The Licensing Sub Committee met to discuss a new premises licence for Asia Villa and Fermo Studio. The sub committee adjourned into a private session after the meeting to discuss the applications and will deliver their decisions within five working days.

Asia Villa, 267 East India Dock Road, London, E14 0EG

Asia Villa applied for a new premise licence for late night refreshment from Monday to Sunday, 11pm to 2am. The licensing authority and a local resident objected to the application.

Cathy Driver, licensing officer, told the sub committee that a licence was previously held at the address between 2014 and 2020, with no complaints made during that time. She also noted that the licensing authority had made a representation detailed in Appendix 6 of the Public reports pack, and a local resident had made a representation detailed in Appendix 7 of the Public reports pack.

Graham Hopkins, licensing agent, representing Mr Mohan, the applicant, stated that the extended hours were requested to meet customer demand, primarily for deliveries and collections, with dining in finishing at 11pm. He also cited financial viability post-Covid and increased energy costs as reasons for the application. Mr Hopkins said that a list of robust conditions had been offered, including CCTV¹, an incident book, and signage. He added that delivery riders would have to wait inside the shop, and a phone number would be published for residents to voice concerns. Mr Hopkins admitted that his client had previously opened without a licence, believing that the landlord had secured one. He apologised for this oversight, stating that the shop had been closed at 11pm every night since the issue was raised. He also mentioned that the music system had been removed following complaints from neighbours, and the extractor system had been repaired.

Mohshin Ali, licensing authority, referred to Appendix 6 of the Public reports pack and highlighted the history of the premises. He stated that the business had traded without a licence, even after receiving warning letters. Mr Ali expressed concern that the applicant would not comply with the licence or uphold the licensing objectives². He asked the sub committee to place weight on the representation from a resident regarding noise nuisance. Councillor Farouk Ahmed asked the applicant if he accepted the allegation that the premises had been operating beyond the permitted hours. Mr Hopkins confirmed that they were not contesting the facts and that Mr Han was remorseful. Mr Han stated that he stopped opening after 11pm as soon as he received the warning letter.

Councillor Farouk Ahmed referred to an advert on Google, advertising opening hours until 2:30am. Mr Hopkins explained that Mr Han believed there was a 24-hour licence in place, and the advert may have reflected those times. Mr Ali pointed out that the screenshots of the Google advert were dated 7 January 2025.

Mr Ali stated that business need or competition is not a licensing objective, and that businesses should operate within the law. He concluded by requesting that the members reject the application.

In his concluding remarks, Mr Hopkins asked the sub committee to consider granting the application, highlighting Mr Han's remorse and the conditions offered. He agreed to a condition that staff would check outside the premises and keep drivers inside to reduce noise, and to use electric bikes for deliveries.

Fermo Studio, 1 Shacklewell Street, London E2, 7EG

Fermo Studio applied for a new premises licence for alcohol sales for on-site consumption only, Monday to Friday, 4pm to 11pm, and Saturday and Sunday, 12pm to 11pm. Local residents objected to the application.

Cathy Driver, licensing officer, stated that the application was for alcohol only, for on-sales consumption. She noted that the opening hours of the premises had not been clarified with the applicant. Ms Driver said that representations had been made by local residents, and the police representation remained, despite conditions having been agreed. She also noted that film making or recording studios are not licensable activities. Ms Driver stated that there had been three temporary event notices³ (TENs) issued for the premises in February and June of this year. Jamie Bezencenet, founder of FOMO, addressed the sub committee remotely, apologising for not being present in person. He stated that FOMO is not a traditional bar or late-night venue, but a camera rental house and filmmaking club house. He said that in the evenings, they occasionally host film screenings, networking events, and private events for production companies and professional filmmakers. Mr Bezencenet stated that the goal is to support the film and TV industry in London, not to operate as a public drinking venue. He added that events are invite-only and ticketed, with someone manning the entrance and CCTV in place. Mr Bezencenet said that he had reached out to residents who had objected to the application but had not heard back from them.

Kelvin Wing, a resident of Brick Lane, stated that the area is residential and that serving alcohol would lead to noise and overspills onto the lawn. He questioned why FOMO wanted to run two businesses from the same premises, suggesting it would cause aggravation for residents.

Yvonne Gregory, a resident living directly behind the building, stated that Mr Bezencenet had not reached out to her or other neighbours who had complained. She said that the events held at the premises, on more occasions than the three TENs, included a live band. Ms Gregory stated that she had called Tower Hamlets Council's noise team on 22 May, as there was live music without a licence, and she and her family were unable to sleep. She said that it was unacceptable to have what is essentially a nightclub next door to someone's bedroom. Ms Gregory said that the building was shoddily made, with no soundproofing, and was inappropriate for the use they were applying for.

Ms Driver clarified that there is no statutory requirement to notify residents about TENs, as residents have no say in the matter, and only the police or environmental health can object. She added that if there was no record of a TEN for 22 May, that would need to be addressed differently.

Councillor Farouk Ahmed asked how the applicant would ensure noise pollution is minimised. Mr Bezencenet responded that they were doing one event per week maximum, with a maximum capacity of 60 people. He stated that they had never had live music, never played loud music past 10:30pm, and never had anyone drunk or any issues regarding disorderly conduct. Mr Bezencenet apologised for the complaint on 22 May, stating that the team had played recorded music too loud too late, and it would not happen again.

Councillor Farouk Ahmed asked if the applicant accepted that they play live music in the premises and if there was any soundproofing. Mr Bezencenet clarified that they had never had a live band and only had small speakers mounted on the walls to play background music.

Ms Driver confirmed that the TENs applied for alcohol only, for events such as film equipment showcases and networking events. Jonathan Melnick, Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee, stated that live music is not licensable in certain circumstances, and that FOMO was a workplace, which gave them an exemption. He also noted that there was a factual dispute between the applicant and Ms Gregory as to whether there was live music.

Mr Melnick asked Ms Gregory if the music had been after 11pm, to which she responded that on the night of 22 May, the music was going on past 11pm. Mr Bezencenet admitted that they did play recorded music too loud on 22 May and apologised for it.

In his concluding remarks, Mr Wing stated that the building was flimsy and that there were no fire exits. Ms Gregory said that she was shocked that a substandard building could be allowed to be a venue with loud music, and that the noise and people spilled out into residential streets.

In his concluding remarks, Mr Bezencenet stated that the issue seemed to be more about noise than alcohol and that he was open to working with neighbours on the issue. He asked the committee to bear in mind that they had a maximum capacity of 60 people and that they had fire regulations covered. Mr Bezencenet invited Ms Gregory and Mr Wing to visit the premises and discuss their concerns.