Licensing Sub Committee - Tuesday 4 November 2025, 6:30pm

Licensing Sub Committee
Tuesday, 4th November 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Good evening. Welcome to the Licencing Subcommittee.

I am Councillor Abdu Mohammed, I'm going to be chairing the Licencing Subcommittee tonight.

This meeting is being held in person.

Committee members and key participants are present in the room.

There may be some joining online.

This meeting is being filmed by the Council's website for public viewing.

Can I welcome all those joining online?

I would remind members and key participants to speak at my direction and speak clearly

into the microphone to ensure your contributions can be promptly recorded.

Can I now ask members and officers to please introduce themselves.

Thank you chair, Councillor Sabina Actar, Stephanie Greenwood and one of the committee

members today.

Thank you chair, good evening everyone.

Councillor Mushtaq Ahmed from Bednarby and the West, thank you.

Jonathan Melnick, Legal Advisor to the subcommittee.

Thank you very much.

We have no apologies of absent for tonight.

Can I now move on to declarations?

Do members have any

disposable

community interests?

That is all three said no.

Can members please note the rules or procedures

on pages 9 to 18 in the agenda pack?

We will now move on to members

Can members please note and agree the minutes of the last subcommittee held on 7 August,

4 September and 25 September?

Thank you very much.

We will now move on to the applications tonight.

Can I ask Simi to introduce those in attendance in the application.

The first one, please.

Thank you, Chair.

This item is 4 .1, which is the application for a variation of a premises licence for

the widow son 75 Devon's Road London e3 3 PJ and for the applicant we have

Dilik Alago's presenting and we've got mr. Selim Balter who's the applicant a

full in terms of objectives we have Corinne Holland representing the

licencing authority and we've got Nicola cancer representing environmental health

after the application has been presented the applicant will be invited to speak

and will be allowed five minutes to make their representation the objectives will

also get five minutes each to make their representation.

We'll let each speaker know when you have one minute remaining.

Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda packet advance.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Can I ask Moshin Ali,

Licence Officer to introduce the report, please.

Thank you, Chair.

As you've said, the first application is for a variation of the Widow's Sun,

which is 75 Thomas Road and an E3 3PJ.

The licence currently is seeking

including the extension of sell by retail of alcohol,

on -sales only, an extension of provision of lead and refreshment,

there's an extension of licenced area,

and also small amendments to existing conditions of the licence.

The application is in front of you because you've got representations

from the residents, environmental protection and licencing authority.

Going through the report, if you look at Appendix 1, which is pages 46 to 61,

you will see a copy of the application.

On page 61 you will see the plan.

3 .2 shows you the times that have been applied for.

Appendix 2, pages 63 to 75, there is a copy of the existing licence.

The existing plan is in page 73.

3 .3 shows you the times that have been applied for.

There is also a secondary existing licence, which is in Appendix 3, pages 77 to 86.

This is just included for members information only.

It's an old licence, currently suspended due to non -payment of fees

and it's a different licence holder.

So that's just for information only.

Appendix 4, pages 88 to 89, there's photographs showing you the vicinity of the venue.

Appendix 5, pages 91 and 92, shows you maps of the venue and surrounding area.

Appendix 6, page 94, shows you details of the nearest licence venues.

The representation of the residents is in between Appendices 7 to 13.

So it starts on page 96 and goes on to 111 for the residents.

Environmental protection is in pages 113 to 116.

Licencing authority is pages 118 to 122.

Now since the representation was made,

the applicant has responded to the licencing authority.

This correspondence is within Appendix 14,

which is pages 124 to 127. This has been included for members' consideration.

6 .1 of the report shows you the existing 34 conditions that are in the next three of the existing licence

and also three conditions in 6 .2 have been offered under the current application.

That's the summary of the report and if members have any further questions, thank you.

Thank you very much. Do members have any questions for the licence officer?

Thank you very much. Can I now invite the applicant to make your representation? You've got up to five minutes and I'll indicate when you've got one minute left.

Good evening Chair and members of the Committee. I'm speaking on behalf of my client Mr Selim Balta regarding the variation application for the Widofsan, a historic public house located at 75 Devon Road.

Revised hours. Since submitting the original variation, my client has voluntarily reduced the proposed hours to make them more balanced and neighbour friendly.

Sale of alcohol on the premises Monday to Thursday from noon to midnight, Friday and Saturday from noon to 1am, Sunday from noon to 10 .30pm.

The external seating area will close strictly at 11pm each day.

These hours are shorter than those permitted under the venue's other existing transferable licence,

which historically included live music and later hours.

Importantly, my client has not requested any live music, recorded music or other regulated entertainment.

This application is therefore more modest and more manageable than the other existing licence which is held by the previous owner.

Nearby licence premises such as cafes and restaurants within the same area already allow customers to sit outdoors until 11pm.

The widow of son's proposal to close its garden by 11pm is therefore fully consistent with local licencing practise.

Also, those premises, other cafes and restaurants, are located just under the flats.

Moreover, the widow's son has been a licenced premises since 1848, long before any of the

surrounding residential developments were built.

Under the agent of change principle, it is the responsibility of new developments to

adapt the established venues, not the other way around.

This principle, recognised under the Licencing Act and National Planning Guidance, protects

longstanding community businesses from unreasonable restrictions caused by later -built residential

properties.

My client and the management has built excellent relationships with local residents.

Over 250 letters of support have been submitted from neighbours and local patrons, confirming

the venue's positive contribution to the community and the professionalism of its team.

To prevent any potential disturbance, my client is happy to agree to additional control measures,

including a fixed number of tables and chairs outside to prevent vertical drinking, a limit

of five persons permitted outside to smoke at any one time without drinks, and the 11

cut off for all outdoor use.

Since January 2025, there have been only four complaints,

all from a single household.

Council and police visits have found no significant breaches

and there have been no reports of crime or disorder linked to the premises.

On the contrary, the venue has assisted the police by providing high definition CCTV footage when requested,

demonstrating strong cooperation and responsible operation.

In summary, this is a carefully revised and proportionate application that reduces trading hours,

excludes live music and other high impact activities, introduces outdoor controls

and retains the strong community support that has defined this venue for nearly two centuries.

I'd like to remind you again that the previous licence with longer hours is still transferable,

but my client doesn't wish to do so.

We therefore respectfully ask the Committee to recognise the reasonableness of this proposal

and to grant the variation subject to the agreed conditions.

By the way, I emailed many of the support letters as attachments, but I could not upload

all letters due to file size limits.

However, I noticed that none of those letters appear in the published agenda pack.

Therefore, my client has brought all support letters today, should the committee wish to

review them.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much.

Can I now invite interested parties to make their representations?

You've got up to five minutes.

Thank you, Chair.

Just before I start my representation I just wanted to state that obviously the hours that

were proposed to be reduced, that's in Appendix 14 on page 125, seem to be greater.

The hours they proposed there were for the sale of alcohol, whereas the hours they propose

here are saying all sale of alcohol will cease 30 minutes before closing time, which I don't

whether that means the closing time is 30 minutes after you put or 30 minutes after

the sale of alcohols. I just want to clarify that. The history of the premises is in my

representation on page 118. The pub was reopened having been granted a licence in September

24, although as explained the original licence could be reactivated. The current licence

for on -sales only and therefore the pub doesn't have an outside area of its own.

Corsican Square is private land so would not fall under the requirement of a pavement licence.

If it did fall under a pavement licence the council would restrict the outside use to

9pm.

Obviously with this being private land they don't need a pavement licence.

The complaints we've received since the pub opened are on page 118.

And obviously due to these complaints a number of visits were conducted.

There were some breaches observed which I've listed in page 119.

And I obviously addressed these with the licence holder.

And this obviously led to a minor variation being applied for,

Which was refused due to resident objection

And therefore this application has been made

May if I can add that most the complaints being made by the residents were

Regarding the use of the outside area and not actually

How the pub was running inside

Obviously now

the hours have been proposed to be reduced, although I do say that they are still greater than framework hours.

Although I accept that their current hours are less than framework hours.

Obviously the extra hours, although there's no complaints regarding the behaviour of the customers inside the pub,

Obviously the later hours could increase alcohol consumption and therefore lead to excessive

customers being noisy, talking, laughing, shouting as they're leaving. There are a large

number of residential properties in close proximity. As the premises doesn't have its

own sort of beer garden, I mean the block of flats that is opposite was I believe built

on the original pub car park.

So the licencing authority are not wholly opposed to the plan of having an outside area,

although 11pm is definitely too late for this.

And it should be reduced to, say, 9 o 'clock maximum to protect any potential noise disturbance

to the residents.

The area covered outside also needs to be clearly defined so that the tables and chairs

don't start to encroach into Cuskin Square. I was provided photos earlier in the year

where even into the middle of the square there were tables and chairs. Obviously it needs

to be really defined and I didn't think from the plan, couldn't quite tell how deep it

was or how wide it was so that's something that would need to be specified clearly.

Also on the corner of Devens Road next to the pub is a ramp rather than steps, so obviously

disabled people use there and I did receive a complaint about their signage blocking that

entrance so that's something that would need to be kept clear.

It is noted that the conditions volunteered in the application don't entirely mirror the

conditions on the current licence, but as they haven't specified removing any of them,

these would be carried over.

But I have listed on page 121 some of the conditions that I don't feel are enforceable

or are unnecessary due to being law or unenforceable ones.

There is one condition, which is condition 33, which is difficult to enforce, that it

which it says patrons permitted to temporary leave and re -enter the premises, e .g. to smoke,

shall be limited to eight persons.

Being a public area, that's quite difficult to enforce with who is there,

whether that person is a general member of the public or whether it is a patron of the pub.

So I think that needs to be looked at.

If you can wrap up, I'll finish up.

So if the committee refused to grant the change of plan to have an outside area, then I've

asked for some conditions to prevent drinks from being taken outside, and that's on page

122.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'll now allow up to five minutes for the other presentation.

Thank you. I'm looking at the application particularly for the

implementation of public nuisance. I do appreciate that the applicant has said

there'd be no regulated entertainment but I don't know they've considered the

live music act they wouldn't between 8 and 11 any conditions would not be

enforceable anyway and I appreciate that they've reduced their hours. I think

Corinne said a lot about this, about the outside area, which is my biggest concern.

The fact that, sorry, my representation is 113 to 115, and the image that I've got there

is the outside area and residence within about 12 metres of the premises, and this is only

a snippet of the amount of residential properties that are around there.

So my biggest concern is not, as I was mentioning, the inside area, but the fact that they want to use the outside area seating until 2300 hours, which is far too late in my opinion, for the outside area when it's very close to residential properties.

I mean, when people start drinking lively, sitting outside, I think the later into the

evening, I think there's going to be a significant public nuisance to local residents.

I know there's been a number of reps by residents that kind of shows the view from local residents

that live in the area and their concerns.

And that's me finished, so thank you.

Thank you very much both of you.

We will now move onto questions from members.

I'll start. I don't know if you've got the pack in front of you, but page 61, so the map of the floor plan,

a lot of the representations that have been made to us are less about the inner workings of the pub,

and a lot more about the outside part.

So I wonder if you can just clarify in a bit more detail

in terms of how far outside it goes in.

So I think there's 12 metres from the representation.

It's a picture that shows from the houses to the park.

It's 12 metres, so can you clarify how far out you're planning to go?

I don't know if you've got the pack in front of you.

So the area actually belongs to its private land and belongs to flats.

So there is a space between flats and the pub.

So this space is used by flats mostly.

I think people, I mean the management of flats, they put tables there.

So they also use it, that space.

So that space does not belong to the pub.

They allow them to use.

So there are photos in there.

It's showing.

Which one?

I cannot see it now.

This one?

So on page 116 is showing the pub located here.

On the right hand side there is seating area of the flats.

So that's helpful. I'm looking at 116, I see the picture and I see this 12 -metre separation between the flats, the residentials and the actual pub itself.

How much is the external area imposed on the application?

Proposed area. Okay.

One metre, approximately.

One, yeah, one, one, one twenty.

In floor plan it's edit.

I'm not sure right now.

In floor plan it's stated, but we didn't mention any metres.

So this space.

Let's say 1m and 20cm.

120.

1 .2.

Or we can just make sure later on.

And so that's one point two metres from the building line.

Yes.

What about width -wise as well?

I don't know how wide it is, but it nearly belongs to the whole front area of the pub.

Do you just want to take a few minutes?

Because we can't make a decision based on just guesstimation, we do need factual information.

So you're committing yourself to 1 .2 metres and this information is important because if we do grant it,

then it obviously will be on your licence, it will be in condition.

So it's important that you understand what you're committing to.

Yeah, because I didn't write this floor plan, that's the reason I don't know the actual metres.

Four metres is maximum. Is there a flat door on the middle side? I didn't use the back

side, just used in front of the pub.

So nearly three, four metres long, right. So 1 .2 from the building.

Members, you have questions?

Councillor Cacti.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, as long as there were reduced hours, there was also the not to serve refreshment,

but light snacks, is that inside the premises as well, just to clarify?

or are you just talking about outside premises?

No, both inside and outside, so if they want to eat after 11pm, they will provide snacks.

It's just like snacks, ok, because there was a change, so I just wanted to get that clarified.

Also, there were some complaints, obviously, about breach of contract, you know, people waiting outside, eating, causing the nuisance.

but I can also see there were also some visits from the council after the complaints had been made.

Not as much people outside or there was no kind of nuisance.

In terms of going forward, will there be any kind of space at all provided in terms of table outside the hours given?

First of all, with complaints, they are all coming from one household.

When I submitted the first application, so it was still one household,

I think there is something going on with my client and with them.

I don't know the reason. Maybe they had some bad experiences with the previous management.

So it's not repeated, nothing is going wrong with the new management.

and also, yeah, visited, you know, after police visited the premise that there was no loud music

or noise disturbance were coming from the pub, so there was no problem with that.

And also, I just want to remind you, agent of change principle again, so, you know,

There might be some level of noise coming from the pub, but it won't be too much.

And these new buildings just built after the pub already established.

Is there any other question specifically?

So all your neighbouring businesses around the area, I've seen some of the nearby ones,

is it all at 11pm?

Yeah, outside seating area will be closed at 11pm.

Sorry?

Outside area will be closed at 11pm.

And you know, summer and winter is different. In winter time people don't want to sit outside anyway.

This is mainly for summer. In summer time people want to sit outside and it's a pub.

They don't want to sit inside when the weather is hot and they want to eat food or drink outside.

So this is private land, we understand, and it belongs to floods, but also PAP is already established in 1848.

So it was there already and with longer licencing hours.

If it is not granted, you know, there is already transferable licence, but we just applied for a variation application.

I think the noise will be bearable for the floods just till 11pm.

There is already no crime or no problem coming from the pub to local people.

There are supporting letters from over 200 people.

Thank you. Just a few points on that.

Just to be clear, there are five objections and there are two from different agencies.

So I take your point, it might be a person who has a problem who might have made complaints,

but the reason it's come here is because there's five complaints from five separate people,

so I just want to make that absolutely completely clear.

On your 200 letters, can you clarify and confirm that all of them live in a bar?

So they are all local people, so my client collected them, but I couldn't upload all

I have not seen all of them because it is too much.

Even I uploaded some of them,

it is not listed in the agenda.

We can provide it and you can cheque it yourself

if you would like to.

Thank you.

Councillor Kahn?

I forgot what to ask.

He has asked one of the questions

that I did see, different components.

Also,

in terms of

, is there live entertainment

inside?

Live entertainment?

live entertainment? No, there is no live music, just background music.

It wouldn't matter, the live music is deregulated anyway, so as long as premises are licenced for alcohol sales between 8 o 'clock in the morning and 11 at night, they're entitled to have certain music anyway, which is the point Nicola made earlier on.

Just to reassure the panel, obviously it's a pub, people go out there to socialise and enjoy themselves.

Just given the kind of complaints that have been received, what do you believe that you can do as a business

to ensure, mitigate some of the noise disturbances, even though the outside area is in there, especially winter times.

Just to kind of reassure the panel, what would you do as a business to kind of ensure less noise nuisance for the community around, the residents living nearby?

We can limit people, as I mentioned, but there will be different circumstances in winter and summer, because in winter people they don't want to go outside that much because of the weather.

So I asked my client how many tables they have outside.

So it might be six tables in summer, four tables in winter.

It will be limited to 15 people in winter and 25 people in summer.

I don't think it's too much for a pub.

And it's just for until 11pm.

and there are already businesses doing that, in very close proximity.

They have customers and they are sitting outside and drinking, enjoying their food.

And my client told me that his customers are telling him,

because they cannot sit outside of the pub, they go to other businesses.

And it's very close.

So I don't understand the restriction, especially for this pub and not other businesses in the area,

in very close distance. And they have flats above their shops and there is no flat above the pub.

They do live music as well.

And they do live music as well.

Okay, I'm just going to focus it back on this application.

So my last question for you I suppose is, you want to go up to eleven o 'clock,

Could you maybe just talk about how you can ensure you clear out the area with as minimal noise as possible for some of the residents given it's 12 metres.

So if you can just reassure us and talk about some of the steps you're putting in place please.

We can put signs and my client can warn them if there are two, you know, if people are too loud so they can be warned by my client and they can be more careful,

not disturbing local people, but they are also local people.

So they are living in those flats or they are coming nearby, from nearby flats or houses.

Any further questions? Jonathan?

Thank you, Chair. I think I've got actually three questions, Chair, if I may.

First one is are there any nearby licenced premises with the same hours which has been

applied for?

It could be either the applicant or the official, if you could.

I think the one you're referring to is there's Mitch's which is directly opposite, is that

correct?

Yes.

That does have a licence.

I have, obviously it's a bit wrong to start talking about other premises in particular,

but I have taken issue with them about some of what they're doing. And they did also apply

for a minor variation which was refused. I'm not 100 % sure on their current situation,

but they shouldn't have people outside till 11 o 'clock.

Thank you, my next question is with the permission of the Chair.

Yes, please.

I don't find it wrong to talk about other premises, sorry about that, because there

is an agent of change principle and the pub was there already before of those premises

and flats, so since 1848, that's the reason I am talking about nearby premises.

So that's helpful, but I think what we need to do is focus on this application.

So I think you've answered the Councillor's question, so I'll move on to the second question please.

Thank you, Chair.

To the applicant, can you provide evidence that the existing hours have been well managed?

By that I mean, do you keep or have incident logs and staff training records?

Yes, they all are at the pub available.

There is no problem with the management, as far as I know.

I can ask my client, is there any problem?

Do you keep records of refusals, logbooks and everything?

You don't have any problem?

No.

Last one, can I?

That's related to operational and community impact.

I would say what consultations, if you have any at all, have you had with nearby residents

and businesses?

That's my last question.

Thank you.

Can you repeat that again?

Oh, yeah.

What consultations you might have had with the nearby, your client, I mean, nearby businesses

and residents?

My client says he has many customers asking for him to do the application, especially

to sit outside.

So it's coming from local people.

He didn't ask them to collect letters because there is a demand from local people.

They want to sit outside or inside for longer hours at that pub.

That's why he did the application for a variation application.

So if you are asking about this type of consultation.

I have nothing further to ask.

Thank you very much. Jonathan.

Thank you, Shara.

I think just one thing I just want to be absolutely clear.

Has the application as far as a late night refreshment

is concerned been withdrawn?

That was certainly my understanding.

But then there's talk about snacks after 11 o 'clock.

So I was wanting to make sure they're all

on the same page there.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Because after 11 p .m. it's very hard

to open a kitchen as well.

I think the only other thing to clarify,

obviously the outside area at the moment the plan that's been submitted is not

necessarily going to properly reflect the outside area if the application is

granted we obviously have extending out 1 .2 metres from the building lines

that's excuse me that's fine and and you've got I think we said you said

about four metres lengthways, but the area as it's shown on the plan on page 61, which is probably the easiest one to work with, seems to run to about 17 or 18 metres on a rough indication of the scale that's been given.

So subject to perhaps anything that you have to say, obviously anything that Corinne and Nicola have to say,

and obviously subject to what the chair says, I'm inclined to perhaps suggest that for clarity that we say it's from the...

We've got the cellar trap and the delivery door, and then we've got in the middle there's an exit,

And then there's a third

Set of double doors so probably just outside

Or underneath the words seating area in red. You've got those double doors there, so perhaps we limit it

The outer edges of the first set of double doors and the last set of double doors

There'd need to be a condition of committee reminded for an updated plan to be submitted

But at least that way everyone is going to be absolutely clear on the extent of that

Does that make sense? I can see Corinne looking at the...

Do you see what I'm talking about?

Yes, so I was just scrolling up a little bit trying to get to the right page.

Page 61. So we're saying from, you've got the...

On the outside seating area you've got on the left hand side

a set of double doors where it says delivery door and then underneath those doors

sell a trap. So if we take the outside, the left hand door

up to then where it says the outside seating area in red

There's another set of double doors underneath that and we take it to the right hand door

There which on a very rough guess looks like it's about four or five metres

Maybe slightly more but at least it gives everyone clarity as to where that outside seating area is going to be

I don't know if you've got any observations on that or whether you'd suggest anything different

Delivery door cellar door one

Doesn't block the ramp

You know, obviously on the picture on Nicola's Rep, where you've got the 12 metre arrow gap,

that one, where it's almost circled in yellow on page, ooh, lost the page, 116.

Where it's sort of yellow.

Between that brick wall there and the pub is like a

Area that's not got a step

So obviously any prams wheelchairs?

Mobility things would use that rather than the steps that are in the middle if you sort of mean so as long as that

That area then wouldn't block

the usage of that ramp I

Can't quite tell whether that door is

because obviously it's there, it's narrowed down anyway because of the wall, but the delivery

door is this side of the end of the wall I think.

That's the only thing I would suggest.

So we're on page, I think 72, about 116 of the main pack.

What Corinne is saying is where the green arrow is, it looks like that might be...

Is that a set of double doors where that green arrow is and if so is that the doors referred

to as the delivery door?

So do you know where the yellow circle is? So to the right of it there's stairs but

right in the middle of the yellow circle it's like a ramp coming down so we're

trying to avoid prams or people in wheelchairs being blocked from...

So does that kind of make sense? The only thing when... yeah just that's your point.

So one other maybe one other I don't know

Can I just suggest there is a brick wall

At the left -hand side of that ramp not without a delivery door. How far is that from the building line?

Because would it not perhaps make more sense?

And if we if that brick wall is the extent of the licenced area than that way

you're not going to be encroaching on that ramp and we can effectively just draw a line

from that as long as everything is in line with that brick wall then we'll know the extent.

I think floor plan must be updated because it's not exactly showing where the actual

seating area is. This is what I understand from my client. He says it's not blocking

this area, so it starts from the door. It starts from the left -hand side.

Just on page 61 of the main pack, can you then clarify where this starts from?

On page 61 of the main pack, there's...

In fact, there's actually photographs on 88 which show that ramp area, so that might give

a better visual.

Do you want to go to page 88 then? Can you see?

Yeah, thank you.

The second picture is facing as if we're going down the ramp.

So we're keen to obviously avoid...

So can you just clarify where the actual area is, the outside area that you want to start from?

Thank you.

Maybe we could confirm if that delivery door, cellar ramp, still exists.

It doesn't look like it in the photo.

Ms Holland has just suggested on that plan at page 61 where it refers to the cellar trapdoor.

or do those doors exist? Are they still there?

Because it is, as she says, rather hard to see them in the photographs.

So it's not matching the actual seating area, to be honest with you at the moment.

I think chair one of the points that obviously the chairs just asked if there is any power

to adjourn an application and there clearly is me obviously it's a matter for the committee

whether it chooses to do so it can do it if it thinks it's necessary in the interest of

It's consideration of any of the representations by the party.

Clearly the outside area is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of this application.

And as I said, there may well end up being two options.

I'll invite the parties to express a view.

We either proceed with the application as it is and given the lack of clarity as to

Where this outside area is going to be I suspect that you're not going to be minded to grant something when you don't know

The extent of that how it's going to work

It will always be open to the applicant to then submit another variation respect to that

Excuse me. The alternative would be that the application is adjourned and the applicant will need to

Update a plan that perhaps clearly into scale shows exactly where this outside seating area is going to be

So that when it comes back before the committee there can be no doubt responsible authorities for the residents and obviously members

And of course any applicant is going to need to be ensuring that he's complied if this application is granted exactly where this area

Is but at the moment is obviously rather unsatisfactory. Those are the two options

So do you is there any preference in terms of deferring aside because as it currently stands

this isn't clear to us and we can't approve something based on inaccurate information.

So the actual seating area is smaller than this one. Definitely this is, we understand is wrong

outside seating area. We can provide updated one tomorrow if that's okay.

Can I strongly encourage you then to pause the application or whatever the effect of

the correct terminology is update this and then you can come back to a licencing committee

because as it currently stands you're asking us to judge something where it's not entirely

correct. So if you can work with Simi and Democratic Services to find a new day, it

won't be tomorrow but it will be at a certain time.

Sorry, Chair, there's one, I suppose we need to seek Corinne and Nicola's views as well

because they made a different view.

I mean obviously the outside area is the objecting to an outside area entirely but it does need to be clearly defined and obviously is the outside area that the residents have complained about so it is quite important that we do actually work out what the dimensions are and where it can be and obviously I don't even know if this plan is is correct going on the photo and the plan of the pub so

I think we would need an updated plan.

I'm just slightly confused.

The outside area wouldn't be the same as it was all years.

It's not clear.

So there's obviously wouldn't there's images or what?

From the images in the floor plan it's not entirely clear.

So we're gonna ask them to go back and update this accurately and then come back to a future meeting

Just because I agreed that the contentious part is the outside bit

So nobody has any issues with the inside and the running of the pub

But there is obviously objectives and there's concerns from different authorities about the outside part

So to give you application the best chance I would suggest you withdraw it and

Update it

You want to come in? Sorry?

Do you have any comment to make?

No, I was just saying if, anyway, if they're going to say 15 to 25 people out in the summer and the winter

until 11 o 'clock at night, I'll be putting in my objection would stand anyway, so...

The only other procedure, I expect, that we then got to consider, since I suspect it is going to be in adjournment,

is how you want to deal with it. Again, you've got two options.

The one is you just simply adjourn it to another day and start over again, which might be slightly

Frustrating for the app or the alternative is we could go part heard but that would require this particular committee

To reconvene either three of you and obviously myself, but that way the advantage to that is you already heard

What you've heard today? I've obviously got notes and it's being recorded

But that way we can effectively pick up where we've left off. We don't have to start over again

So it makes the next part of this much, much smoother.

So there is a deafness advantage to that,

but then it's obviously subject to everyone's diaries,

which can be a little bit more difficult.

But that's a matter for yourselves.

Can I just sense for members, you're both happy to,

I'm not sure what terminology you said, but the park here,

and then we'll have the three of us come back to continue

where we left off, yeah?

OK.

So is that agreeable to you in terms of updating and coming

back?

So we're essentially a journey here.

Actually my client he doesn't want to spend time so I just want to make it clear with you the exact outside seating area if we can make it.

To be really clear it isn't clear and it will not get to a place with this current information where you've not updated the floor plan that it is going to be so I strongly encourage you to.

We can proceed, of course we can proceed, but as it currently stands there are too many questions.

Even where you did point out to me here, all the way from the laptop and the picture,

I've got serious questions about if there's 15 to 20 people standing outside,

how you aren't blocking wheelchair access or buggies coming through that bit.

So again, I appreciate it's not ideal, but as it currently stands there are too many questions.

And I don't want us to go off a number of points that you've just made that might change data.

It just needs to be absolutely clear.

So I'm just gonna make this clear. So I'm going to make a decision as chair to adjourn this.

We will find a new date for the three of us to return.

Simi will be in touch with more information and dates.

Again, it's really important that you go through the pictures and the floor plan and update it accordingly.

So thank you for coming and we'll send you more information.

Thank you.

We'll take a few moments to turn around.

Thank you.

you

Good evening.

Thank you for joining us.

I will ask Simi to introduce the next application.

Thank you, chair. This is a combination of item 4 .2 4 .3 is the application to review

the premises licence and the transfer licence for East End K Max off licence 203 East India

dog road London e 14 0 ED chair we have the applicant PC Mark Parkinson who's joining

us virtually today. We have Corinne Holland from licencing Alex brand from trading standards

Mr. Nathaniel Gadsby from the legal representative representing the transfer.

Chair, I believe the applicant was requested a 10 minute submission and so has Mr. Gadsby

representing the transfer.

After the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak first

and will be given a total of 10 minutes to make the representation.

The interested parties will also get 10 minutes each to make their representation.

I'll let you speak and when they have one minute remaining, please note that the subcommittee

have read the agenda pack in advance.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

I'll hand over to Jonathan de Claflin.

Yes, as you know, we've got two applications.

There's a review and there's a transfer application.

Obviously, in respect of both, the London Halal group is technically the party for both

of them because, of course, there's an application for transfer with interim effect, which stands

until the committee's decision.

Clearly there's going to be a degree of overlap

between the two applications, so rather than hearing one

and then hearing another one,

I'm going to suggest that we effectively

roll everything up together.

Yes, we're very happy with that.

And obviously Mr. Brander and Ms. Holland

will be speaking to the review application

because of course they've got no right

to speak in relation to the transfer application.

Mark, yes, Mark, and I think Kieran Wells is on as well.

The police are content with that approach as well.

Yes, more than happy.

Thank you very much. Okay, I now hand over to Moshun Ali, Licencing Officer.

To introduce the report, you've got up to 10 minutes.

Thank you, Chair. I'll briefly go through both of the reports.

So the first one is for the review of East End, formerly known as K -MAX, of Licence 203 East Indian Dock Road, E14 -0ED.

This application is in front of you because you've got review application by the Met Police

and you've also got support in representations from training standards and the licencing authority.

Going through the report in appendix 1, pages 136 to 144, you'll see the copy of the review application.

There are various additional documents submitted.

So these are found in between appendices 2 to appendix 7, pages 146 to 159.

These are various statements from the police in support of the review.

Appendix 9, which is the current premises licence, is in appendix 164 to 170.

Appendix 1 shows you maps of the premises and the surrounding area.

This is pages 172 and 173.

The representation of trading standards is in pages 175 to 176.

Representation of the licencing authority is in 178 to 180.

And the response of the Solicitor Act on behalf of London Plan Group is in appendix 13, 182

to 185.

As you have heard, there is also a review and this is found in Appendix 1.

Sorry, the copy of the transfer.

So if I roll it both into one, the transfer is in Appendix 1, pages 192 to 198.

And again, the copy of the premises licence is also found in pages 200 to 206.

And the transfer objection is in pages 208 to 215.

And again, correspondence from the Solicitor Action on behalf of the new applicant is in pages 217 to 219.

And finally home of his guidance in relation to transfers is in Appendix 5, which is pages 221.

That's a summary of both report. Unless members have any further questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do members have any questions for the licencing officer?

No? Okay, thank you very much. I'll now hand over to the applicant.

You've got up to ten minutes to make your presentation.

Please. It's the police.

Sorry, yeah. Up to the police.

Thank you, Chair, committee members.

Police licencing are applying to review the premises of K -MAX off -licence, also known as E -Send Off -Licence,

on the grounds of not upholding the licencing objectives of prevention of crime disorder,

public safety and the protection of children from harm. This follows a multi -agency licencing visit

at the premises on the 17th of July 2025 involving both police and trading standards.

The visit was performed after police received four separate intelligence reports between February

2024 and 2025 about the premises selling a controlled drug nitrous oxide to both adults

and children. During the visit trading standards discovered and seized numerous illicit vapes.

I believe they have their own representations to make around that. Police discovered under the

count of four boxes which was a total of 22 canisters of nitrous oxide and large box of

helium balloons which are the very vessels used commonly to distribute these prohibited drugs to

buyers within Tower Hamlets in London. These items were seized by police in an investigation for

possession with intent to supply Class C controlled drugs was instigated.

In addition, during the same visit, police located cannabis grinders and crack

pipes for sale, all seized and further investigated under Section 9 of the

Misuse of Drugs Act, and both these investigations are still active currently.

Further offences that we discovered were breaches of the Licencing Act 2003,

namely Section 57 .4, failure to secure a premises licence or certified copy

the premises, section 57 .7 failure to produce a premises licence or certified copy and breach of

the premises licence annex 2 condition which was to have CCTV which would be fully functional

to the satisfaction of police and the licence and authority with footage available on demand

and will be operational at all times. Enquiries in the store at the time of the visit created

chaos as to who the owner of the store was, who was in charge of the store currently and it was

not possible to contact the DPS to discuss the matter either.

Enquires on the telephone around who was in charge led to clear

lies and subterfuge being used by those concerned details of said

lies and subterfuge are elaborated on further in the documents you've

already received, and that would be my statement from PC Mark

Parkinson, which would be on page 12, appendix 2 of this application.

As the initial part of the steps approach, police issued a letter

of warning sent to the designated premises supervisor, Aaron Connick, at the venue on

the 23rd of July. The telephone number that was provided for him by staff on scene was

a line that was no longer active. We received no reply to the letter. Police further pursued

the stepped approach, attempting another licencing visit on the 1st of August during normal operational

hours. However, the venue was closed, the shutters were down, with a new sign above

its stain and a new management with no timeframe for reopening. The closing of the store at

that point was suspected to be an attempt to prevent officers returning to the premises

to review and seize critical CCTV footage which would assist in prosecuting the criminal

investigations before reopening when a saturation of key evidence had taken place, potentially

with either the same owners or transfers to affiliates of previous current regimes.

Police finally caught up with the DPS there in Connacht on the 13th of August.

Again that's elaborated on in the statement that I referred to previously.

and he confirmed he'd had no involvement in the run in the premises for nearly two years

and was informed his details had been removed from all affiliation with the premises and that

he no longer wished to be involved with the licence at all. His account suggests his nephews

have been running the premises for nearly two years without his knowledge in his name.

Aaron Connach himself then contacted Tower Hamlets council licencing team and expressed his desire

to surrender the premises licence even trying to do so in a format not compliant with the local

authority standards, so this couldn't be achieved at that point.

On the 15th of September, police received notification of a transfer request

for the premises licence to London Hla group, which we duly opposed

and made representations on on the 26th of September.

We further elaborated and clarified the grounds for objections

to the legal representative of London Hla group on the 22nd of October.

Our objections are basically focused on the severe licencing failings,

not limited to but mostly seriously pertaining to the alleged distribution of Class C controlled

jugs, namely nitrous oxide to school children and other members of the public. This highlights the

serious breach of licence and objectives of crime disorder and the protection of children from harm.

The main purpose for objection to the transfer of the premises licence is a two -fold thing for us.

Firstly, police don't know who was running or managing the property at the time these

offences took place. Rather, the only thing that's being confirmed is that Erin Karnak,

the listed premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor was not in charge of that

premises, contrary to what the premises licence said. Meaning police must consider and entertain

that London Allow Group Ltd may have had previous association with the unknown owners or may

have already been involved, responsible or in control of the day to day operation of

the shop. The second point in relation to that is the request of police for information

from the legal reps for London Allow Group around tenancy leases and information indicating who had

control of the premises and from which date sort of stems out of the first point and was purely

an approach by us to clear up any misgivings around London Allow Group's tenure at the premises.

We note TV Edwards applied for the transfer of the licence for London Allow Group on the 12th of the

9th. My colleague Kieran Wells emailed their legal reps on the 16th of the night asking for clarity

whether their clients were in control of the premises

and if they had such a thing as a lease or a deed in their name.

Aaron Connick had made it clear by that point to police

that he was not in charge of the premises for the last two years.

The only clarity that's been sent to us by a legal rep

was on the 25th of the 9,

and that was an attached letter from Taj solicitors

confirming they'd been instructed in relation to the grant of a new lease.

and this letter is dated after the request to transfer the licence and after police requested some evidence of control of the building.

Police also received a copy of a letter from Westgate solicitors on the 7th of October confirming they are acting on behalf of

Cooldip Bassie and Coolwont Bassie to organise a tenancy for Arm and Sheek of London Hallow Group, but that paperwork will take six to eight weeks.

Our concern, the police's concerns are why are London Hillel Group applying to transfer

a licence into their name before they have control over the building?

Why has no information of who currently controls the building been supplied?

And why when the building itself has been closed since the first of the 8th of 2025

with a sign up saying new management, would it take until early December the date the

new lease might be available, which will be after the committee hearing for London Hillel

group to have a lease in place for the property. In short there's been nothing supplied to LAR

concerns we have that London Allow Group were already affiliated to those managing the day -to -day

operation of the property or that they themselves had control or management of the property during

the period when drug dealing was taking place from the venue. Erin Conack himself told police that

meeting to sign consent to transfer the licence was arranged by his nephews to meet London Allow

group implying knowledge or history of some link unknown to us currently.

And whilst police appreciate these points in themselves, do not by default imply London Allow

Group was running the business, neither does it eliminate them, as they've attempted to acquire

this premises licence whilst not controlling the property. There's been no historical context given

to the build -up or lead -up to them acquiring the consent of the previous premises licence holder

DPS to transfer over this licence. It's not clear at all who had officially been running this

premises for the last two years, certainly not the person it was supposed to be, who was Mr Erin Conack.

It's unclear who currently holds the lease for the premises and whether it's active or not.

There were previous clear attempts at substitute, uh, substitute, sorry, and disingenuous business

operation and without knowing who's been running the business for a period of two years it's

impossible to say the new applicants London Allow Group are not the same people or affiliates of the

saying people continue in the business operation.

Our take on it was a starting point

would have been evidence of a newly signed lease or deed,

or a company name for the property,

a copy of the old lease, or any business emails,

correspondence dated in the past surrounding sale

or transfer of the licence or the business,

but none of this appears to be available

and it hasn't been provided to us.

All of this does not allay police concerns

as we have seen no evidence that the premises

is now under new management and ownership,

which is more responsible than the former. I think anything further information was submitted by

London Hala group today. It wasn't offered to police during the application phase or prior to

the committee hearing and despite having the opportunity to do so, therefore police would

ask the committee to make decisions around any additional documentation as the key authority.

Police concerns which triggered our request to review the property licence remain and that's

things like organised crime taking place and drug dealing that is believed to have taken place in

premises for a long period of time and combined with the legal management of the licenced premises

during this period. As far as we're concerned this venue is embedded in the community and members of

that community including children will know this venue as a place to come to for purchasing illegal

drugs and articles to consume their drugs with. To summarise, police licencing have applied to

review this premises licence with an aim to ask the committee members and chair gathered here today

to revoke this premises licence as it does not promote the licence and objectives as already listed.

There was no mention or historically documented inquiries around a premises transfer

prior to police visiting the premises and launching two criminal investigations

and a police licence applying to review the premises licence previously.

Police licencing as a responsible authority believe on the balance of probabilities that this transfer is an attempt

to circumnavigate responsible enforcement against the premises licence

and there is no reasonable evidence provided to suggest otherwise at this stage.

And that is all from us, thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Can I now invite the interested parties to make their representation?

I'll just hand over to Jonathan just to clarify something.

So there's a suggestion, I think, unless I've misheard, that additional documents have been supplied

from Mr Gadsby to the police, unless I have misheard, but I was under the impression that

something relatively recently had gone between your clients and the police, or have I got

that wrong?

I have got one additional document which I will refer to that the committee are welcome

to see.

It hasn't been sent, as far as I'm aware, to PC Parkinson.

It's simply, no, it hasn't been sent.

It's simply an updated letter from TARG, which deals with the date of first instruction.

But I don't think it will make too much difference.

Thank you for clarifying.

I'll hand over to Corinne Holland after five minutes from licencing to do the review.

Thank you, Chair.

The licencing authority supports the review triggered by the police under the prevention

of crime disorder objective.

I've sort of, due to the fact that there seems to be confusion as to who's been running the premises,

I've sort of looked at our licencing authority records to establish ownership and management.

I can see that Erin Konak's been the DPS since May 2008 and the premise licence holder since August 2009.

and obviously up until this transfer there hasn't been any other changes to that.

On page 178 and 179 of my representation in Appendix 12, I've listed the licence visits that have been conducted on the premises

and stated who's paid the annual fees, just trying to establish ownership.

and then I've also, I won't go into the details now, but I've checked the food safety team

and I've checked with business rates and the details of that are on page 179.

On the 2nd of September this year, Mr. Aaron Konak spoke with a colleague of mine on the telephone

saying he left the business about four years ago and no longer has any involvement with the business.

He stated he wished to surrender the licence, so we sent him the appropriate form that you have to complete.

On the 4th of September, he emailed the licencing authority saying he didn't want to use the licence anymore.

But obviously we explained that you have to have the signed correct form, but to date we haven't received that.

And then obviously the police review highlights serious crime and disorder taking place within the shop.

There has clearly been an absent premise licence holder and DPS over a number of years,

meaning there's no one been authorising the alcohol sales during this time.

All of the current staff and management were evasive to the truth and showed complete lack of upholding the Licencing Act and the licencing objectives.

Therefore we support the action to revoke the licence

Thank you very much and I'll hand over to Alex now up to five minutes

Thank you chair good evening chair good evening members

I'm representing trading standards responsible authority for the licencing act

So we are here to submit their representation support of the application or the police for the revocation of the licence

on the basis of the

grounds of prevention of crime or disorder, objective not being met.

On the 1st of June 2025 the ban on the supply of single -use fapes in England came into force.

This is under the Environmental Protection Single -Use Fapes England Regulations 2024.

It became a criminal offence for a person in the course of a business to offer for supply or having a possession for supply single -use fapes.

the penalty upon commission could be a fine.

This ban on vapes was highly publicised

and all retailers of Vapes should have been aware of it.

It received national press coverage and we ourselves sent a mail -shot letter to all Vape retailers in March 2025

to advise the businesses of the ban and what they need to do.

As PC Parkinson mentioned earlier on the 17th of July 2025 we assisted the police with an inspection at East End 203 East End India Dock Road.

On that occasion we found 308 single use vapes displayed for sale.

So this was well over a month after the ban came in.

We seized and detained these.

Some of these included oversized vapes, so the legal limit for a tank of a vape was 2ml.

And some of the vapes that we seized contained more than 2ml of nicotine liquid.

This is an offence under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulation in 2016.

So further criminality happening there.

So our investigation into these remains ongoing but there have been no reasonable excuse as

to why these single use vapes were still available for sale a month after the ban and there's

definitely no excuse as to why there were any vapes that contain more than 2ml of nicotine

liquid because these have been prohibited all along.

In addition to this we also found 8 packets of shisha tobacco which were not in plain

packaging. Again this is a requirement under the standardised packaging of tobacco products

regulations 2015. That they are in a particular colour. So supplying these tobacco products

is another criminal offence. So we lack a confidence in the shops management and ability

to willingly uphold the licencing objectives therefore support the police's application

for a revocation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I will now invite Nathaniel Gatsby

to speak for up to 10 minutes

on the review and the transfer.

Thank you, Chair, and good evening, members.

Yes, apologies, I'm slightly losing my voice.

You might have to bear with me.

My client today, as you've heard,

is London Halal Group Limited.

That's a registered company whose sole director,

Mr Arman Shaikh, attends with me today.

Just to provide some further information

about the kind of background to my client,

So the company was established in 2019.

Mr. Shaikh has operated a successful wholesale business

since then.

He's a close friend of Mr. Nijam Ahmed on my left,

the current designated premises supervisor of Poplar Mini

Market, which is at 205 East India Dock Road,

the next door to the property in question 203 East India Dock

Road.

The two properties are owned by the same people.

And Mr. Ahmed knew that my client, Mr. Shaikh,

was looking for a business venture in the area and said he would put him in touch with

his landlord who owns both properties.

Mr Sheikh then approached his regular property lawyers, Taj Solicitas, on the 8th of August

2025 to seek a new lease at 203 East India Dock Road.

That process, as you've heard, is still ongoing but Mr Sheikh hopes this will be concluded

in the next few weeks.

Should the committee choose not to revoke the premises licence today and to grant Mr

Mr. Sheikh's application to transfer the premises licence into the name of his company, he will

appoint Mr. Ahmed as his DPS.

Mr. Ahmed is an experienced DPS and has held a personal licence for nearly 10 years.

Poplar Minnie Market no longer has an alcohol licence, so Mr. Ahmed would be free to take

over the day -to -day running of the renamed premises at 203 East Indi Dot Road, were the

licence still in place.

In short, members, my client takes no issue with the background to the police's review

application and is in no position to dispute any of the serious breaches the police and

other authorities identified on their visits to the premises.

He nor his company had no knowledge of nor involvement in any of this behaviour and he

seeks to operate a successful and responsible enterprise promoting the licencing objectives.

For that reason, members, I won't seek to address you on the substance of this application

for review. Again the factual background is not disputed and I don't seek to persuade

you that the breaches in themselves are not sufficient to warrant serious consideration

of revocation. I want to address you on the police's specific objections to my client

and to his application to transfer the licence into his name. PC Parkinson helpfully elaborated

on these arguments in an email to us on the 22nd of October and I'm just going to address

a few of the points he raised in that email which he has covered again orally.

He mentions that police don't know who was running or managing the property at the time

the offences they have addressed took place.

They know the listed licence holder and DPS, Erin Konak, was not in charge of the premises.

He goes on to say this means they must consider or entertain that London Halal Group Ltd.

may have been involved in the running of the premises previously.

With respect to PC Parkinson, I would argue this is quite flawed logic.

This is the police's application for review and it's for them to satisfy the committee on the balance of probabilities

that anything but revocation would leave the licencing objectives in jeopardy.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest London Halal Group nor Mr. Shaikh were involved in the previous operation of the premises.

The committee will appreciate that it is quite difficult to prove a negative.

I will come on to explain the efforts we have made to establish the company's interest in the premises and the process of the lease negotiations.

But to provide concrete evidence of a negative is a difficult thing to do.

PC Parkinson is suspicious about a number of things, including the fact that a letter we provided to him at his request from Taj Solicitas

was dated a day after his request.

The reason for that is perfectly simple.

PC Parkinson requested the evidence.

We referred that request to our client, Mr. Shaikh,

who approached his solicitors and asked

them to provide a letter confirming

they acted for him in relation to the lease negotiations,

and they did so.

That is why it's dated the day after the request.

It was written the day after the request

to confirm what we asked them to.

Since then, we've also provided police

with a letter from Westgate solicitors

of acting for the landlords, Cooldeep and Coolwank Bassie, in the lease transaction.

Finally I asked my client to speak to Targe Solicitas again, just because it appeared

that PC Parkings wasn't satisfied with what had been provided.

They've now provided us with another letter dated yesterday's date, which I'm happy to

share with the police and the committee, but I've seen a copy myself.

The letter confirms that Mr. Sheikh originally instructed that firm on around the 8th of

August, but the negotiations properly began around the 7th of September when the solicitor

with conduct of the transaction return from a short holiday.

PC Parkinson mentioned that whilst police appreciate these points in themselves, do

not by default imply your client was running the business, neither does it eliminate them

as they have attempted to acquire this premises licence whilst not controlling the property.

Members I confess to being a little bit puzzled by these sentences.

It seems that PC Parkinson is contradicting himself.

He seemed to suggest before that the mere fact of my client wishing to take on this licence did imply he was involved in the previous running of the premises.

As for attempting to acquire a premises licence whilst not controlling the property, I'm not entirely sure what PC Parkinson means here.

My client made an application to transfer a premises licence into his name.

He simultaneously instructed solicitors to seek a new lease on the premises.

It seems PC Parkinson's experiences that people generally obtain a lease before applying to transfer the licence

I've been practising in licencing law for a few years and I have to say this is not my experience

Many of my clients have sought a licence transfer before going any further with a lease or purchase of a premises

There's no requirement after all the licensee has a lease over a property before it is transferred into their name and many want the security

of knowing the licence will be transferred before they invest too much in the venture.

In any event here Mr. Shaikh has done both alongside each other.

I'll just address on that note as well the statement of PC Wells regarding the consent

form signed by the previous DPS, Erin Konak.

As you can imagine the owners of the property are equally eager as Mr. Shaikh to get a new

tenant into the premises.

They're not currently receiving any rent.

So my clients approached the owners and asked if they were in contact with Aaron Konak

and could seek his consent to a transfer of the premises licence.

And it was the landlords, not my clients, who obtained that signed document.

Finally, as to PC Parkinson's point about his surprise that the lease negotiations are taking so long,

it's not particularly my area of law, but I spoke to a colleague in our commercial leases team

who said that the time estimate of a further six to eight weeks was not unusual at all.

These things just take some time, there's paperwork involved, as you would anticipate.

PC Parkinson has made clear on a number of occasions and in a number of different respects

that he is suspicious.

I would suggest to you, members of the committee, that that's probably something of an occupational

hazard for a police officer.

Suspicion is not something this committee can work on.

It's not provided for in the legislation and these proceedings need to deal in facts and

what can be established before them.

I'd refer you in that regard, I won't read these paragraphs but paragraphs 8 .101, 8 .102,

11 .20 and 11 .21 which I know Mr Melnick will be able to talk you through of the Home Office's

guidance under section 182 of the Licencing Act which I think are particularly relevant

to the situation before you this evening.

My clients have done everything they can to abate the police and other responsible authorities' concerns,

including providing evidence from two different firms of solicitors of the ongoing lease negotiations,

but it appears there's nothing that can be provided to satisfy the police.

To summarise, members, I don't seek to persuade you that the police have failed to establish a concerning background

under the form of management of these premises.

I would argue, however, that the police have not established that my clients have anything whatsoever to do with those previous breaches.

They have not established that my clients pose any ongoing risk of undermining the licencing

objectives.

And they have not established the exceptional circumstances under section 42 .6 of the Licencing

Act that granting the transfer of this premises licence would undermine the crime prevention

objective.

I would finally remind you again that the Committee must be satisfied on the balance

of probabilities that only the suspension or revocation of the licence would suffice

to ensure the licencing objectives are met. The responsible authorities making and supporting

the review application have simply not met that threshold in my submission and I would

urge you to use your power to remove the DPS from this licence. That would allow Mr Sheikh

to turn this premises around with the assistance of an experienced and responsible DPS on board.

Thank you, that's everything from me.

Thank you very much for that. I would at this point invite the objector to make my presentation

I don't believe they are in attendance.

No, okay, so we will move on.

Do members have any questions for either parties?

Jonathan, do you want to...

Do you have any questions?

Do you have...

Members not have or clarify things.

No?

Okay, you've got...

Okay, hello, thank you for your representation.

Just to get some clarification, when PEC Mark Parkinson had visited the premises, is it

Erin, sorry your name, Mr. Konak, who was present at the site?

Were you not present at the site?

No, neither of the people with me.

My client had no involvement in the premises at the time.

Okay, so the sale of the vape or anything else, you guys were not present at the time?

No, my client certainly doesn't dispute it was happening.

It's fairly clear from everything we've heard that it was happening,

but he simply wasn't involved in it nor aware of it.

He had no stake in the premises at the time.

So he was not at the site you say?

No, he wasn't present nor involved in any way.

Not involved, okay.

And so why was PCMox, when he did attend the premises, he was really unsure about who was

the, kind of, the ownership.

I know there's been dispute about, you know, the transfer and, you know, it does take some

time.

So you're saying clarifying that during those visits whatever was found in the shops, you

guys were not present.

That's right, yes.

Okay. Also, since, has the transfer taken place or is it still taking place? You said

yesterday they've given you an updated letter?

Sorry, the lease transfer, do you mean?

So it's transferred now.

So I thought when Mike was on, there is an ongoing lease negotiation which will then

grant the applicant a right in the property to then go in and run a business from there.

So I think you know that they want to transfer the licence now

So I think you need to be clear whether you're talking about the transfer of the premises licence whether that's gone through

Or whether you're talking about the grant of the lease which is still in negotiation

Just to be clear I think you meant the licence of the building or the property so you met yeah

The partnership is still taking place, isn't it?

The negotiation.

Yes, Mr Gadsby has said that the lease is still being negotiated between the landlord

and his client.

I can assist with both, which is that the lease transfer is still an ongoing process.

My client tells me that the latest update from charge solicitors was around two to three

more weeks.

Just wait for the draught.

And as Mr Melnick says, the transfer of the premises licence is being dealt with here,

but has interim effect for the moment.

But that is a decision for the committee.

When the visit had taken place, all the concerns raised and the complaints, was there any correspondence

back from the ownership?

The person with the lease, off the licence holder?

Was there any kind of response or correspondence?

Please.

Yeah, I was going to say that's for...

Okay, PC Mark.

Parkinson.

Have you had any response or correspondence back from the previous, or the licence holder?

So were you able to hear me?

The previous premises licence holder was Aaron Conack.

He's confirmed having nothing to do with the business for the past two years.

we're still not aware he's been running the business for the past two years.

So there was no kind of response or correspondence from him?

There was response from Erin Conack who confirmed he's had nothing to do with the business for the

past two years and apparently he's told the council not for the last four years.

But other than that we don't know who's been running the business and that's that's the

main crux of the issue.

Thank you I've got a few, go for it Councillor.

Thank you chair

To the applicant for the representative at the material time

Your client was just to

Bring clarification to my understanding your client was neither an owner nor occupier of the same premises

that's right in view of that my

Further question is are your client or clients?

anyhow related to the previous owner in terms of

Relations social relation in terms of business relation to mr. Konak. Yeah

My client doesn't know mr. Konak

That's helpful. Thank you. Those are one of my questions. I wonder if you can briefly speak

So you said you've been a licence holder for 10 years and you'll be the DPS

But your experience, just to talk a bit about my history, has there been any issues with licencing or any issues in the place previously?

You're taking over the building.

Basically my friend here is, what's the shop number, 203?

205.

205. He used to have an alcohol licence on that one as well.

So he actually closed down a couple of years ago.

So he's not trading any more alcohol.

I know him through his landlord as well.

The only reason, when the shop was shut down, I asked him,

basically, can I purchase this shop? Can I take over this shop?

Because it's the same landlord, his landlord is the same landlord

of the same building.

Colton Pacific is the same owner of both the buildings,

his shop and the other shop.

I just assist with one brief further point,

which is that I made some inquiries about 205 East India

dot row, which Mr Ahmed was the DPS of.

That premise no longer has a DPS.

My understanding is because they surrendered their alcohol

licence.

But again, my understanding is that there's never

been any licencing issues at 205.

That's what I'm told.

That's helpful, thank you.

So PC Mark Parkinson, I wonder if you can speak a bit more

or so about if there is some information about who,

There's no links between the people who want to take over the licence and the previous licence holder.

So I understand the point about the review and I don't think you're disputing the review of the licence, but they're disputing the transfer.

So I wonder if you can speak a bit more, because I wasn't entirely sure, about your objections to the transfer to a new person.

Sorry, just very briefly before PC Parkinson's response, although we're not disputing the factual basis for the review,

we're urging the committee not to opt for revocation, which is what PC Parkinson's is pushing for in relation to the review.

Do you want to speak on that briefly, PC Parkinson's, and then I'll come back to another question today?

Sorry, could you repeat that last question?

Essentially my question was around, there's not a dispute around the bad behaviour of the previous applicant or the previous licence holder

But they're putting in a transfer as new people, so we've clarified they don't know the previous licence holder

There's no relation, there's no way there's any link to it

So I'm just trying to fill in the information about why we're declining the transfer

We're trying to seek an audit trail of basically who's been running the premises for the last

four years, who they're taking the premises, the lease over from, why they currently don't

have a lease in their name when they're trying to transfer the application.

I know the representations have been made about that moments ago.

Although I understand London Allow Group do not have to provide that information if they

were seeking to make the case they had no involvement, presumably in correlation with

the current landlord, they could seek that information provided it prior to this committee

meeting, none of that has been provided.

Q. My question is, is there any evidence of this? I appreciate the point you're making,

but is there any clear evidence?

We don't have any evidence of who's been running the store for the past two years, no.

That's what we're seeking to identify.

I appreciate that, but I think there's... Sorry, Jonathan, go for it.

I don't think you actually dealt with my question.

Can I just clarify from the applicant, so rather than putting in the new application,

you're seeking to transfer waiver, but you've accepted that the history of the past applicant

and the history, so I'm trying to understand why not put in a new application rather than

transfer waiver?

Well, simply because it's simpler, effectively it's simpler to transfer an existing premises

licence than apply for a new one.

So our dual purpose today is seeking to transfer the current premises licence into my client's

name and seeking to persuade you not to follow the police's recommendation to revoke the

licence as part of the review.

So although we're not disputing any of the factual basis for the review, we're arguing

that the grounds to revoke a licence aren't met because there are new owners and you can

expect the issues that happened previously not to occur again.

Just in relation to what PC Parkinson said just then, we have provided evidence about

the lease negotiations. I don't know what much more we could provide in terms of evidence.

It's a letter from two different solicitors. One says I'm acting for the landlord in relation

to a lease transfer. The other says I'm acting for what will be the new tenant if it's successful.

I'm not clear what further evidence we could have provided and both of those letters were

provided to police.

Is there any clarification?

Council Member Cuffee.

I just wanted to find out is the climate shop, is this open at the moment?

Is it open, the shop?

Is the shop open at the moment?

No, it's closed at the moment is my understanding.

Certainly my client isn't operating.

No business is taking place at the moment.

No.

It's not open.

As soon as the licence can transfer, I can start trading again.

So I've got the licence, I've got the licence, I've got the licence, I've got the licence,

I don't know

, PC Pakistan has made a point

about

lease.

It might take up to six months

but

the negation

is already done through my land

load.

We sit down,

the negation is done,

we wait for the licence to get transferred

and we start trading.

That is what we want.

I know from licencing and trading standards you have looked at different files and information

to try and establish who was in charge.

Was there anything that gave you an indication?

Apart from Evan Konak being the person who was on the front of it, the name of it,

Was there any other names associated with a past two years then?

Does that make sense? I'm not explaining very well.

Obviously on my visit records I've got here.

There was in 2023, it just said a staff member called Ali.

Says they're in the process of changing over the licence but obviously that didn't happen.

In December 22 a Rizakan konak, which I assume is a relation,

obviously they hadn't paid their fees, so a suspension letter,

and then Rizakan konak was also spoken to in 2020.

And then in June 2020 there was a Fiedale konak.

So I think that there were those people still involved but obviously they weren't the DPS and the premise licence holder.

And then in January 25 an email that was paid, Risaro or the email, obviously didn't write it on the thing fully because obviously for obvious reasons,

They paid the fee for the last 22, 23, 24 years and then a Mr Dursun Conak paid it in 21.

So the annual fee was paid for but obviously not by the right person.

Anything to add Alex from training side to side?

Not particularly, just that when we carried out our visit on the 17th of July,

Erin Konak was not on the premises. We spoke mostly with a lady called Fidan Konak, who I believe is a relation to Erin Konak.

But as I say, I've not met Erin Konak in my work.

So my last question to you is, the list of names that were just mentioned, do you know or have any relationships with any of those people that were mentioned?

As you were talking, my client was saying to me, I have never heard of any of those

names.

If I could just very briefly address one final point I meant to address previously from one

of PC Parkinson's answers.

It seems to me a lot of the reason behind the review or certainly maintaining the review

in its current form is some frustration by the police and perhaps trading standards that

they can't identify who the previous owners were.

I sympathise with that frustration but it's not my client's job to do that investigation

for them. That is a criminal and licencing investigation that can continue whatever happens

with this licence. So I would urge you to reflect on PC Parkinson's answer to your first

question which was is there any evidence to suggest a link and the answer was no.

Okay thank you. Councillors any other questions? Do you want to find anything to clarify?

a couple of things and

One of the questions I was going to ask them much

The same one that council had asked about why not go for a new application instead?

the answer as much as I expected if the commit obviously the

Excuse me, the licence as it stands is woefully out of date anyway

So if the committee were going to be minded to grant the application they would need to substantially add

conditions in any event to deal with proper CCTV conditions, challenge 25, I suppose for

one of the better expressions, all of the usual conditions that one might expect to

see on an off licence. Have you taken instructions from your clients about those sorts of conditions?

I haven't taken detailed instructions. My client is saying to me there would be no issue

with CCTV. I would just gently remind the committee that we're dealing with a review

application, not a variation or a new application, the grounds are that if they think the licencing

objectives are being undermined, they need to intervene and our position is that the

new management of this premises will pose no threat to the licencing objectives whatsoever.

Just following on from that, again, if they were minded to grant, presumably there would

be no objection to the committee effectively imposing conditions that exclude all these

various named people from being on the premises when licence by activities are taking place.

No objection to that, no.

Thank you very much. We'll move to conclude remarks. I'll give the interested parties

up to one minute to summarise.

So I'll start with PC Mark.

So applicants, okay.

We'll get there eventually.

Applicants, you've got up to one minute

for concluding remarks.

Thank you, I won't use all my time.

I think I've summarised our position,

which is that my client's London Halal group

had no involvement in the previous issues

encountered by this premises.

I think PC Parkinson has conceded that there's no link

between the previous owners, whoever they may be,

and my clients.

I would urge you to grant this application to transfer the premises licence into their

name and deal with the review application by removing the current DPS Erin Conack and

perhaps substituting any additional conditions that you see fit.

But I would urge you not to revoke the premises licence altogether and allow my clients to

turn the premises around into a law -abiding premises.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Alex, criminal remarks?

Nothing too much further to add other than that our representation is based on events at the time

that's why we supported the police's review application because there was multiple elements of criminality occurring on the premises.

Thank you very much. Colleen?

Thank you. Nothing further to add other than obviously we support the police's review application

due to undermining the crime and disorder objective.

Thank you very much. PC Mark Parkinson.

In closing, from police licence and as a responsible authority, we believe there's been no real clarity of context provided by any parties involved in the day -to -day run of the premises for the past two years.

While police accept this may not be the responsibility of London Allow Group to provide, and they

have clearly stated that the only system that has to prove they were involved.

They have not provided historical context to a great degree on how they came to be applying

for the transfer of this premises licence into their name or who from etc.

And on, sorry, excuse me a second.

On the balance of probabilities, police licencing, I believe if the premises licence is not revoked,

it will undermine the licencing objective of crime disorder.

Police licencing are of the belief that this transfer is an attempt to circumnavigate this

committee and the authority and there is no certainty or guarantee as to who was running

this premises.

And as the criminal elements investigation into this premises are not in question here

today we kindly request that the chair and members of the committee to revoke this premises

licence to promote the four licencing objectives. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can I thank everybody for their contributions today. The subcommittee

will deliberate in a private session after this meeting. The Democratic Services will

send out our decision within five working days. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for coming tonight.

Simi, can I ask you to introduce those in attendance and application.

Thank you, Chair. This is item 6, a temporary event notice for 63 Redchurch Street, London,

E27 DJ. Today, Chair, we have the applicants, Nicola

Cadzo from Environmental Health and PC Care and Wells, who has joined us virtually online,

We have the premises user present.

After the application has been presented, the applicants will be invited to speak and

will be given a total of five minutes each.

The premises user will also get five minutes to make their representation.

I will let each speaker know.

One minute remaining.

Thank you.

Can I ask Moshfield Ali, Licencing Officer, to introduce the report, please?

This premises is currently unlicensed.

That's the reason for the temporary events notice.

Going through the report, you'll see a copy of the application form in Appendix 1, which is pages 8 to 15.

The application is proposed for the 13th of November, 6pm to 11pm.

Appendix 2 shows you the map of the premises in the area, which is pages 17 to 18.

Environmental protection objection is in Appendix 3, which is pages 20 to 21.

The police objection is in Appendix 4, which is page 23.

That's a summary of the report.

You also have additional supplemental documents in front of you as well in relation to this.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that.

I now invite the applicant to make the representation.

You have up to five minutes to make your observation.

I'm going to go first.

Kieran, did you want to go first or should I?

Yeah, I can go first.

Can you hear me all right?

No, sorry Kieran, we can't hear you clearly.

In that case, Nicola, if you want to go first, I'll swap my mic.

Okay, thank you.

I've reviewed the TENS application.

I have had correspondence with the applicant and in an email last week he said he was happy to reduce the capacity to 100.

There is an issue with that in regards to, I don't know, the capacity of the actual venue,

But there is concerns, because we've had concerns in the past on the 11th, back in July, about people gathering out and spilling out onto the street.

And it's a big issue with the whole of Redchurch Street, appreciating that it was in the summer and warmer anyway.

But there was complaints about shouting, screaming, human voices, loud music from the venue.

and there was about approximately 100 people outside.

So I've got a great concern that this could happen.

There's a lot of resonance around there.

And it's in the Brick Lane Community of Impact Zone.

I have to apologise for the fact that in my representation

on page 20 I've put in, in my history of complaints,

I've put in there was a complaint on the 25th of July.

This was actually another resident referring to the complaint to the public nuisance on

the 11th July about crowds gathering on the streets, blocking the pavement, blocking the

entrance to the mosques, talking loudly and disregarding alcohol cans and bottles on the

the street. Whilst the applicant has agreed to reduce from 250 people to 100 people, I

have great concerns about patrons spilling out onto the street. We're talking about the

application is only for regulated entertainment with a DJ and there's great concerns that

the music is going to cause a disturbance to residents as well.

My objection is basically it's in the community of impact zone,

concerned about noise outbreak from the venue from not only music,

but from patrons spilling out onto the street and causing a public nuisance.

And that concludes my representation. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

I'll hand over to Kieran to make your representation.

Hello chair, can you hear me any better now?

No, sorry it's not great.

Is that any better?

Yeah, that's much better, thank you.

Go for it.

OK, apologies.

Kieran you have five minutes.

Thank you, committee members. Thank you, chair. I appreciate it's late in the evening, so

I'll try and keep it brief. With respect to the application for the 13th of November 2025,

we've put in a representation on the basis of crime and disorder, prevention of public

nuisance, public safety and protection of children from harm. In essence, the applicant

has initially applied for a temporary event notice for 250 people. To keep it brief,

we don't believe that the premises is in any way capable of hosting 250 people. I appreciate

the applicant has since submitted an updated risk assessment with 100 people.

There have been a number of complaints in the past with respect to Redchurch Street,

people drinking out in the open, people drinking in the street, people drinking and blocking the

We've had a number of complaints over the course of the last several months.

I won't go into too much detail over those, but in essence, for on and off sales and the

sort of nature of the event itself, which is a brand clothing line launch, we're just

concerned that the applicant is going over what he's reasonably and safely capable of

hosting as well as the area it's in with residential premises above having a DJ up until about

11 o 'clock at night on a Thursday. Thursday is a very busy night in Shoreditch. In terms

of crime and disorder, we've got serious concerns that some of the spill out from Shoreditch

will have an impact on the residents there and on the customers inside his shop. Also,

So previously when initially submitted there was no risk assessment provided.

It didn't appear as if the applicant had done due diligence around cheques and there was

no mention of what type of ID cheques or age cheques would be done on the door.

There was no mention of what types of ID would be acceptable.

More details around SIA, risk assessments, refusal logs and our biggest concern overall

was overcrowding as well as the impact and the spill out it would have on Red Church

Street.

We have serious concerns that because the numbers are too high

people going in getting drunk would walk outside with alcohol.

We appreciate the applicant hasn't applied for alcohol and the alcohol provided for free

but nevertheless it will have a big impact on the local area and that's it from us.

Thank you very much. Can I invite the premises user to make their representation?

You've got up to five minutes.

Is this better?

Hello, everyone.

Thank you for your time.

Following the representations from Environmental Health and Police Licencing, we've reviewed

the concerns that you've raised and made several amendments to the proposed event.

I did include this in an email yesterday, but when I arrived today, I checked the email

and it looks like that second attachment has not arrived.

I did resend it, but I imagine you've all been pretty busy

this evening, so I'll summarise it for you here.

Hopefully that's enough.

Firstly, on capacity.

This isn't something that I,

I don't attend these kind of things professionally.

I don't fill in a 10 application unless it is for an event,

so I don't do it very often.

As a result, I have been putting together

what I would assume is the total capacity over the evening,

not what you might call a snapshot or current capacity.

I don't intend to have 250 people in the shop at one time.

We have revised it down to 100

and actually changed the nature of the event.

Previously, when there has been a complaint made,

that would be what we would deem a launch party,

which is a much more kind of a big affair

to celebrate 15 years of the brand.

This is now to be an invitation only exclusive influencer event basically.

So it has gone from open access, anyone can sign up to attend to it would be the kind

of thing you have to be press or like a wholesale buyer, some kind of celebrity to attend.

So although I have put 100, we realistically do not know 100 people of that calibre, I

I would say something like 60 to 80 is more realistic,

but again, I'd much rather overestimate

so that we can be realistic

when we're having these conversations.

Therefore, I have reclassified the event

as a private and invitation only.

It is not open to the public.

We've also appointed, this is on the thing,

appointed two SIA accredited security to manage access,

prevent pavement obstruction and enforce the 18 plus policy,

which to your point, PC, Kieran, would be,

let me get to this.

The ID structure would be strictly 18 plus,

challenge 25, only allowing valid ID

should obviously be passable to the driving licence,

and then there would be a log of any refusals as well.

We've also implemented a full noise and dispersal management plan.

Again, although I've stated the event is to go until 11, this is for me and my piece of mind.

I don't want people in the shop until 11.

We kick them out at 10 o 'clock and that gives us an hour to get rid of people.

That's how I've been doing it.

If that's incorrect and it should be 10 o 'clock finished, then that's fine as long

as we get the time to clear people out of the road.

not on the street, there shouldn't be any people on the road.

I've also completed a risk and fire safety assessment,

which is in that email.

We do always inform neighbouring residents,

we generally do like handwritten letters,

because I think that's quite nice, that have my contact email and number on them.

And then obviously there are senior SCRT team on site throughout the event,

should anyone have a complaint.

I guess the main points that I want to raise

are the change from a public launch event

to invitation only, that the event stands to finish

at 10 and ever run out by 10 .30, not 11.

The change in capacity and making that clear again to you

that it is guest list only.

You have one minute remaining.

One minute remaining, okay, I think I'm almost done.

But I have lost my place, I'm sorry.

Oh, the last thing was about the level of noise.

So I always personally limit that on any DJ equipment

that we rent, that's me doing that.

I'm very happy to have a set decibel limit set

or to not rent DJ equipment if that is contingent

on this event happening.

We are an independent London based business, we have a strong record of collaboration and

compliance, I fully respect the licencing objectives and hope that we can demonstrate

this private small scale event will not contribute to the cumulative impact area.

That's pretty much everything.

Thank you very much.

I will turn the microphone over to Jonathan.

Just a few issues that have come up out of what Mr Kirk is saying.

It's probably useful to clarify at the start.

If the event is now going to be private, is it invitation only?

In further

direction please.

further prone direction please.

ThisYeah, sorry, the

first question was invitation

only Scot

specified that, no

charge could be made to

enter because

that would make the giving

away of

the alcohol illegal? Well potentially yes because that might make it a sale. Sorry if

you can turn your mic off. I suppose one thing to bear in mind obviously I don't know if

it's you appreciate that what the committee can't do is change the temporary event notice

in any event. They have to consider what is before it. I don't know if you appreciate

I was hoping it wouldn't be the case. I'm trying to change it as best I can. If that

means that I need to submit a late 10, I'm happy to do that.

That would obviously be a matter for you in any event. I couldn't give you advice to do

that, but obviously I'm sure you appreciate the risks of the late 10. The only other thing

that does strike me there is bearing in mind alcohol is not being sold and the only application

Is for regulated entertainment if this is a private event for which no charges being made

It's not regulated entertainment within the meaning of the act and therefore doesn't require a set

and that's what it sounds like this going on if I can I'll have to do the

Legal

Bit but the provision of regulated entertainment

Entertainment means is provided for to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public if that's going to be invitation

Only to a very selected

clientele then it's arguably not

members of the public if people are going to be if people can't get in just on the door or

Anyone can apply for a ticket

exclusive members of the club which isn't the case it or in any case that doesn't fall within paragraph a or B for

consideration with a view to profit which again requires that money changes hands to get in and

Of course a view to profit means that the intention must be to make again at the end of it, which you just heard

Is not the case. I think it's obviously optimistic

Go, I mean the committee comes you make its decision in any event

But it does sound to me and you possibly depending what the outcome is in any event have to go and get your own

Legal advice, but it doesn't sound like this is in fact covered by the 10 based on what?

just come out of the question.

I don't know if Nick or BC Wells want to make any observations on that.

Dave, if you want to make any observations on the points Jonathan just made.

I would tend to agree with Jonathan in the context that if the music is incidental

and not the primary reason, obviously we still have concerns around the fact that

you've got a DJ by all accounts

and you're having a DJ set with alcohol.

So there's an argument you made

as to why people are turning up.

But obviously if it's not by invitation,

sorry, rather if it is by invitation only

and not open to the public,

as long as the music is incidental,

then yeah, I would tend to agree with Jonathan.

Point I would just come back on, sorry, Jay,

is that it doesn't matter

whether the music is incidental or not

because incidental music isn't licenseable anyway.

It's the whole point is that if it's not regulated entertainment

because it's effectively a private party, then it doesn't matter.

I mean, obviously, that doesn't mean that it's not subject

to any other controls under, for example,

the Environmental Protection Act

if a statutory nuisance arises.

There aren't other ways that, you know,

crowd control can be mitigated.

But what we are concerned with purely

and simply is whether this is in fact a 10.

Nicola, I don't appreciate you responding.

I mean, you said you might potentially not have a DJ anyway earlier.

Is this going to be background music?

Can we just remember to the mics?

I know it's annoying, but there's somebody online joining, so they can only hear you if you use the mics.

Well, I mean, if it's just going to be just a background music just to get an atmosphere

anyway, that's not licensable.

And if that's what they're going to do anyway, I don't have an issue with that.

One issue is just that the numbers of people outside because, and as John said, the Environmental

protection act for witness a statue nuisance from a residence property we can we can take action

for that but i mean if it's just going to be background i wouldn't have any um concerns with

that it's just 100 people um spend it potentially spilling out onto the street at any one time

i think it'd be after um be limiting the numbers outside but um thank you very much

Can I now clarify, Mr Kirk, what would you like to do? By the sounds of it, this isn't a licenceable...

It doesn't sound like it is a licenceable...

Given the changes that you've made, so you've made it by invite only and up to 100 people,

and it sounds like the DJ is going to be more background noise than it is, it's going to be a full DJ set.

and alcohol is free, so can you just clarify what you want to do with that?

My understanding is if we wanted to proceed with the 10, you wouldn't be able to accept

what likely you are unable to accept as it stands, couldn't change it here anyway, so

we would most likely just be proceeding with it being a private party.

Yes, so essentially you are moving to a private party, given the condition that you've told

It would be a private party rather than something that needs a temporary licence.

Okay, so obviously if you want to, you can just simply withdraw the application for 10,

or technically withdraw the 10, it's not an application, always make that mistake.

Yeah, okay, I think that sounds like the best way to proceed then.

Well, thank you for coming in.

Nice to meet him, but that's it.

Thank you, if I can get members to please agree the following applications for extension.

Milano's Express and Pizza and Peri Peri 479 Cambridge Heath Road London E29BU and we've

We've also got the Adult Gaming Centre 403 Bethnal Green Road, London E208F and we'd like to extend it to January 2026.

Thank you very much. That concludes the subcommittees tonight. Thank you very much everybody. Have a lovely evening.

you

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Licensing Sub Committee - Tuesday 4 November 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Licensing Sub CommitteeTuesday, 4th November 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Licensing Sub Committee
Tuesday, 4th November 2025 at 6:30pm