Back to top arrow icon Back to top

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Until further notice, all Council meetings will be held remotely

Contact: Natalie Williams , Governance Officer 

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Chair

Minutes:

1.1  Cllr Fajana-Thomas was duly elected as Chair.

 

2.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

2.1  There were no apologies received.

 

3.

Declarations of Interest - Members to declare as appropriate

Minutes:

3.1  Cllrs Fajana-Thomas, Moema and Smyth  declared an interest in relation to agenda item 5. It was noted that Cllr Sharon Patrick and Cllr Lynne Troughton who were registered as ‘Other Persons’ to speak in objection to the application were both  known to them as current Councillor colleagues.  It was further noted that former Councillors Tom Rahilly and Rebecca Rennison who were also registered to speak as ‘Other Persons’ were also known to them as former Members of the Council. It was confirmed that they had not discussed the application with any of the ‘Other Persons’.

4.

Licensing Sub-Committe General Information and Hearing Procedure pdf icon PDF 112 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

4.1  The Licensing and Corporate Lawyer outlined the hearing procedure to be followed.

5.

The Adam and Eve, 165 Homerton High Street, E9 6AS pdf icon PDF 25 MB

Decision:

The Licensing Sub-committee in considering this decision from the information

presented to it within the report and at the hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:

 

? The prevention of crime and disorder;

? Public safety;

? Prevention of public nuisance;

? The protection of children from harm;

 

the application to vary a premises licence has been refused in accordance with

Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP3, LP4, LP6 and LP11 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The Licensing Sub-committee, having heard from the Licensing Authority and Other Persons believed that granting the application would result in the licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative impact on the area.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the representations of the Licensing

Authority who objected to this application due the impact it would have on local

residents. The Sub-committee also took into consideration 10 representations

received on behalf of local residents who strongly objected to this application on the grounds of public nuisance.

 

The Sub-committee noted that Environmental Enforcement and the Metropolitan Police Service withdrew their objections in advance of the hearing as they agreed conditions with the applicant.

 

The Sub-committee took into consideration the Licensing Authority and Other

Persons (local resident's) representations that there were a number of noise complaints received since December 2020 relating to the conversion of the “Bottle Store” and the “Covered Yard” in the customer areas and within the existing licensed area. The Sub-Committee heard that the Licensing Authority raised the noise complaints with the Applicant before the Coronavirus lockdown, however the applicant failed to take any action and the noise complaints continued when the lockdown eased from April 2021.

 

The Sub-committee heard representations from the Licensing Authority that following ongoing noise complaints from April 2021 they visited the premises and found that additional seating had been installed in external areas abutting the boundary walls. The applicant was asked to cease using the additional external areas, the “Bottle Store” and the “Covered Yard”, take steps to mitigate the noise nuisance that was continuing to affect the local residents.

 

The Sub-committee took very seriously that while the use of the external areas

abutting the boundary walls ceased the applicant did not take measures to prevent customers accessing the external areas even though they were aware of the impact that this would have on a number of local residents who live within close proximity of the existing premises. The Applicant's failure to take the necessary measures to prevent noise nuisance that was brought to their attention a number of times which was very disappointing to the Sub-committee and showed that they had no regard for their neighbours and the impact the noise nuisance was having on them.

 

The Sub-committee felt that the grant of a new licence will exacerbate the existing problems causing further noise nuisance and will continue to undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-committee were concerned that there is nothing in the new application that addresses  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.

Minutes:

5.1  The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer, the Applicant's legal representative, the applicant, the Licensing Authority and Other Persons. The sub-committee noted the additional information submitted by the Applicant and Other Persons as well as correspondence between Applicant the and ‘Other Person’. The application sought regulated entertainment, late night refreshment and on and off sales of alcohol.

 

5.2  During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the following points were highlighted:

 

·  The premises operated as a pub. The Applicant's legal representative stated that the purpose of the application was to replace the existing licence which the Applicant considered to be outdated and no longer fit for purpose.  The licence in place did not reflect the layout of the premises, the conditions did not address the issues of use of the external area(s) and noise control of patrons.

·  The application requested a narrower remit with no bank holiday extended hours.

·  The new licence would have 60 conditions which have been approved by the Responsible Authorities. Subsequently the Police and Environmental Health had withdrawn their objections.

·  An acoustic report was commissioned, copies of which had been circulated and its findings implemented.

·  Rose Pubs had operated the premises for over 10 years

·  Two meetings had been held with local residents which were facilitated by the Licensing Authority following which the acoustic report as well as other suggested measures were implemented.

·  The Licensing Authority’s objection to the application primarily related to noise nuisance following a series of complaints. Concerns were also raised about the boundary walls of the garden which extended beyond the current plan.

·  No planning issues or irregularities were reported.

·  Representations submitted by ‘Other Persons’ were predominantly concerning noise nuisance emanating from the beer garden at the rear of the premises. Residents believed that the use of the rear garden had been extended without planning permission to include the bottle store which bordered residential premises.

·  Residents had requested involvement in choosing the acoustic consultant to ensure neutrality but this was declined.  It was believed that the report did not include peak noise levels.

·  The pub was located in a largely residential area. Noise nuisance was described as crowd noise which included jeering, chanting, shouting and singing which happened even when relatively small numbers of people were present. This had significantly impacted the mental health of some neighbours in the vicinity.

·  Residents believed that the application was submitted due to the likelihood of the licence being reviewed and therefore to normalise use of unauthorised areas.

·  The Applicant reported that the outdoor space was used in a more prolific way during the pandemic.  In the new plans, any areas that bordered neighbours’ property were noted as having no customer access.

·  Residents confirmed when use of the rear garden was as per the existing licence, there were no issues. Problems arose due to the unauthorised use of the wider space. Residents raised concerns regarding the incorporation of previously unlicensed areas of the garden which were included in the application.

·  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Tesco Express, Newington Gate Development , Ground Floor Retail Units B&C, 48 Matthias Road, Newington Green N16 8LH pdf icon PDF 7 MB

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

The decision

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing has determined that having regard to the promotion of all the licensing objectives:

 

The prevention of crime and disorder;

Public safety;

Prevention of public nuisance; and

The protection of children from harm,

 

the application for a premises licence has been approved in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the proposed conditions set out in paragraph 8.1 of the report as applied for with the following amendments agreed with the Applicant.

 

? The hours for licensable activities, shall be, as agreed:

 

 

 

 

Supply of Alcohol

 

 

Monday to Sunday      07:00 - 23:00

 

 

 

 

Hours open to the public

 

 

Monday to Sunday      07:00 - 23:00

 

 

 

 

Conditions 13 to 18 to be removed from the licence.

 

 

Conditions 10 and 11 to be removed from the licence.

 

 

Late night, refreshment to be removed from the licence. 

 

 

 

 

And additional conditions:

 

 

The Premises Licence Holder shall organise and publicise a meeting for local residents to discuss the operation of the premises and address any issues at least every 3 months. The frequency of meetings may be varied by agreement between the Premises Licence Holder and local residents.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

The application for a premises licence for off-sales has been approved because the Licensing Sub-Committee was satisfied that the licensing objectives would not be undermined.

 

 

The Sub-committee considered both written representations and representations from the 22 local residents including from Walrond Residents Association objecting to the application. The Sub-committee also considered that there was a petition submitted objecting to the application for off sales of alcohol. The Sub-committee noted that there are 75 flats in the local residents building.

 

 

The Sub-committee also considered the representations made by Environmental Enforcement, who agreed conditions with the Applicant before the hearing, the Sub-committee also considered the representations of the Environmental Protection team and the conditions that they proposed, and it decided that conditions Conditions 10 and 11 are not necessary because they related to on sales and only condition 12 from Environmental Protection would remain on the premises licence.

 

 

The Sub-committee heard representations from the Applicants legal representative that the application has been amended with reduced hours from 06:00 to 23:00 in accordance with Policy LP4. The Sub-committee heard that this is one of the Applicants smallest stores, that they are a good operator, that they follow best practices and that the premises is not in a stress area. The Applicants legal representative contends that unless there was good evidence in accordance with Government guidance that the application should be granted. The Applicants representative made submissions that the Applicant uses Think 21 policy. The Applicant does have extensive auditing and they have training for staff on alcohol sales. The Sub-committee heard that the Applicant has a detailed licensing policy in their stores and CCTV on the entrance and tills and in the alcohol areas of the store. The Applicants representative stated that 5% of store products  ...  view the full decision text for item 6.

Minutes:

 

6.1  The sub-committee heard from the Principal Licensing Officer, the Applicant's legal representative, the area Manager, the Licensing Authority and Other Persons. The application was for late night refreshment and to authorise the sale of alcohol for off sales. Environmental Enforcement had withdrawn their representations following agreement of conditions with the applicant. Representations remained from Environmental Protection who were not present and Other Persons.

 

6.2  During the course of discussion, the following points were noted:

 

 

·  Tesco Express is its smallest form of convenience store aimed at people living and working in the area.

·  Following discussions with residents the Applicant sought to reduce the opening hours and sale of alcohol to 0600 hours to 2300 hours subsequently removing late night refreshment.

·  The Applicant believed this application not to be in a stress area and reported that Tesco was the first company to introduce Think 21 and Think 25.

·  Employees were required to undertake induction and refresher training which was validated externally. There was extensive CCTV on the premises.

·  Alcohol was described as a small and limited part of the offer typically accounting to approx 5-12% with spirits located behind the counter

·  Planning permission was in place which limited deliveries between 0700 hours and 1900 hours.

·  Representations submitted by ‘Other Persons’ in objection to the application, related to crime and disorder, public safety and public nuisance. Residents felt that the licence would exacerbate issues of forced entry into building, vandalism and antisocial behaviour which resulted in residents feeling unsafe.

·  ‘Other Persons’ reported that the building comprised 73  flats and over three quarters of the apartments in the same building were occupied by vulnerable residents including over 55s, with mobility issues, children, single women and expectant mothers.

·  Residents requested a later opening time in line with other shops in the locality and suggested that it would be useful if Tesco agreed to collect parcels for Waldron Road residents given the spate of thefts and anti-social behaviour.

·  It was felt that the presence of a Tesco Express store wou;d encourage drinking and loitering in the public courtyard area as well as tailgating into the building. It was also believed that the loading of cages at the front of the premises would limit access to the building.

·  The Applicant's legal representative confirmed that Tesco would be content, if necessary for condition 12 to be imposed.

·  Conditions 13-18 to be replaced by extra conditions

·  The Applicant's legal representative confirmed that Tesco was the tenant. It was believed that Hackney Council was the freeholder for the building, with a sub lease to Anchor Housing. Separate service charging and refuse collection arrangements were in place

·  It was confirmed that Tesco would be amenable to further reducing the opening hours and open at 0700 hours. Additionally, it was confirmed that there was adequate space in the warehouse at the back of the store to house empty cages, rubbish cages as well as the deliveries.

·  The premises was approximately 300 metres away from the Newington Green store

·  The legal representative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Temporary Event Notices - Standing Item

Minutes:

7.1  There were no Temporary Event Notices for consideration