? Yes. My name is Paul Greeno, and I'm here representing the applicants and will present the representation. This is -- >> My name is Dominic Gibson, and I'm the owner operator of the bourbon. My name is Ben Preble. I'm a local resident who lives within kind of 100 metres or so, less than 100 metres from the bar, from the restaurant. Oh, is it that one? Oh, sorry. Gareth Jones. Gareth Jones, local resident, likewise, quite close by on Zidane Road, which is 50 metres away somewhere. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. As you've heard, the application is for an extension to the existing premises licence, the extension being for one hour on a Friday from 11 p.m. to 12 midnight, and similar extension on a Saturday 11 p.m. to midnight. There have been four objectors, one being the responsible authority, in this case it's the Environmental Protection Officer. She has made representations and has objected to the grant of the licence, the variation, I should say, for start, but has said that if members are mindful to grant the licence, then she is asking for conditions to be imposed. What I would say with regards to the conditions is that if you are minded to impose conditions, there are three types of conditions that apply to a licence, there's the mandatory conditions, which are those that are the statutory ones, there's the proposed conditions, and they're the conditions that tend to be proposed by the applicant, and then there's the imposed conditions, which are ones that you consider are appropriate after hearing the evidence. There is case law with regards to conditions, and I am going to refer to a case of Bristol City Council versus Bristol Magistrate's Court in Summerfield Stores Limited, specifically with regards to the suggested condition two, that no noise shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises, which gives rise to a public nuisance. In the Bristol case, the court specifically heard in relation to noise nuisance, the justices were plainly familiar with the relevant statutory scheme of the Environment Protection Act 1990, and their conclusion that those other provisions seemed perfectly adequate and that they heard no evidence to justify additional measures was a conclusion they were entitled to reach. Essentially, you shouldn't be imposing conditions that are dealt with by other statute, and in this case, the Environment Protection Act 1990 deals with statutory nuisance. It's defined within the Act, whereas the term public nuisance tends to be a bit more subjective, and the purpose of the conditions is to make sure that not only the enforcing authority, but also the applicant and any members of the public understand what the condition actually means. And the position with the term public nuisance, I would submit, it's too vague in that what is a public nuisance for one person may not be a public nuisance for another person. With regards to her objection generally, what I would say is that she doesn't support the application because she says that it fails to comply with the Objective Licensing Act 2003 relating to public nuisance, and then she gives the following reasons. Noise breakout from the venue affecting neighbouring residents, well, the premises has been operating for a number of years. The Environmental Health Officer hasn't actually mentioned that they have received any complaints at all regarding the operation of the premises. So it does strike me that there is an issue as to whether noise breakout from the venue will affect neighbouring residents because there haven't been any complaints made to Environmental Health, or indeed any of the responsible authorities, that there is a problem with noise emanating from the premises. The next objection is that from Mr Amit Patel. This objection, as you would have read the papers, is quite lengthy, and it does strike me very much that primarily he's asking for the committee to determine that the premises is a bar, not a restaurant. Now I raise that because earlier this year the landlord tried to increase the rent of the premises, and the rent increase was on the basis that the premises, he said the premises was a bar, not a restaurant. That was kicked back. Shortly after that, Mr Patel moved in above the premises. It should be advised that Mr Patel is actually the son of the landlord. I consider that his objection is vexatious. Clearly what he is looking for is a decision from yourselves to say, no, we consider this premises to be a bar, not a restaurant, which will then be used by the landlord to say, we want to increase Mr Gibson's rent. The licensing subcommittee should not be used for that purpose. There is guidance in the revised guidance issued under section 182, and your legal advisor will no doubt be able to point you to that, but there are now six paragraphs specifically dealing with relevant vexatious and frivolous representations, and I think that this comes into the category of vexatious. Representation may be considered to be vexatious if it appears to be intended to cause aggravation or annoyance, whether to a competitor or other person, and I think that Mr Patel has a personal interest to get a determination which will benefit his father, who is the landlord. The next representation is from, I apologise, I just need to check the name, I believe it's from the business next door, which has been made by, he apparently lives above the business. Because of the nature of the operation of the premises, and I will get the witnesses to give a slightly more detail as to that, there's live music once a week, which finishes at 10.30. That's a time that Mr Gibson has said all live entertainment will finish. The recorded music is purely background music. You can have a conversation and not have to raise your voice. The background music is to provide atmosphere no more, no less. It's not considered that the noise from recorded music will transmit in such a way as has been described. And the final representation is from a local resident who resides, and the address hasn't been cited in the papers and quite rightly so. I won't actually give, because I don't know where this person lives, safe to say that when they sent the representation in, they just gave their address as 360 Roman Road. Just to advise, and you will be able to see this in the map on page, well it will be page 185. And you will see that 360 is actually Daring House. So I have no idea where abouts in Daring House this person lives. They might live at the front, which is sort of diagonally opposite where the premises is, but they might live at the back, so I'm kind of unsure how they can say what they did. If I can quickly ask the three people to speak, I think we'll start with Dominic. Can I just, so we've got representations from Dominic Gibson and Gareth Jones. If I may, Chair, Dominic Gibson is the owner of the premises that he would be entitled to speak. Mr Jones, who is a local resident, he hasn't made a representation. Mr Preble has been. Mr Preble is a separate party anyway and will be able to speak separately, but Mr Jones won't be able to. All right, so you've got a few minutes, two minutes between Dominic and, yeah, Dominic, you've got, yeah, Dominic, you've got two minutes. Just to be clear, he's still got what's left of theirs and then Mr Jones, sorry, Mr Preble. Dominic, do you want to say a few words? If I can just quickly run through a couple of questions that he can answer. Can you advise? This was to ask if Dominic's got anything to say. Yes, what I'm going to do is elicit that from him by asking him a series of questions. Yeah, I'm so sorry, that's not how I normally deal with it. Sorry? No, I'm not being funny, but why can't the representative ask his witness a leading question so that that person can give the information? I'm so sorry, because normally we ask the questions. No, I know you're asking the questions, but all I'm doing is asking some basic questions of Mr Gibson to give you information so that I can limit what he says to the salient points. Paul, because you only had a minute left, if you can do it within 60 seconds, go for it. Okay. I did ask for more time, clearly that has not been granted. I can deal with it within 60 seconds. Could you just briefly describe what the nature of the operational premises is? Okay. What I'm doing is a laid back stateside style diner where we've got burgers, buffalo wings, all American products from American, excuse me, beer, wine, because I'm trying to create like a piece of America in east London. Thank you. You can turn your mic off now. Could I have Mr Larry, you have 10 minutes to make your presentation. Right. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Yes, I'm obviously speaking on behalf of my colleague Nicola causal. I'm giving the license and chair committee, I'm having reviewed a variation of premises license application for this is from Nona three seven Roman road, eight, five to ask you to put the camera on please. Thank you. Okay. That's fine. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm going to review the variation of premises license application for cases from Nona three seven Roman road, London, eight, five QR. We have to consider the impact of the licensing objectives, particularly for environmental protection, the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of noise generated from within the premises or our site to be causing disturbance to people in the vicinity. The applicant is proposing to extend less sensible hours from try 300 to midnight for Friday, Saturday. They include late night refreshment until midnight wise extension is still within council framework hours. There is insufficient noise conditions in applicants as a system license to promote the licensing objective for a provision of public nuisance when extending the hours for regulated entertainment beyond 2300 hours as my colleague contacted applicants a list of what the following conditions [inaudible] you can actually turn your camera off because you're breaking up. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. Um, no sensitive premises, residential premises in the inclusive promise, promise proximity, including residential property above at three, seven, eight, Roman road and large number of residential properties that are opposites at crane house, Roman road in our bin, Michael reviewed application as a stand first to comply with objective of the licensing act 2003 relating to public nuisance for the following reasons. No, let's break up from the vein affecting never in residence, assess and egress to and from the venue, including patrons outside the premises to smoke why the premises is an operation hours of oppression, um, conclusion environmental petition does not support application for cases from Nona prison, Roman road, London, eight, three, five QR for the following reason that is great likelihood of disturbance to residential premises from the impact of extending the hours for regulatory entertainment, recording music beyond two to 300 hours. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to show how they will promote the license and objective for the prevention of public nuisance and those condition we wish have not been agreed if the committee is minded to grant this application that works for the following conditions to be considered or widows and a senator shall be kept close when regulated. Entertainment takes place, except for the immediate assess and aggressive persons. No, not from the premises. No vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises will give rise to the public news us are obviously what the applicant solicitor said, but for us, as like we are required to consider potential use and our aim is to prevent it. That's why these conditions were put forward by my colleague. Thank you. Could I now have a representation from Ben? I'm Ben, I live just around the corner and I go to the diner very regularly, I go there a lot. Just a few points, Roman Road has been having quite a regeneration recently and the bourbon has been quite a big part of that and I don't see why a hardworking man shouldn't be able to extend his hours slightly to be able to make a little bit more money and provide a service to the people that live there. With regards to the music that was being talked about, I've sat in there when the music's being played and you can't hear it, if Gareth was playing the music we'd be able to have a conversation. Can I ask you, your representation is only about local crime and apparently the reduction of harm to children in the area so you're not going to be able to speak to the committee about noise nuisance from the premises or lack of noise nuisance from the premises? I thought it was just a general comment on... You've got to speak to your representation, I'm afraid. Okay, I wasn't told that that's what it was. No problem. But there is no crime that has anything to do with the restaurant at all so can you reduce something that doesn't exist in the first place? With regards to children, what can you really say? It doesn't seem to be a factor that would have anything to do with a restaurant being having an hour extension on their licence other than I can't really think of any reason why that should have anything to do with the decision in the first place, honestly. Why would that make any difference? Yeah, that's it, yeah. Thank you. Excuse me. Would the subcommittee have any questions for the residents given that I've taken time out of my day to come down here? And legally I'm unable to make any comments, is that correct? The licensing committee can ask questions of any person appearing at the hearing if they wish to do so, but you'll not surpass the proceedings and the rules do not allow you to speak. It is only people who have made representations, I'm afraid, so you wouldn't be able to speak. I am here if you'd like to ask any questions of the local residents. I'm sorry? I said I am here if you would like to ask any questions of the local residents. Sorry, I misheard. Apologise. No problem. Thank you for that clarity. Thank you. Mr Greeno, you referred to a case which I'm struggling to find, you said Bristol City Council and… I've finished with the case. I can… I'm trying to find it on Westlaw without success, but if you've got a copy that would be even better. Yes. The section I'm going to go to… Is this your only copy? I have a spare copy. Thank you. Mr Greeno, you've said something about the appendix seven, so I think the reason for potentially submitting. Do you have any proof of the kind of the remark that you've made, so it would be helpful you said that the parent owns the premises, so that's factual, of course, but if there's… Let me finish my question, and then you can come to it, but the subsequent point you made was then that that's the reason for the objection, you consider it to be vexatious, so it's irrefutable, the first part, but I'd be keen to know any proof you've got of the second part, the reason you're making that claim that it's vexatious. Can I actually say to you that I can prove that it's vexatious? No, but at the end of the day, the test isn't that I have to prove it, it's on a balance of probabilities, you have to consider whether it's more likely than not that the representation is vexatious. All I can say is that the landlord, and Mr Gibson can confirm, he knows the landlord, and he knows the landlord's son, so he can confirm the first part. He could also confirm that Mr Patel moved in not long after the landlord was able to increase the rent, and in all my years of doing licensing, I have never come across a representation quite like that from Mr Patel. In the large part of it appears to be asking the committee, and he does say it specifically at one point, where he asks for the committee to actually consider whether the premises is a bar rather than a restaurant. That's fine, that's helpful, I suppose my second question is less about the purview of whether it's a restaurant or a bar, so to appendix 7 page 206, I don't know if you got it in front of you, but it'd be helpful if you could speak to the crowding outside post the 11 o'clock, and that's what's most helpful to understand, and how you plan to mitigate if you were to extend it, that's helpful for us to understand. In terms of the pictures, these are snapshots, I accept that people would be leaving the venue after 11pm, there would be what was colloquially known as drinking up time, normally that would be 20 minutes, or half an hour, because they didn't want people sort of a mass exodus. With regards to the picture taken at 11pm, you can see the door open, you can see somebody possibly leaving, possibly entering, it's difficult to say, I said it is a snapshot, it may well be the person is leaving, and has turned round just to say goodbye to something. So that makes sense, but there's several pictures. And then the picture at 11.22, the door is closed. There is a person standing outside, I would say there's nothing to indicate that that person has actually been into the premises, or indeed has left the premises. People do walk down Roman Road, and it may well be that person... So I think you're missing my point, you're right, you can excuse, I was raised to make an excuse for any of those, not an excuse for the wrong word to use, but an explanation for it, that's completely fine, but the point I'm trying to get at is an eagerness, a willingness to understand that there is different pictures with different timestamps that show the people outside it. So I think that leads quite nicely to my third question, my final question, Chair, is as part of, I think it's Appendix 10, 11, sorry, where you've engaged with the police and then you've stopped engaging with the police, and I think around the SIA potential accreditation, or having somebody outside there, so just talking to that would be really helpful. It wasn't me who was engaging with the police, however, what I would say is if you are going to impose conditions, those conditions have to be proportionate. Secondly, those conditions can only relate to the variation part of the licence. What the police condition was, they wanted an SIA door supervisor to be on duty at the premises from 21.00, so from 9.00pm. The licence already exists to 11.00pm, so you can't impose a condition saying we will impose something which is on the, which affects the existing licence. Secondly, I would say that the imposition of the condition requiring a licensed door supervisor is disproportionate. Nowhere in what the police have said have they said that they have had a problem with the premises. As far as I can ascertain, and Mr Gibson will be able to confirm this, the police have never been called to the premises. He has occasionally had a visit from a licensing officer. The licensing officer in question was PC Mark Perry, so we are going back a few months. Mr Perry said, Oh, I think you should have a sign up asking people to leave quietly. Mr Gibson put a sign up. So where the police have made reasonable requests, that has been complied with. But at the end of the day, this is a disproportionate condition and the condition also was a condition that would impact the existing licence and not just the variation. I can ask Mr Gibson to confirm that there have been no police visits other than when PC Perry attended to discuss that it was a general licensing check. If you could. That's correct. Just one more question. Just to Mr Gibson, the pictures in terms of post 11 o'clock, so it would be helpful to understand how the wind down happens and how you ensure that you're being responsible in terms of leaving people on. On my current licence, it states that I'm allowed to serve, like licensing activities until 11. So I'm allowed to serve until 11 and then in the councils, like manifesto, it states 30 minutes of reasonable drink up time, as supposed to not force everyone out onto the street at once. And I adhere to that. So the reason why there are still people in after 11, because I'm allowing them reasonable time to finish what they have purchased and to leave within that 30 minute period. That's my question, thank you. Do you have any questions? My question is, you spoke about how, because we've had people write in saying noise and nuisance issues, have there been any noise impact assessments done? The nature of the operation of the premises isn't something where you would actually have a noise impact assessment done. Mr Gibson has spoken to somebody who is a noise consultant without getting a full impact assessment and maybe Mr Gibson could just say what the basis of that conversation was. Yes, because a customer of mine who comes regularly to my venue works on behalf of many councils and is a noise assessment engineer that goes and does surveys of venues and said to me, you know, that it's very quiet in this venue, and he said I barely play any kind of background music above 75 decibels. Can I just clarify something, it's being said that only background music is being played, correct? That's why we answered, what's the intention at 11 o'clock when regulated entertainment kicks in, why do you need that? Do you mean licenceable activities post 11 o'clock? Background music isn't licenceable activity, but you've applied for regulated entertainment from 2300, which would suggest that the music level is going up, is that your intention? That's not my intention, no. I think it's partly because of the nature of the form. The form actually asks, will there be playing of recorded music taking place, and yes, there will be, and that is on page 171, part F of the form, that specifically asks, do you intend to play recorded music? The fact that recorded music is going to be background music, you can see why somebody would get unsure, and would rather make sure that the licensing authority were aware of what would be happening, rather than say, oh well, it's not recorded music, background music, so. I'm trying again, but I mean the amount of applications we see where people have applied for regulated entertainment, where they don't in fact really want regulated entertainment, but then if that's the case, would it be fair to say you could in fact withdraw the regulated entertainment application, because you're only playing music at a background level, it's incidental, it's ancillary, and it's not really required? Yes, that's absolutely fine, as I said, it was just being transparent about what was happening, but yes, we're happy to withdraw the regulated entertainment part, so it is purely supply of alcohol and late night refreshments. Alright, thank you, and any more questions from anyone? So now moving on to concluding remarks, can I get the supporter, you have one minute if you have anything to say, am I allowed to say anything I want this time? It should obviously relate to what's being said and what your representation is about. I was only allowed to make the representation on that basis when I first made a general application and said it had to be related to crime. So if you have anything on that to add on maybe, or the last remarks. Only to what I said before, that there is, there's never been any kind of trouble there of any kind, so you can't reduce something that doesn't already exist, that doesn't exist in the first place, it's a moot point, right, the restaurant is peaceful, quiet, calm, and a great benefit to the local residents. Nice one, thank you. And to the objector, Mr O'Leary. Thank you, Chair, I just want to say licensing authorities like ourselves representing the Governmental Protection are required to consider potential public nuisance, and when reviewing an application. This is to ensure that establishment are pro-responsibly and do not disrupt the lives of people living nearby or their neighbourhood, and it's our last committee to, if you manage to grant application to the conditions we propose should be applied, thank you. And lastly, the applicant, you have one minute. The issue with the noise nuisance raised by both Environment Protection and Karen Shoemaker in her representation, I would say, is the distinct possibility of a possible may be. In fact, Karen Shoemaker says this extended licence may increase the possibility of public nuisance, and I would say you have to go further than may increase the possibility. Thank you. Now I thank you for everyone's contributions today, could you turn the mic off, please. And the subcommittee will deliberate in a private session after this meeting ends, and Simi from Democratic Services will write to you in five days with the decision. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Chair. Extensions of decision deadline. Simi, could you announce those, please? Thank you, Chair. Can I please ask members of the subcommittee to please extend the decision deadlines for the following application. Welcome Co-op Unit 268 Smead Road, London E32TF, Float 129 Bethnal Green Road, London E2, Welcome Co-op Unit Riverstone Heights, 4 Reed Avenue, London E3, Harvest 103 Brick Lane, London E1, Poplar Pizza, 536 Commercial Road, London E1, 0HY, Adana Turkish with Fusion, 267 Bethnal Green Road, London E2, China Arc Supermarket, 84-86 Mylin Road, London E1, and Cable Street Minimarket, 403 Cable Street, London E1, W.A. Chair, if I can please ask members to extend the decision deadlines to the 31st of January, 2002-2005. Is that OK? Thank you all for your contributions today. The meeting is now closed. [BLANK_AUDIO]