Licensing Sub Committee - Tuesday 10 March 2026, 2:00pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Licensing Sub Committee
Tuesday, 10th March 2026 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Okay, I think no one can hear me. Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to this meeting of the
Licencing Subcommittee, London Borough of Town Hamlets, held today, Tuesday, the 10th
of March, 2026. I'm Councillor Peter Gold and I chair both the Licencing Committee and
for the purposes of today's events, I'm chairing this subcommittee. The meeting is being held
in person and committee members and key participants at present at the meeting room.
There may be some participants making representation joining out online.
The meeting is filmed for the Council's website for public viewing,
so there is no need for anybody to attempt to record any of it on a mobile phone.
I ask those contributing only to speak at my direction.
We try and keep this as collegiate as possible. We're not either at a council meeting or in the House of Commons.
So shouting across everybody is not appreciated. I do like if you wish to make a contribution, wave your hand and see me or I will notice it.
Note it and we will call you when appropriate. The other issue with the microphones because it is being broadcast.
When signal, could you switch your microphone on and it will flash red?
When you've concluded, could you switch it off?
Because if you try and speak against somebody, it doesn't work.
And if it's not switched on, for the purposes of viewing, all people will see will be a mouth going like that and no sound coming out of it.
I'd now like to invite members and officers to introduce themselves, starting up my right with Mr. Alley.
Motion any licence and sanction semi -asmian democratic services children mental legal services
Cut to the Farooq Ahmed
After the council at Baudrilli Chaudry Bromley Southwater, thank you
we now move to the formal part of our agenda and
some of you will be no doubt looking online and some of you will have the paper copy and
and we move to apologies for absence. The quorum of this meeting is three members and if we didn't have the three members we wouldn't be here so we have no apologies for absence.
I must ask under item one, do any members have any decorations of disclosable pecuniary interest? I have none.
Chair I have none as well.
No chair, thank you.
No declarations of interest are required. May I now invite everybody to note the rules of procedure which are on pages 9 to 18 of the bundle before you.
I've given some indication of what we want to do and I do try and keep these meetings as both partly formal and partly informal as possible to make sure that everybody has their right.
I'm a great believer in natural justice and I do try and give everybody the right of hearing but they must conduct themselves in a fair and reasonable fashion.
We now come to item 3 .1 on our agenda which is report for consideration.
which is the application for a new premises licence for urban shokolatia, 9 Davinant Street, London, E1 5MB, which is on pages 19 to 74 of our bundle.
May I ask everybody when you're contributing, if you're referring to a specific page or something, please identify the page because members,
because it makes it difficult for members to flick through a couple of hundred pages of work
and may miss something you wish to say, you are pointing out to us.
Could I invite Ms. Jesmin to announce those who are formally in attendance with regard to this application.
Thank you, Chair. For this application we have on behalf of the applicant,
we have Mr. David Dadds and Mr. Ali Sadak and Poppy Sharp representing the applicants.
As for the objectives, we have Ms Corinne Holland representing Licencing Authority,
Jael Sherlock representing Environmental Health, and Mr Morad Lashmalvi was supposed to be
joining online but hasn't done so yet.
Hopefully, if he does join, he has registered to speak.
After the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and
will be getting a total of five minutes to make their representation.
The objectives will also receive five minutes each to make their representation.
I'll let you speak now when you have one minute remaining.
Please note that the subcommittee have read the agenda pack in advance. Thank you.
Thank you for the formalities. May I now invite Mr Ali, who is the principal licencing officer, to introduce the report to everybody. Mr Ali.
Thank you, Chair. As you have said, this application is for the urban chocolatier 9 Davinan Street, under E15NB.
The application is seeking late night refreshment and it's in front of you
because you've got representations from environmental protection,
the licencing authority and the local resident.
Going through the report, Appendix 1, which is on pages 26 to 37,
you see a copy of the new application.
3 .3 shows you the times that have been applied for.
Just a little correction on the times.
It says Monday to Wednesday until 1 .30 the following day.
It should say Monday to Thursday.
And then also it should say Friday to Saturday,
so Thursday to Sunday until 2 .30.
And same for the opening hours for the days.
And also, the Times for Ramadan, non -standard times, have been missed out.
So, it should also say until 2 .30 during Ramadan.
A copy of the existing licence is in Appendix 2, which is pages 39 to 46.
The times that the existing licence has is shown in 3 .4 of the report.
Appendix 3 on pages 48 to 49 shows you the photographs.
Appendix 4, page 51, shows you the site plan.
And on Appendix 5 shows you the maps, which is pages 53 to 54.
Appendix 6, which is page 56, shows you there's one other licenced venue in the immediate vicinity.
Appendix 8, just page 61 to 66, shows you the representation of the licencing authority.
The representation of the environmental protection is in Appendix 7, pages 58 to 59.
And the resident representation is in Appendix 9, pages 68 to 69.
5 .2 of the report shows you a brief summary of the issues that are raised in the representation.
And the conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police is in Appendix 10, which is pages 71 -73.
That's the summary of the report.
Members, any further questions? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Ali. I have no questions. Do colleagues have any questions?
No, I don't.
Australian Government, there are no questions to you on the presentation of the report.
May I now invite the applicant to make their representation.
And on behalf of the applicant we welcome today Mr David Dadds.
Yes, good afternoon chair and councillors.
This is the first time actually I've been in the new chamber, although I must say the acoustics is terrible.
So I can just barely hear, but I'm pleased to be here.
This is a fairly straightforward application, I hope you will see.
I'll make some observations if I may.
Firstly the police have not raised the objection based on the conditions set out on page 71 through to 73.
As you know the statutory guidance of 2 .1 says that the police should be the main source of bias on crime disorder.
They raise no objection.
you'll be aware Mr. Melner will be aware with a down -worth weight case that says
that even if they're not here you should take into account that they have reached
an agreement and they are the main source of advice. So in relation to the
licencing authority obviously I know they're not the police and they're the
guardian as it were of the licencing policy. Licencing policy has exemptions
or exceptions for incumitive impact areas including small premises, premises
that are alcohol -led and where that in effect you take into account the
current licence or process. I will say this that in the council's representation
and in the report it sets out a rebuttable assumption but you will be
you'll note that the new statutory guidance issues that there is no longer
a statutory presumption to refuse because it's only now a strong intent.
And I'd ask you that there seems to be a conflict between your policy and the statutory guidance.
Policy you have to have regard to, statutory guidance you have to have regard to,
but if you don't follow statutory guidance you have to give reasons why not.
So there's no longer a statutory duty for presumption for me to argue that point.
Of course, simply put, what I have to do is to demonstrate that we promote the licencing objectives.
Those who object have to show on the burden of balance of probability more likely than not,
that we will undermine the licencing objectives.
So that puts quite a burden on the licencing authority and the environmental health.
What I was saying in relation to that, the statutory guidance at 9 .12 sets out that the objectors, even the responsible authorities,
is the burden on them to show their evidence and that their evidence must withstand scrutiny at a licencing subcommittee.
They can't just hide behind the policy itself.
But as I say there are exemptions in any event.
The licencing authority has not produced any evidence of any matters of concern
during the currency of the current licence.
The premises has been there nearly 13 years without cause of complaint or concern.
And there's no evidence from the licencing authority about any concerns or any matters arising.
Obviously it's not for the committee to find regulatory blame, innocence or guilt.
there's a suggestion there might have been a breach, that's not relevant for here
and we say in any event there's no breach, we sell ice cream and cold foods
and we can do that without a licence.
Environmental health has not provided any complaints or history of complaints or any evidence of complaints
and I remind the committee again at 9 .12 the onus and burden is on them not on us.
So they have to demonstrate and if they can't then the licence must be granted.
Your note that I did the case and I think Mr Melnick was on the other side at Ashu vs Lambeth
where I was successful in so far as establishing the principle that licencing act is about permissive scheme.
So in other words the licence should be granted unless the responsible authorities can show that we are going to undermine.
The burden is not on us.
If it wasn't for their representations then the licence would and must be granted.
In relation to the resident there is one resident and I say that it's not borne out by any evidence and also we have been trading without any cause or concern.
In relation to our operation we are selling cold food, the only hot food are waffles and some hot sauce.
and I don't think that the council should be getting itself into a fuss about that.
We can and will be open in any event to that time.
Under the new statutory guidance at 1 .18, you're taking into account the economic benefit that produces from us selling the hot sauce after 11 o 'clock.
And we ask you to take into account all the statutory guidance and the licence and the application with the agreed conditions with the police.
we ask the licence be granted.
Thank you very much Mr Dabs.
I now invite the objectors, starting with Corinne Holland.
Thank you Chair.
This application is, although a new application is to extend their hours by two hours each day,
and an additional hour during Ramadan on Monday to Thursday.
It does fall within our Commutative Impact area, the newly extended Brick Lane CIZ.
The premises has been established for a number of years and I do agree that there has been no complaints regarding this premises under its current hours.
However, the premises is on a quiet street, and obviously I think the resident is here now.
It's not on a busy road, it's on a quiet residential street,
and therefore an additional two hours is likely to cause noise disturbance to residents and customers as they leave.
There's very little parking in that street as well.
I mean, Friday and Saturday would be operating till 2 .30 in the morning if these hours were granted.
The licencing authority does recognise that there is not an application for a sale of alcohol,
but it could attract people that have been drinking late at night to go somewhere after they've been drinking.
and it's recognised that customers who have been drinking are louder and generally talking,
laughing, shouting, even if they're not being particularly disorderly.
These premises came to our attention on Saturday 25th October last year,
when enforcement officers were in the vicinity of the premises for an unrelated matter
from quarter to one to ten past one in the morning
and noticed that there was delivery drivers outside waiting for collections.
They made an inquiry to us as to what hours they could operate
and it did appear that this was later than the hours
that they had currently on their licence.
So they were written to to point this out
and the letter that was sent is on page 66 of the report.
I mean the Licencing Authority does appreciate that cold food is not licensable
and can be served at this time, but many of the items on the menu
do involve being cooked. Waffles, cookie doughs, hot sauces and things like that.
so it was unlikely that they would be open until 1 in the morning
and not selling hot food.
And obviously that prompted this application.
The website did show at the time 1am each day
and checking today it still shows those times.
Although obviously at the moment they would be operating under the Ramadan
non -standard hours, those hours which are currently granted
is till 1 .30 in the morning.
it does look like that they haven't updated their website from that being pointed out.
It far exceeds the Council's framework hours
and doesn't therefore fall into the CIZ exemption policy.
The onus is on the applicant to show their exceptional circumstances
as to why the licence should be granted.
And if the applicant is unable to do this, then the application should be rejected. Thank you chair
Chair to oppose
Thank You Corinne I now I now move to mr. Sherlock
There's a technical issue that my microphone keeps them coming on. So I'm just raising it. It keeps them coming on red
I hadn't noticed it.
It's definitely off now.
Mr. Sherlock.
Thank you, Chet.
Upon considering the new premises licence application,
so the environmental health particularly considered
the potential of the impact on the public nuisance
of the proposed new premises licence,
And then also we want to bring the consideration to that this the fact that the premises is
within the brick lane cognitive impact zone, and the proposed hours are well beyond the
council's framework hours.
Sorry, so this is on the appendix seven of the bundle page 56 to 59.
So, then, so the extended hour has been applied two hours longer than the existing licence
hours on Monday to Thursday, and till 1 .30am, and it's also an extension of two hours on
existing licence from Monday to Saturday till 2 .30am and on Sunday.
Previously there is no licenced hours on Sundays but this application has
applied till 2 .30am and non -standard timing has been applied during the
until 2 .30 a .m. And so there's attached appendix showing the noise sensitive premises
around this application site which are listed in appendix.
And in my view, the application as it stands fails to comply with the objective
of the Licencing Act 2003 relating to public nuisance.
for the following reasons.
So the noise, the first one is the noise breakout
from the venue affecting neighbouring residents.
The second one is access and egress
to and from the venue of patrons,
especially due to patrons likely to be in high spirit
and the hours of operation.
So my conclusion is that the environmental protection
does not support the application
for the urban chocolatier as first there is great likelihood of disturbance to the residential
premises at the noise sensitive hours and also the second one is the premises is in
the brick lane communicative impact zone. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. You seem to be operating. Everything is going, isn't it, Sir?
I want to make sure that the residents okay can you hear can you hear us mr.
last movie hello can you hear us hello hello you can hear us thank you would
you like to switch your camera on and we can sit here and see you.
Lovely. Very good to see you. And how long do you want? You have five minutes to address
us.
Yeah, well basically, you know, I just wanted to say the same that they already shared with
you. In regards of the past, we never had complaints because usually, you know, when
the business closed, you can say that it's normal hours, but now if that is going to
be an extension, I just wanted to mention that this is a residential street and most
of the people are working, so we have to wake up early, so that's basically the reason
and that was basically my complaint about, so having late hours, the noises, especially
with the people because at the end of it is just the people that are coming in and coming
out from the business so they talk loud. Sometimes there are cars coming parking with loud music
as well. So it's just about the noise and disturbance to the people.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for being so brief.
You're welcome.
I'd like to start with the applicant. You are requesting a fairly substantial opening hours, two hours each day on to what you've got.
could you explain to us why that should be in view of our policy, of the existing policy of the CIA?
And how you feel that that would deal with it?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Well, I don't see it as something which is substantial and something that you should be concerned for
in the same way as that we say that this application for late night refreshment
in essence is to an ice cream parlour wanting to warm up, not cook, warm up waffles
and serve hot sauce. We are already open. We will be open and we are opening.
The licence is for the hot sauce and the warm waffles and we don't cause any problem.
If Tower Hamlets council the police, feel that they're not the police, that the Environment Health believe that this is somehow going to cause people in high spirits,
where's there evidence that the sugar will cause high spirits?
Where's there evidence that there's going to be mayhem because people have had a hot pothole?
I mean I'm not being a flippant, Jay, but the basis, the evidence should actually also be on them, not on us.
I know there's a cumulative impact policy, but the first overriding principle for you and us is to show that this application will not undermine the licencing objectives.
And you've heard from the resident, no complaints.
You've heard from licencing, no complaints.
You've heard from Environment Health, no complaints.
We've been operating hours late, later than this licence, because we've been selling cold food.
ice cream, milkshakes and waffles.
Obviously we have to stop the waffles at one o 'clock
because they're above ambient temperature.
As long as we keep them below ambient temperature in the summer
we can potentially open, but in the winter we can't.
So I mean the point is, is that I don't want any confusion.
So it's really about waffles and a bit of hot sauce.
We've had no complaints.
That's why we say small premises, not our coal lead, we're not causing any complaints.
We can operate and have been operating through Ramadan and outside of the licence hours,
selling coal food without any complaints.
That's why I say that it should be granted because there's no evidence that the licencing objectives will be undermined.
We've been trading there for 13 years.
I make two other points on guidance, statutory guidance.
You will be aware there has been some change in the statutory guidance.
I don't know if there has been a refresh of your training since that has happened.
But there are two main key points.
1 .1 at 8 of the statutory guidance and 1 .19 talks about the economic benefit and growth should be now a consideration for you.
So obviously we do want to keep people employed.
we want to make sure that we can have a full service
so if someone wants to come in and have a waffle they can
if they want a bit of hot sauce on their ice cream they can
and we think that the council should not be standing in the way
of people having their waffles and their hot sauce.
In addition to that there is also paragraph 14 .40
which says now that the position of rebuttable presumption has gone.
The statutory guidance makes it very clear that there's a strong intent that the applicant understands what's going on,
and the council understands, but your policy is there, but it's in conflict now with the statutory guidance,
and you know you have to have regard to both.
But if you deviate from the Section 182 guidance, you have to put reasons down why.
But in any event, I think the very basics of this whole exercise is,
does this premises undermine the licencing objectives by serving hot food,
and potentially a hot cup of tea or hot chocolate, later in the morning?
And we say no, we don't. And the police on crime disorder do not object.
And I remind all Councillors, I don't need to remind you Councillor Gold,
because you'll be aware because you were here.
When we had that transition from the 1964 Act
and the London Acts of hot food and cafes,
it went to the Licencing Act, it all merged everything together.
The main reason why there was a requirement for late night refreshment
was because of burger, pizza, chicken chops,
it wasn't because of hot sauce and hot waffles really.
I mean the main focus is to control restaurants,
takeaways, that type of stuff. Here I don't think it was ever Parliament's intention
to try to control hot waffles and hot sauce in ice cream bars. But in any event, we are
here, we have to make an application, the police don't object, and I'm hoping with
the evidence of our trading history, without any complaint, that you will say, well, the
burden, there's no, on the balance of probability, there's no evidence that we were undermined.
And on that basis we must grant.
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, questions?
Councillor Fruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
This is to the applicant.
What is the sitting capacity of your premises for customers?
30 approximately. It's a low capacity premises.
Thank you very much. And the other question is, as it says on page 23 .1, sorry, not page 20, I beg your pardon, page 72.
Your waste collection is delivered, I mean, about the collection as well, between 8 and
6, 1800 hours in the evening. So what are the arrangements for weekends and how do you
dispose your waste over the weekend?
We manage it between those times and that we keep it secure in receptacles between the
and as you will appreciate between 11 and 5 o 'clock, so 11 p .m. and 5 a .m. is
the only time that we are regulated to sell hot waffles and hot sauce.
Typically during the day these conditions would be wouldn't normally
apply because obviously we don't need a licence for selling ice cream but in any
event we've agreed to those conditions so that's to be neighbourly and what we...
This is not about what you're selling or not.
It's just about the waste collection.
Thank you for that clarification.
Is that it, Councillor Ahmed?
Thank you very much.
Anything?
I think we appear to have run out of questions.
I mean, the pack is quite clear.
I think we, well, our job is to deliberate.
May I now invite the people who've been contributing
to close, and we begin with the objectives,
which I will give everybody, I'll give a minute very quickly
to get to, very quickly sum up what they've heard,
then I shall move over to the applicant.
Objectives first, please.
Thank you. This premise is in the CIZ. There could be a cumulative impact with any disorder
or noise, public nuisance with the hours that they are operating being at two hours additional
to what they currently have. This area was added to the CIZ in 2024 because it was felt
that there is a level of disorder in that area.
It doesn't fall into the exemption
because it's outside framework hours.
There is a likelihood that it could cause a disturbance
to residents for people for access and egress
and food deliveries in the evening.
I appreciate Mr Dads has made it,
trying to make it very abundantly clear
that it's ice cream and sauce,
But obviously many of their products on their menu, they do require a licence as they are hot after 11 o 'clock at night.
And that is the fact that a licence is needed.
And obviously they are unlikely to remain open selling cold food only if they don't get these hours, I shouldn't imagine.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. Mr. Sherlock.
Thank you, Chair. So I appreciate that in the late night refreshment application they
did mention that there will be no kebabs pizza, fried chicken or hot savoury food will be
permitted but I believe if they have been granted this licence there is no actual condition
at the moment as such to prevent them from selling any other type of hot food.
So unless the condition is added to this application.
So therefore we remain our objection.
Thank you chair.
Thank you very much Mr. Sherlock. I now invite Mr. Lasmilvy to sum up very quickly.
Mr. Lasmilvy, can you hear me? Can you hear me?
Yes.
Have you anything else you wish to say?
No, there is nothing I would like to say, that's all.
Thank you very much. I called you because I said right at the beginning I do believe in natural justice and you've asked to contribute, therefore I'm inviting you to contribute.
I now invite Mr Dads or anybody from the applicant.
Could I have two minutes to deal with some of the new points and closing please?
You wish.
Thank you. So there is a committee impact but notwithstanding that the main focus is
will this happen, will the premises operation undermine licencing objectives?
We say no and we've already been operating without complaints as I've already said.
The burden is on those raising objections, can it withstand the scrutiny at hearing 9 .12 which I've already set out.
We've already conditioned and said a condition that we won't sell hot food in the way described by Environment to Health.
So there is no doubt all we're doing is selling ice cream with hot sauce and hot waffles.
It might be the odd hot pancake warmed up.
And it is clear that the area is actually on the A road, there's the garage which is 24 hours just a few doors away.
there is a cut through from Brick Lane to the A road.
ISA, there's been no history of any complaints.
In relation to adding to the community impact and the plan,
obviously you will take into account,
police have not objected on grounds of crime disorder
and there's no evidence of public nuisance
of the previous trading.
And you've just heard from the resident
that has contributed, there's been no complaint
We've been there for 13 years.
We ask this application be granted.
It will not undermine the licencing objectives and take into account the guidance at 1 .18,
1 .19, 9 .12, 14 .40, 14 .41.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dads.
We now conclude our work on item 3 .1.
But at the end of the meeting we will retire to deliberate on both applications
I'll call Miss Yasmin to tell you the formalities of what will happen
Yeah, once the members reach decision at the end of day we'll take five working days to send you the decision and reasons for that
decision
Most grateful. I thank Councillors for your time
We now do the changeover for different people
So if applicants 3 .1 can depart and applicants 3 .2 can arrive.
I assume Mr. Taylor and Mr. Knight will be sitting there.
It's him.
Thank you very much.
On the objectors, I think on...
Could Helena Waggon identify herself?
I'm going to invite everybody to identify themselves so I know who I'm calling.
So Helena Waugham.
Is that on? Can you hear me?
I'm Helena Waugham.
And by process of elimination I assume the gentleman in the middle is Christopher Corwant.
That's rather good, isn't it?
I'd like to now invite Mr. Ali to introduce the report to us.
Thank you, Chair.
This application is Priscilla's Yard for Ravenscroft Street, London E27QG.
The applicant is Wellington Pub Company Limited.
The premises did have a previous licence which lapsed,
which you will see in the report.
However, this is a new operator.
That licence is Seakin, the server of alcohol.
The red tape now fresh mode.
You will also hear from the applicant
that regulated entertainment was withdrawn.
So you'll hear about that.
Going through the report,
3 .4 shows you the hours that have been applied for.
Appendix 1, pages 82 to 105 shows you the new application.
Just a point of clarification, sorry, correction in terms of the hours.
So Tuesday to Thursday the report says until 11 o 'clock,
it should say until 11 .30.
So that's just a point of correction there.
Appendix 2, pages 107 to 108 shows you the photographs in the vicinity.
Appendix 3, pages, page 110 shows you the site plan.
Appendix four, pages 112 to 113 shows you the map.
Appendix five, pages 115 to 117 shows you
the other licence venues in the immediate vicinity.
I've added some of the extra licences there
purely because a lot of the residents
made representations about those premises.
So I've made sure those premises were in there.
I'm sure somebody will make references to them.
Appendix six, 231 shows you the representation.
These are pages 119 to 203.
You'll also hear that there's been a supplemental evidence
provided by the applicant.
These were circulated by Democratic Services, too,
all the relevant parties.
And since then, Bobby Kirkland, on page...
on appendix 10, has withdrawn his representation.
However, the remaining representations still continue
as they still remain.
5 .2 shows you a brief summary of the representations which they cover.
And then conditions in relation to application are in Appendix 32, which is pages 205 to 208.
So these are conditions offered by the applicant, conditions agreed with the police and agreed with environmental protection.
That's the summary of the report.
If members have any further questions, thank you.
Mr. Taylor, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Chair. I sent through some written submissions late last week. I hope you'll
you found those useful, which will mean I can do everything that I need to do in five
minutes today, but there is just one error that I made in there, and irritatingly it's
in the first point that I make, because I say that we are the freeholder owner when
we're not, we're actually a long leaseholder, and we hold that lease from the council, or
as it was the aldermen and mayor when the lease was entered into.
So what you have seen, members, is that we are effectively a reluctant applicant here.
We own, we have a long lease holder, to all intents and purposes, we own the premises,
and we're applying for the licence because the licence lapsed.
Now, that's not our fault. The premises was the subject of a lease, the licence lapsed because the tenant became insolvent.
We tried to reinstate it, we didn't do so in time, and therefore our only recourse now to restore a licence to these premises is to ask for it back.
So I think the important backdrop to the application is that this licence wasn't lost due to any review proceedings, it wasn't lost due to any problems, it was lost due to an admin failure.
And that had we been aware in time, then we could have paid £23, filled in a form, and we wouldn't be here, the licence would still be in force.
So the application is effectively, please can we have the licence back, but not the licence that lapsed.
A licence with shorter hours, which are actually your framework hours, a licence with no regulated entertainment,
and with modern and enforceable conditions that we've agreed both with the police and environmental health.
So since the application was made, two significant things have happened.
We received a number of representations from local residents concerned about what had happened previously.
Most of those talk about noise escape, the fact that the premises caused an issue because of music and noise.
And the second thing that's happened is we've identified a tenant.
And so, following those, and I'll come to the tenant in a moment,
I talked to Wellington and said,
well, these premises have clearly been a problem in the past when they've had music.
And Wellington have said to me, well, the proposed operation of the premises doesn't require music,
remove it from the application.
Listen to the residents, the residents have concerns about it,
so let's just pull it entirely from the application.
I'm only now applying for alcohol sales and late night refreshments
and I'm not applying in a cumulative impact area.
So when I made the submissions I wasn't aware whether or not I could name the proposed tenant I can.
So the proposed tenant is Campania, who operate on Ezra Street at the moment.
Campania would like a second restaurant in the area.
Local operators started in Commercial Road in 2008, now it's 23 Ezra Street.
You may know the premises as a committee, but very well regarded, described in the Guardian as enchanting,
described in Conde Nast as one of the Italian restaurants in London to visit.
So that's what suggested Campania would like a larger premise.
You've seen that they want to instal a wood burning pizza oven for pizzas, bread making, dedicated grills for meats, handmade pastas.
I put into my written submission their pitch, if you like, their business plan.
They want this to be a relaxed neighbourhood bar restaurant run by locals for locals.
I'll ask you at the end, I suppose, when I sum this up. Is there any real likelihood of this causing anti -social behaviour?
Crime, noise, nuisance? Well, not from music, because there is no regulated entertainment.
So just turning to the representations, to put them into context, what I would say is, and I've already said it once,
the licence wasn't reviewed, it wasn't revoked, it wasn't lost due to anything other than an admin failure,
but for £23 this would never be necessary.
None of the responsible authorities object.
Now I'm not going to go down Mr Dads's line,
but the long and short of it is that the experts in issues of noise and nuisance
do not object to the application.
It didn't actually when it had regulated entertainment, but we got rid of that.
The police don't foresee any issues with us breathing life into these premises either.
The local residents do object and that's perfectly understandable given their history of what's happened before.
But the representations are about a lively pub, about noise, about nuisance, about pub use.
That's just not what is suggested here now.
And I'll save everything else, members of the committee, to my summing up at the end.
But the application is effectively, please can we have the licence back, please can we breathe life back into this premise,
which nobody wants a decaying eyesore on the premise.
We all want something successful that's a benefit to the community in which it sits,
and not a burden upon it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr Taylor.
I now move on to the objectors.
For your help, within our bundle we've got copies of a large number of letters.
Just for one piece of information, I'm going to mention the licencing law, a number of letters say that this application can affect property prices.
Please do not refer to that because it is not a licencing matter and we have to reject it out of hand.
So it eats into the time you have by talking of property prices.
As I say, a number of these letters do say it's headed declining property values and we cannot consider this.
So there's plenty of other things you can talk about if you so wish.
You see how we conduct meetings, we try to inform you as possible.
I understand most of you have probably never been to a council meeting before,
let alone sat in the council, but our job is to welcome you here and do what we can to assist you.
So I'd like to invite Helene Koworgen first.
I'm Helene Kowalgan, thank you very much for inviting me to speak.
And you know, I mean, I, okay, so I live in James Bryan House,
I'm in the actual building where the premises that we're discussing is connected to.
I share a wall with it, I share a floor with it, and yes, as the previous speakers said,
I am here substantially because I'm terrified of it returning to what it was.
You'll note from the letter I sent and various attachments with that,
that we were constantly, myself and neighbours,
were constantly calling the out of hours noise service.
I in fact had some equipment installed,
they installed it, the noise people, to measure noise,
which they did and the premises were put on notice.
I want to just refer to something that's in the supplemental agenda.
And it's something that a term they use, community, right at the end,
it's, I don't know what page it's on, but it's number 19,
and it's quoting the actual applicant, saying that, it's a last paragraph,
as a family that's lived in Columbia Road for over 20 years, our intention is to create a venue that is very much part of the neighbourhood.
I want it, neighbourhood.
Creating a restaurant wine bar that feels rooted in the community rather than designed solely for social media appeal.
The immediate community is the building in which it's part of and there's eight dwellings there.
One of them belongs to the premises. So you have seven dwellings.
Of those seven dwellings, five are Bangladeshi Muslims.
What's that? 80 % of the community in the very building this exists.
I question whether a wine bar enhances that community.
Not a planning matter.
What's that?
That's not a licencing matter.
Okay, that's not a licencing matter. That is my concern.
My concern is about the hours.
I'm trying to, I am pulling everything I can to make this a quiet place.
I'm not happy with it, it's boarded up, nobody wants it boarded up.
I'd love to see a successful business there, but I do question whether a wine bar that's open till 11 .30pm and beyond over two other days is going to work for this community.
and I'm in that community, I'm living there. That's my objection. Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you very much. For the purpose of colleagues, the objector's contribution is page 169 of our bundle, which I've identified and locked here.
Could I now invite Aiba Satio to address the meeting?
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Aiwak.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Chair and members of the committee.
I'm a local resident and my concerns relate to the licencing objectives of preventing
public nuisance and protecting children from harm.
So this is a very dense residential neighbourhood with many families and young children living
immediately around the premises.
Since the previous licence was granted, the residential environment has changed further.
Most notably, the new residential building of Baroness Road was built, adding 20 families
to their year, which will be affected.
One issue I would like to draw attention to is the sleep disturbance affecting children.
According to NHS guidance, school -aged children typically require
between 8 to 11 hours of sleep per night.
Many children in this area start their day around 6 .30 or 7 am.
That means they require undisturbed sleep, ideally from around 8 .30 pm.
And this includes weekends because it's important for children to keep routines.
The current proposed hours is exceeding this ideal time frame,
including the outside management conditions.
So the disturbance residents previously experienced was not just noise from the music inside,
or inside the premise in general, but its patrons dispersing and lingering outside late at night,
talking, waiting for taxis, socialising, Uber coming to pick them up.
Because of the tall residential buildings surrounding Ravenscroft Street,
sound refracts, unprovides and carries between buildings,
often described as an urban canyon effect.
And even normal conversations can travel so far late at night,
meaning even the small group conversation outside
can wake nearby residents and disturb children's sleep.
I think this acoustic is actually quite similar to what we experience at night.
And I would also like to ask the Committee to consider the tighter management of the outdoor space.
The outdoor space usage is not specified or clarified in the application,
but during the previous operations, the driveway area was filled with tables and benches.
I don't know if it was granted operation, but it was, and that allowed larger groups to gather outside.
And when furniture was left outside overnight, the space sometimes, or actually often, became a gathering point
for people hanging about, or like people who are conducting anti -social behaviours, mostly drug dealers and drug users.
Residents laced concerns mostly with the previous operations of previous owners on multiple occasions.
It is also worth noting that in recent years, the premise mainly operated as a daytime cafe,
rather than a restaurant or public house, so residents experienced much, much fewer disturbances during this time.
And I understand that no responsible authorities have objected, but we, residents, provide
direct experience of how activities there affect the neighbourhood and the people of
the day -to -day life.
I want to emphasise that many of us are not opposed to a reasonable business operating
at this site.
We would welcome a well -managed neighbourhood entrepreneur that operates responsibly with
community. However, once a licence is granted, it can be very difficult for us to challenge
later. So we'd like to ask the committee to consider clear and tighter conditions from
the outset. So given the concerns I mentioned, I think it is appropriate to consider shorter
hours and stronger conditions around patron disposal and the use of external areas. I'd
I'd like to mention that there are successful restaurants such as Roretta's, Riton Brown,
that close at 10pm and do not operate outdoor seating.
So that is possible to close earlier and be successful.
The venue has been described as a neighbourhood restaurant,
wine bar, rooted in a local community.
So if that is the intention, I believe that applicants would be happy to work with us
and be a truly community -rooted venue that is loved by the neighbours. Thank you.
Thank you very much. For members, the mountain checkers contribution begins at page 124 of the preliminary bundle.
I now move to Christopher Colwin.
Thank you. I live opposite the premises under discussion at Silas Yard.
I live at Blackbird Yard and have lived there for 30 years.
It's true that there were many complaints about the building previously,
when it was a pub and the licence.
The building seems to have very poor insulation.
It was built some 70 years ago now and doesn't seem fit for purpose for in terms of sound insulation
one of the reasons why noise was such a leakage in the past was that
There was little or no or I don't think there was any effective air conditioning and where people were in the pub itself
They opened the front doors. So there was a noise leakage from the front doors as well as I think, you know sounds
party walls, but also coming across the road from the noise, from the consumers in the pub previously.
So my concern is certainly about noise pollution, continuing noise pollution, but also social disturbance.
So I don't think the building is very well insulated in terms of sound, and that's a concern.
It's a concern for my family and for my young daughter who also requires a good night's sleep, especially as she has special needs.
There is a proposal to have a pizza oven and I wonder whether the designs for that has been put forward or outlined.
presumably it will require some outlet, so concerning about smoke, about smell,
spreading around the area for a pizza oven, I think that needs to be looked at,
before that can be approved.
Talking about the outside area now and the immediate area around it,
firstly it's at the confluence of several roads.
This is a residential area with families,
and it's a very narrow two -way road Ravenscroft Street that then meets Ezra Street too
which is directly opposite the premises of Silas Yard.
So we're concerned about the amount of traffic, this is an illivable streets area
and we're concerned about the amount of traffic that this is going to attract,
turning taxis to people turning around, people standing outside possibly,
talking, smoking, people who are packing up the business
who then carry on talking, the chefs and so on,
as is often the case with restaurants.
So we're very concerned that the hours
that are being proposed at the moment
are far in excess for a residential area.
As mentioned, 10 o 'clock perhaps seems very reasonable
with a packing up by 10 .30,
getting the consumers out by 10 .30.
That might be appropriate, but on a Friday and Saturday,
And so that seems totally out of keeping with the fact that this is a family residential and quiet area
The nation of community has been mentioned before but just why we need a new restaurant is not quite clear to me
But anyway, there's a there's a pub heart in the Nelson, which is 50 yards away
There's a restaurant at the end of Columbia of Ravenscroft Street already Braun
You only have to walk another 50 yards to see the new pizza restaurant,
an Italian restaurant that's opened up at the end of Ezra Street.
150 yards you go to the Royal Oak and so on.
There are about 20 venues that have now come into this area in the last sort of like 10 years,
while I've been living here for over 30 years.
And whether these restaurants are really catering for a sense of community,
or building a sense of community really doesn't seem to it seems to be for white
affable affluent class of people and not taking into account the sense of
community if this premises has to go ahead if it has to go ahead then I hope
that we're going to have a better relationship than we have done
previously with the businesses and that especially that these opening hours are
kept within a reasonable amount, to be sensitive to the people who live here now.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. I'd like to commence the questioning to Mr Taylor.
And the thing immediately is that we've heard repeatedly this afternoon from concerns
concerns of the way that previous occupants of the premises conducted their business and
how that impacted upon people particularly with relationship to noise etc etc. Perhaps
you could fairly quickly identify how what is before us this afternoon will be very different
to what has gone on before.
Well as I understand it, the premises was operated as a music venue.
What we've done is removed regulated entertainment from the licence of activities requested.
So there will be no regulated entertainment and therefore it is impossible really for
those problems to recur.
What I would also say, and I've just received instructions on this,
is that the premises will be air conditioned,
and therefore there will be no need for doors, windows, whatever to be propped open.
We've agreed conditions with environmental health,
that doors, windows are not propped open.
We've agreed conditions are a curfew of any drinking outside.
We're doing everything we can here to try and meet the residents not even halfway.
I mean the concerns are about noise and nuisance.
We got rid of entertainment.
What we want is the ability to trade or for our tenant to trade a viable business.
And the hours that we're seeking to do that are your framework hours.
We've pulled those back from the licence that lapsed.
The original instruction was replicate exactly what existed.
Well, exactly what existed had later hours than we're asking for now.
It had regulated entertainment and it had almost unenforceable conditions.
What we've done is we've pulled the hours back, we've got rid of the regulated entertainment,
we've agreed conditions with the responsible authorities, none of whom object.
Could I direct a question to the objectors and again the premises themselves have historically
been licenced premises, I can't escape from that. It is fairly clear from what you have
said and from what I've read in the bundle before me that the previous people who conducted
business there did not, it was not conducive to what people expected. It would be very
difficult to waver wand and say this building is no longer licenced premises, it is licenced
premises and it is therefore we've got to look at it. You've heard what the applicant
there is no question of there being music, they have taken the regulated entertainment
from within the application and they're also seeking a licence for within what are known
as the framework hours, which are basically the minimum of it, they're not going above
the framework hours. What are your observations on that?
I feel the same as my co -objectors, that it would be good to see it close at 10, no later
than 10, because our experience has been that whatever time the premises shuts, you've basically
got about an hour before everybody has left from the outside. If it shuts at 10, we're
going to have noise until 11. That has been our experience.
And I remember that was the experience I had. I was living there prior, when it was the Raven's Croft.
I was there for a couple of years before Clutch took over.
And they did have one night where it was very noisy at night, but they did shut at 10.
And so the disturbance finished by 11. So I'd be very happy for it to shut at 10 rather than any later.
because we will have noise for another hour after.
100 percent.
That's the experience we've got there.
I second that.
Absolutely.
And what was the traffic and so on and other things
and people shutting up the whole place.
It's going to go on until quite a lot after even 10 o 'clock
which is not appropriate for a family with young children.
I'm just... I second what my colleague has just said and I think that 10 o 'clock is an appropriate time for closing
and it particularly suits the fact that it is a family led area where we have children and all of the other packing up that will have to go on.
I want to clarify also and ensure that there isn't going to be eating or drinking or smoking outside the building.
During any of those hours.
And even during the packing up time.
Mr. Melnick, do you want to do that?
Thank you, just switch off please.
Can I just add that the previous premise wasn't a music venue. It was a clutch, it was called
Clutch and then Silas Yard. The clutch was fried chicken restaurant, normal restaurant,
and Silas Yard was a café. And as I mentioned, the music directly hitting A. Helen Kors building,
but also I live opposite of the premise and for us the issue was the disposing noise
and people lingering after the closing hours.
And you can imagine that if you go to a nice restaurant and have a nice time,
you want to chat with your friend a little bit longer even though you're kicked out.
And that's why I like to see a better disposal management here.
And he said that I seem to remember that no more than nine people to be outside, but I
think nine people can cause quite a lot of noise.
So I like this a bit more smooth, dispersal, and perhaps like no queuing or no lingering
after 9pm outside.
Thank you.
And Mr. Melnick had a point on the opening hour.
Sorry, thank you, Jo.
I was just going to simply point out that the applicant had reached an agreement with the Environmental Health Service
that the outside areas will not be used after 9 o 'clock
except for the purposes of people going out to leave temporarily to smoke
and obviously it's open to the committee if they grant this application to add on any further conditions that they want quite often
it may well be that if they do that and it's not on they'll have to have another cheque that they can prohibit
for example, drinks being taken outside, which means that people aren't encouraged to hang around outside while they smoke, for example.
But I don't know, that may have happened after, so I don't know if you or the other residents are aware of those agreed conditions.
Maybe that you're not.
Sorry, just to help.
Mr Taylor, very quickly.
So just to help those conditions are in the agenda but at appendix 32, so everybody is
very understandable if
People have missed them. But yes, we agreed back in November with environmental health
curfew on the use of the outside area after nine o 'clock for
Consumption of alcohol, of course people needs to people are going to smoke somewhere
Colleagues questions from fellow councillors either of you come from it
Thank you chair. It's very tough actually about it's already a licence bar
actually. But there's a simple question to the applicant. If we were to grant the
licence would you compromise anything on the opening hours?
Well we need a licence within which a campania can operate. We know that the hours that are your framework hours that we've talked to them about, that are the subject of the application are acceptable to them and they feel that they can work within those hours.
it may well be that if a licence is granted for fewer hours they'll walk away.
We can't take this any further now until we've got a licence.
So I would be very reluctant, especially given the position of all of the experts.
You heard Mr Dadd say earlier that paragraph 912 of the Home Office guidance
says that all of the responsible authorities are to be considered experts in their particular
fields.
Well the evidence here is that environmental health do not object to the hours and they
are the experts in noise and nuisance.
The police do not object to the application and therefore the hours.
The experts in antisocial behaviour and when we're talking about sleep and the protection
of children from harm, nor the child safeguarding.
And so a very reluctant is the answer
Counsellor because again, we're coming back to paragraph 1 .18. We want to be able to breathe
you need to make a commercial decision here, don't we and a
Diminution of the hours could cause the deal to fall flat
Council for cable
Any more
I come back to the point and the emphasis and I think I'll direct it to both sides.
The premises exist. They have for over 60 years they have been a licenced premises.
They've been a pub. I mean they exist. Anybody who looks at it is going to say this is a pub.
We have before us somebody, an applicant who appears to be turning it into less of a pub but more of a restaurant
and has given an undertaking, there will not be the regulated entertainment which means you're not going to have live music bouncing around.
How do you feel about that very quickly, just really one or two words? Thank you.
I really appreciate the compromise being made and yes of course it is licenced as a public house.
I do believe we have a right to live in our homes, our abodes in peace.
I'm assuming the licencing board takes that into account.
and for myself and other residents actually attached to this, that's my primary concern, that we can remain in peace.
And I think for me, I'm compromising saying can you please close it at 10 o 'clock, because beyond that we're not going to have peaceful abode.
And particularly in summer, because we do have our windows open.
In winter, without this entertainment, it's going to be much easier.
Thank you very much for removing that.
But in summer, our windows are open.
And so to have a licence beyond 10 o 'clock, which means we're going to have no noise to 11,
it is so going to disturb us.
And I know for a fact there are two residents that have just had babies.
There's two under people under one years of age in that building right now.
That's how I feel. We'd welcome a compromise on the opening hours so we can live in peace in our homes. Thank you.
I'm just looking at the opening hours. I'm not sure whether half an hour on the weekday nights is going to be one way or another
because you want to go to 11 .30, could you go to 11?
Therefore you close, they finish at 11 and the people are well and truly out of the way, that is Tuesday to Thursday.
It should be basically the hours will be the same as say go Monday, Thursday at the same time.
Shave off half an hour.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry. Rather than supposition and guesswork.
Mr. Melnick.
Thank you, Chair. Just one quick question in relation to condition 11 on page 208, which at the moment says all windows and doors should be closed after 2200 hours or at any time when regulated entertainment takes place.
except for the immediate access and the egress of persons.
For the fructures, it's all at the very last page.
Given, of course, that regulated entertainment has been withdrawn anyway,
so it will apply across the board,
and given, of course, some of the concerns that there have been about
just noise breakout more generally,
what would your position be in relation to changing that power to 2100?
I think I'd like to say that a licencing subcommittee
to a certain extent we're a bulwark for residents and applicants.
And if things get taken out of our hands, they can end up in a court of law,
which can make, let us say, somewhat interesting decisions, not based on local knowledge.
And as it happens, you've got three councillors here, who I suspect all of us know, the Columbia Road area.
So we have some interest in that.
My view is to the residents, one open book you have before you is if an applicant is approved and there is still noise and still anti -social behaviour, you can come back here and seek a review.
And if you involve the council and the police it is quite possible that a review can take place.
What concerns me is that we have a new application before us,
a new applicant on premises who have given us pages of conditions.
We've got pages of conditions at the end of it here, which Mr. Bellnick read,
and further conditions which were submitted earlier this week.
Really I'm trying to weigh everything else up and be as supportive of all sides as possible particularly to the residents
because we wish to do our best for all our residents after all we're elected by residents to look after residents
but we have to work within a very very clear framework on the law which is why two issues that were raised earlier on
I said they're not matters and if we consider them a court will strike us down and censure us.
So we have to be very, very careful.
Having said that, we've had a very good discussion.
We now move on to the concluding remark and I'd like to invite the objectors, give you a minute each,
just to very quickly sum up.
But could we concentrate on what is before us rather than what has been in the past?
Other than the extended hours, what's proposed sounds lovely.
It sounds terrific and I'd certainly like to see the premises open rather than boarded up.
But I would like the hours reduced.
And one thing that Christopher raised, if we can look into this,
is about what sort of chimneys or whatever are used for the pizza ovens and whatever
to ensure that smoke isn't coming into the dwellings.
Has there been some sort of research or whatever done about that
to ensure that we don't get any smoke?
And yes, I just pray we get reduced hours. Thank you very much.
Thank you Chair. Just in relation to that point, obviously
the extractor fans and how they vent is more likely to be a planning issue than a licencing issue,
so it probably requires some structure,
plus also because late night refreshment only applies from eleven o 'clock at night,
it's really not going to be an issue during the day,
by which I mean it's not licensable during the day,
so it's not something this committee can have regard to,
but it's not to say it won't be taken into account appropriately by the council,
and it may well be that Mr Taylor can perhaps quickly address that
if he's able to in his closing submissions, that would be helpful.
If he can't, he can't.
Thank you very much, Mr Melnick.
Mr Colwont.
The application very much emphasises the idea of a community
and the idea of working with the local community.
And we've come here as part of that community
and representative of a lot wider sense of the community
and the whole area for asking for a compromise
over the licencing hours.
We've suggested 10 o 'clock and I think there's one
of the first things that if this is really truly
a community -based venture, we'd like to see some compromise
in terms of that and that's our request.
Hi.
Final contribution from the objectives.
So, first thing, I'd like to say that I understand that there are no authorities objecting to it.
But I think the residents are the experts of living in a community.
So I'd like the community to take our accounts with a bit overweight.
And we are, as I said, in the main objection that we are happy to work with.
Like a sympathetic vendor, for sure, definitely.
I know that it's different from the previous operator, but what we experienced is it's very difficult to get the review
or actually to work with, make it to official complaints.
We like to support them and we don't want to cause too much issues.
So I rather want to have tighter conditions now than having to fight or work hard
or even to have a solid relationship as a vendor.
That's what I like to ask.
And that's the hours and the disposal restriction and outside area.
Mr Taylor.
Very quickly, chair, councillors, thank you very much indeed for today.
As I know I just said, but it's important that I say it in closing,
paragraph 9 .43 of the Home Office Guidance requires that applications be determined on the basis of evidence.
The evidence in this case, members of the committee, is this.
Number one, this application wasn't lost due to complaints or review.
It lapsed for administrative reasons and a failure to fill a form in and pay £23.
If we'd done that, we wouldn't be here.
We wouldn't be arguing about the hours.
We wouldn't be arguing about regulated entertainment.
We wouldn't be arguing about anything at all.
The licence would still exist.
The evidence is that none of the responsible authorities, all of the experts in their particular field, they do not object.
That is evidence. The evidence is that the applicant is demonstrably working with the residents and the authorities.
We are talking about compromise over here. We have not applied for the same hours that we had.
We have applied for your framework hours. We have not applied for regulated entertainment, which we had.
We have given that up. We have not applied for the same unenforceable conditions.
We have worked with both the police and environmental health to afford the local residents the protection that they deserve.
The evidence is that we have got a quality tenant who is going to run these premises very differently to how the premises have been run.
Now we've heard, oh people will be hanging around outside for an hour after they finish.
Any evidence that that happens outside restaurants?
Well the answer is no, there is no evidence.
That may well have happened when it operated as a pub, but we've not heard anything about that.
And what I say to you members of the committee, is I ask, is there any real likelihood of these premises
is causing antisocial behaviour, crime, disorder, if they are run the way we have within the framework hours.
I accept, we accept, wholeheartedly that the residents have concerns.
But those concerns are based on previous operation.
Concerns that are not shared by the experts.
So what I would invite you to do, Members of the Committee, is I would invite you to grant the application in its amended terms, without regulated entertainment, but with the framework hours, and with the conditions that we agreed with the police and environmental health, and give the tenant the chance to operate.
We have heard that the evidence is that the residents welcome a well run premise.
We know that what they have got so far is a well run premise.
What we don't do is refuse applications or impose conditions purely on the basis of concerns.
And that is with the greatest of respect all we have heard.
Please do when the decision comes out, remind the residents that they have the opportunity to complain.
But they have the opportunity to review if we or our tenant isn't as good as our word
So there you go. I mean, I'll start where I finish. Please can we have the licence back?
But not the licence that we originally have. Thank you very much
Thank You miss sailor, thank you residents can I invite now miss yes mint to go through the formality very quickly to inform you of
the procedure
Thank you, Chair. Just to let all parties know a decision will be made this evening.
We will write to you within five working days with the decision and the reasons for that decision. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. That concludes Item 3 .2. Item 4, extension of decision deadlines. Do we have any deadlines, Ms. Yasmin?
Yes, we have one application to extend it and it's for the cafe Lavista 15 Brook Lane London e1 6pu
And if members can please agree to extend it to 30th June 2026
Is that a great colleague?
That's agreed miss yes, I'm in the meeting this part of the meetings now formally move would move close
We'll now go into journal going to grow session to try the body of the result
Okay
So, I'm afraid we're going to do it all here.
Good afternoon everyone.