The Licensing Sub-Committee considered two applications for variations to premises licences. The committee resolved to approve the variation for The CEO Lounge, allowing for extended hours and additional licensable activities, on terms agreed with the Metropolitan Police. The variation for Makola Market was refused as the subcommittee was not satisfied that the licensing objectives would be promoted.

The CEO Lounge - Variation Application Approved

The Licensing Sub-Committee approved the application by The CEO Lounge Limited for a variation to its premises licence at 93-97 New Road, Dagenham, RM10 9NL. The variation allows for the extension of licensable activities, including the sale of alcohol, recorded music, late-night refreshment, and the addition of live music and performance of dance. The approved hours were based on an agreement reached between the applicant and the Metropolitan Police, which included a reduction in the originally proposed hours.

During the hearing, Victor Binitie, the owner of The CEO Lounge, addressed concerns raised by an interested party regarding public nuisance, crime and disorder, and the protection of children. Mr. Binitie highlighted the venue's mature clientele, its investment in security measures such as SIA-licensed security personnel and traffic marshals, and the lack of complaints from residents living directly above the premises. He also emphasised the positive contributions the lounge makes to Barking and Dagenham through job creation and regeneration.

Councillor Julia Williams, a member of the Licensing Subcommittee, questioned Mr. Binitie about the role of traffic marshals, the venue's parking arrangements, and the soundproofing measures in place for live music. Mr. Binitie clarified that traffic marshals manage traffic flow around the venue and that acoustic panels have been installed to mitigate noise.

The committee also considered the written representation from an interested party, Mr. Paul Stephen Wright, who raised concerns about loud behaviour, car engine noise, and congregating patrons. The subcommittee noted that Mr. Wright was not present at the hearing.

Ultimately, the subcommittee resolved to approve the variation application on the terms of the agreed hours with the Metropolitan Police, finding that the licensing objectives would be promoted.

Makola Market - Variation Application Refused

The Licensing Sub-Committee refused the application by Makola Market London Limited for a variation to its premises licence at 2-3 Grand Parade, Oxlow Lane, Dagenham, RM10 7YT. The application sought to extend hours for the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment, as well as add non-standard timings for Christmas and New Year.

The decision followed representations from the council's Licensing Authority, a ward councillor, and an interested party. Samena Baloch, the Licensing Authority Responsible Authority Officer, presented concerns regarding repeated breaches of licence conditions, including unauthorised alterations to the premises layout, failure to operate the CCTV system correctly, and the sale of high-strength alcohol. Ms. Baloch stated that the Licensing Authority had lost trust and confidence in the licence holder's ability to manage the premises responsibly.

Councillor Ingrid Robinson, the Heath Ward Councillor, supported the Licensing Authority's concerns, highlighting existing issues with alcohol consumption in the area and the potential for increased noise and nuisance to residents. She also noted that the local police and SNT team are already stretched.

Benjamin Koomson, the applicant, and his representative, Olubemiga Olusola, attempted to address the concerns. Mr. Koomson explained that his absence from a previous meeting was due to an emergency and that he had provided instructions for the CCTV system. He also presented a petition signed by residents supporting his application.

Councillor Julia Williams questioned the applicant about photographic evidence of activities occurring on the pavement after permitted hours. Mr. Koomson explained that his wife's catering business operated late and that he was waiting for her. He also raised personal grievances against an individual who he claimed was causing him trouble. The Chair reminded the applicant to focus on licensing issues.

Despite the applicant's explanations and the presentation of a petition, the subcommittee was not satisfied that the licensing objectives would be promoted if the variation were granted. Consequently, the application was refused.