Licensing Sub Committee - Tuesday 24 March 2026, 2:00pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Licensing Sub Committee
Tuesday, 24th 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Hello, good afternoon and welcome.
Welcome to this meeting of the licencing subcommittee of London Borough of Town Hamlet, held today
Tuesday, the 24th of March.
My name is Peter Golds.
For the purposes of the meeting today, I inform you I am the Chair of the Licencing Committee
and I'm chairing the Licencing Subcommittee this afternoon.
The meeting is being held, as we can see, in person.
All the Committee members and the key participants are in the room with us now.
It is possible that some people can remotely join us online, but we will watch those.
For the purposes of public scrutiny, the meeting will be broadcast and shown on the Council's website for public viewing.
May I remind everybody, members, colleagues and indeed contributors, if you wish to say anything, wave your hand.
I will catch your eye and signal to speak.
We like these meetings conducted in as collegiate fashion as possible.
We're not the House of Commons or indeed the council chamber. So we like to be as
Both formal and informal may I now invite?
Those here on the top table to introduce themselves. I've introduced myself my down start with Miss. Yes, ma 'am
Simi has been Democratic Services
Jonathan Melnick legal service
Councillor Shubo from yourself. Good afternoon. I can't allow a lot Dean to present a block and keep it on what thank you
For everybody publicly, one thing, if you're speaking, you'll see us clicking on and off.
When you speak, when you conclude speaking, you switch the microphone off and switch it on when you speak.
The reason being, of course, if you haven't switched it on, or if there are two microphones switching on,
the people watching will just see what looked like a collection of goldfish going...
...and won't hear a word.
For the formalities, we begin the meeting with apologies for absence.
All three of us are present, so there can be no apology, so there are no apologies.
Do members have any declaration of pecuniary interest?
I have none.
No, thank you.
None.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Can everybody note the rules of procedure, which are on pages 9 to 18 in the written
the meeting bundle we have, which has also been available online.
May I inform everybody publicly for those listening, members sitting today were notified
this formally.
It has been online and we have had the opportunity to read the agendas before the meeting today,
and I know members will agree the agenda, well, will have read the agenda because we
discussed them and been talking about them.
We now move to Item 3 on the agenda.
Could we approve note and agree the minutes of the meetings held on the 22nd of January and the 5th of February members? Is that okay?
Ms. Yes min, they're agreed unanimously
I'm now going to do a procedural because we've got some people here and some people not therefore
I'm going to put to the meeting that we bring forward item 4 .2 on our agenda, which is the
application for new premises licence for Kong is Kong
14 Norton Folgate London e1 60b which is pages 105 to 178. Would you agree? We bring it forward colleagues?
We've brought this forward so the Kong is Kong
Applicants are here and we can start the meeting immediately
Miss yes, we would you like to formally announce everybody who is in attendance
Thank you chair representing the applicants. We have Alan Thomas Ammar Radia and will Robinson as the objectives
We have mr. Moshen Ali and Nicola katzo
And after the application has been presented the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of five minutes to make
Their representation the objectives will also be given five minutes each to make their representation
I'll let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Thank you chair
Thanks very much
Simi we now have we now we now ready to go can may I invite some Corinne Holland who is our licencing officer to
Introduce the report before us Corin
Thank you, Chair.
This is an application, as you said, starts on page 105.
There's a supplementary agenda that goes with this application, which is supporting evidence
from the applicant that includes images of the premises and also the planning application
or planning decision.
So this is an application for a new premise licence for Kong is Kong at 14
Norton Folgate London E1 6B 6DB. There was a bit of confusion over the address
of this so the application has got a different address on it but this is the
one we finally decided on as the main entrance is on Norton Folgate. It's
described as a restaurant and drinking establishment which incorporates the site of the former
water poet pub, which was 9 -11 Folgate Street, which was closed in 2019 for redevelopment.
The premises does fall within the community for impact area.
The old licence, the lapse licence for the water poet pub, are included in appendix 12
on page 168 onwards, just for reference purposes only.
The application is in Appendix 1 on page 112 to 134.
The liscensable activities and hours applied for are the sale of alcohol for both on and
sales Monday to Saturday 8 a .m. to 11 p .m. Sunday 8 a .m. to 10 30 p .m. and
there's non -standard hours for New Year's Eve also applied for and then the
closing times are 30 minutes later than and those times stated. A site plan is
included in appendix 2 on page 136 and maps showing the location of these premises is
in appendix 3 on page 138. There's some photographs included of the premises in appendix 4 on
page 140. Nearby licenced premises have been included and these are in appendix 5 on page
144. There's representations from the following, the licencing authority, appendix 6 on page
147, and the environmental protection team, appendix 7 on page 153. The two resident objections
were withdrawn after the report was written, as they were happy with the arrangements made
with the applicant. Appendix 10 is the conditions that are proposed in the operating schedule,
and these are page 160 to 161. And then the community of impact policy is shown in Appendix
11 on page 163 to 166. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much.
I do remember so many questions of the licencing officer.
No questions.
I'd now like to invite Mr. Thomas to make representation.
And for the purpose, could you switch the microphone off?
Because nobody will hear me.
I can hear you, Jack.
Thank you very much.
I'd like to invite Mr Thomas to exercise his five minutes.
As Ms Yesmin said, you will get a team when it comes to four minutes, so we know what to do.
But we look forward to it. Thank you very much.
Chair, thank you. Nice to see you.
This is not an application of a new licence in the normal sense.
It's an application of a predominantly seated venue to replace a former vertical drinking licence
that had in itself a large beer garden.
You'll have seen the plans which includes that seating area at the rear,
which is for eating and drinking, that rear area that Miss Caddsdale refers to,
but is not importantly overlooked by any residential,
in fact it's completely surrounded by office use,
and indeed that's where the previous pub garden was,
which was licenced until 11pm.
Vertical drinking is less than 12 % of the floor space,
The rest of the premises is all way to waitress service to persons who are seated.
Indeed the planning, which was only recently granted, requires, and you'll see that page 19 of the supplementary back,
requires that there must be an area where alcohol is served without food and at a bar.
So we've got the planning requiring this element of vertical drinking, hence why we've applied for it.
It's on the very eastern boundary of the special policy area, the other side of the road is outside of it.
You'll see that following consultation with the residents, we have agreed a condition that there is no customer entrance or exit on Folgate Street.
The only customer entrance and exit onto the carriageway is onto Folgate Street and the rear area is delineated so customers can't walk outside of it.
It's within framework hours and is completely consistent with other licences that have been recently granted within the British Land Development.
So in terms of your policy, this is not a new use, so therefore we are not adding to cumulative impact.
It is just therefore, it's just replacing a use because the previous licence was surrendered
and page 102 of your committee papers recognise the exception that a surrendered licence is
capable in itself of being an exception.
So therefore there's no addition to cumulative impact.
But in any event, the entrance is now in Norton Foulgate, so that's obviously more sympathetic
and acceptable to the residents on Foulgate Street and we have conditioned it as such.
The premises, despite what the licencing authority have said, is smaller than the water poet pub.
You'll see the math as set out in your committee papers.
And the water poet, as I said, did have a large external drinking area at the back licenced until 11pm.
We are making things better rather than worse because we are offering conditions which manifestly restrict the amount of vertical drinking,
whereas the old licence which was surrendered was completely unrestricted,
it's therefore a much less intense use than before.
Dispersal is only on Norton Folgate and not on Folgate Street,
which is where the residential is.
And of course we've got new conditions on servicing and deliveries
which have been referred to in Mr Lloyd's letter of support.
We've tried to engage with the local authorities, they haven't been able to come to sight, but we've had a quick chat today.
I hope what I've said to them has been of some comfort, but we can perhaps go through that when we've heard from them.
I think their representation was assuming that there was going to be an entrance on Norton Folgate, which of course there isn't.
I'm sorry, on Folgate Street. Norton Folgate is where the entrance is.
So, in short, chair, this is not a new use.
This has been a use that has been established, well, for as long as the water poet was in existence,
and that licence was recently surrendered, and therefore that's capable of being an exception under your policy.
But even if that in itself wasn't an exception, it's also exceptional in respect to your policy,
because it restricts vertical drinking.
And again, the previous licence was completely unrestricted in that respect.
I couldn't put it much better than Mr Lloyd from Spy.
I think you've met Mr Lloyd before, Chair.
He's a well -known local resident and very well respected.
In his own words, the improvements to the area by British land
that have made this place a much safer and better place to live.
And of course that now includes our entrance on Norton Foulgate and not on Foulgate Street.
But in any event Chair, this application is truly exceptional on its own merits.
Everything that you've heard so far and everything in the papers make it exceptional.
And it's consistent with the London Plan and indeed the Mayor's aspirations for the evening economy.
This is the clearest of cases where there is no additional cumulative impact at this location.
Indeed it's quite the opposite, it's actually a reduction or a dilution of it compared to the water poet licence.
Mr Lloyd from Spire was due to be here, he's unfortunately been taken very ill and he's in the London hospital next door.
He sends his kind regards and you'll have seen his words in writing.
Mr. Radia, who is the man behind this concept, is here to answer any questions that you have about the concept.
And indeed, if you've got any questions of him.
Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas.
Thank you, Jack.
That was most comprehensive.
We now move to the contributions from the government.
from the objectors who will have the same time, and then we will put questions, we'll
have the right to put questions to both sides.
First one off will be Mr Ali, who is our licencing officer.
Mr Ali.
Thank you, Chair.
The licencing authority's representation is in pages 147 to 151.
As you're aware, this premises lies within the CIZ.
The review of the CIZ in 2024 came to the conclusion that premises lies within an already saturated zone
and the CIZ was maintained to be continued for that purpose.
You've heard the previous licence had left in 2021, premises was closed in 2019.
The previous licence was held by a different operator,
by a Peter Dunn, not by the same operator.
This is a new applicant.
Just a point of clarification.
I was a little bit confused about the size of the premises
on the face of it.
If you look at the additional document,
hopefully supplied by the applicant,
there's supplemental agenda, page six.
There's a little comparison of the size of the two different premises, what was previous and what is now.
So it's a little bit confused as to how it's the same size.
On the face of it, it looks much bigger.
And it's not clear what the capacity of the premises will be.
I mean, the exception is for 50 persons or less.
It's not fully a restaurant, vertical drinking is involved in the premises in terms of the exception.
In terms of the history, I don't want to go into the history which was held by the previous operator.
When they operated there were previous complaints but I don't want to link the previous complaints to the current operator
because there are new, which is why we had concerns of the premises,
so access and egress issues with customers leaving into residential areas
when they are leaving was one of the concerns.
However, I understand the Foulgate Street entrance will not be used,
which is positive.
In conclusion, I would say due to the size of the premises, the saturation policy exception
does not apply and the licence objectives would be undermined due to the access and
egress from customers.
We welcome the conditions that have been submitted and that's a summary of my representation.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr Ali.
I'm now going to invite Nicola Cajao, the Environmental Health Officer to make her presentation.
Huge awards, five minutes.
Thank you.
Following on from Mosin's representation, my representation is because I'm looking at
prevention of public nuisance and that the premises is in a cumulative impact zone that
Moshing has explained.
I appreciate that the applicant is operating within framework hours, but there are a lot
of noise conditions that we cannot attach to the application because they would not
be enforceable, only operating till 8, till 11pm. Whilst they said there'll be no music,
that is, you know, I'm not 100 % sure that they're saying that they're operating a restaurant
and venue and there'll be no music in the venue. Now, I appreciate that residents have
withdrawn their objection and that there was a concern that patrons would be going onto
Folgate Street and understand now that, as the applicant has said, that they're coming
out onto Norton Folgate away from residential.
On my application, I was concerned about the outside area.
There are three conditions on my application which is on page 153, which the applicant
has refused to accept a reduction in the hours.
They've agreed to on condition 16 all windows and doors should be closed after 2300 hours
in their application or at any time when regulating entertainment take places, they are not willing
to agree 2100 hours. I've been told before the committee that they don't have any windows
that open but we're still talking about external doors and any noise from customers and music
leaking from the venue. And then I've got two further conditions about entering and
in and restricting the numbers of people outside after 2100 hours, which I deem as being reasonable
and outdoor chairs being rendered unusable after 2100 hours, which they wish for 2300
hours.
There's no, as Moshing has pointed out, there's no limit to the numbers.
we haven't got any, nothing's been offered
that the numbers of people are likely to be used
in the outside area.
And whilst I appreciate it might be contained,
that does not mean that voices
and the numbers of people outside,
I don't know how many of them are likely to be
in the outside area, but that can cause
sort of noise nuisance escaping from the venue.
So I would ask that this application is refused based on the, not agreeing, no agreement being
made on the external area.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Michael.
That was helpful.
I'm going to now direct the questions first will be to the applicant and then I will put
a question to the officers and then I will throw the questions open to colleagues. To
the applicant, you have heard the officers and the suggestion that you shave off time
to fit it basically to fit in other licenced premises. Would you reconsider that? Would
you reconsider the timing? The second one is, and we always have a slight problem on
these matters, particularly within the CIZ, is the issue of vertical drinking. And finally,
the third one is the issue that Ms. Kadshou raised, which people congregating outside.
I mean, I think they are issues that will give us real concerns.
So if we could look at it, timings, vertical drinking and congregating outside.
Chair, thank you.
Can I deal with the last one first?
So I'll deal with the vertical drinking bit first.
As you'll see, page 19 of the supplemental papers, which sets out the planning permission.
I'll just call it at myself.
Page 19 chair.
It's Condition 1 of the Planning Permission.
And this planning permission was to retain the previous use of the water poet.
And you'll see in Condition 1, which we've highlighted,
the hereby approved public house to our generous use must meet the following criteria.
Be open to the general public, serve at least one drappie or a cider,
must allow drinking without food,
and must allow customers to buy drinks at a bar.
So the previous licence, which has been surrendered
and therefore capable of being an exception
under your policy, allowed vertical drinking
throughout the premises, in fact,
the slightly larger premises.
The reason why we've requested a small area right at the front of the premises,
which is away from the residential, just by the entrance on North of Vulgate,
is the small area which is edge blue on the plan, which is less than 12 % of the total floor area.
The reason we've requested that is because both the landlord and the planning
requires us to offer some area on the premises, ironically.
I don't think I've ever come across an application like this,
where we're literally stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
It's the planning that requires us to have vertical drinking
and an area where no food is supplied.
And if we hadn't proposed this small vertical drinking area
at the front of the premises, if and when we open,
we'd be in breach of our planning.
And I know it sounds a bit topsy -turvy,
but that's the reason for it.
That's the reason why we've applied for it.
Set against the background that the premises,
the licence which was only surrendered a couple of years ago,
had completely unfettered and unrestricted
vertical blinking throughout the premises.
The surrender provision under your policy
is one of the stated exceptions.
But what we've done, instead of having vertical drinking throughout the premises,
we have mitigated that by only having a very small area, less than 12%,
and the rest of the premises is completely seated and served by way to waitress service.
That's the point of vertical drinking.
The second point was the hours and the congregating outside.
We have spent a lot of time with Mr Lloyd from SPY, he was incredibly engaged.
We met with him and he reached out to all the local residents and we made it very clear that the entrance and the exit for customer use was going to be on Norton Folgate.
and that made everyone happy and also that there were no large deliveries on Folgate Street.
Those were their concerns, both of which we've offered and conditioned.
Gathering was a much bigger concern when the water poet had their entrance on Norton Folgate.
Our entrance and exit is now on, sorry, on Folgate Street.
Waterport was on Folgate Street, we're now on Norton Folgate.
We don't anticipate having any problem with congregation on Norton Folgate
because it's a main, I think it's the A10 or the A11 arterial route through East London.
Taxis, busses, it's two or three lanes in each direction.
we don't anticipate having any issue of nuisance from customers coming and going.
If it's of any assistance chair, this isn't meant to be a criticism, it's not.
We did offer both officers the opportunity to come to site to meet, to discuss these concerns, and they didn't.
So I'm sorry that we're here having to go through the minutia of it now, but we did try to engage.
In terms of the gathering outside, we were happy to have a condition that, if you think it's necessary, we'd be happy to have a number of smokers that are limited.
The area on Norton Folgate. So there are two areas effectively. We've got the rear area, which is included within the red line.
That's going to be no smoking anyway, because we're serving food out there.
So the only area which is outside the Red Line, which is on Norton Folgate,
that's where smokers would be directed to.
Excuse me.
And yes, if you thought it was necessary, we would be happy to limit the number of smokers to 10 or 15 after 9pm.
So I think that deals with those two points.
Chad, whilst I was speaking in the context of environmental health and the licencing
authority, would it be helpful if I addressed the other parts of their representations?
I think I'd like to keep it at the questions at this point.
I'd like to do the questions first.
Thank you very much for those answers.
Very quickly, I want some advice from Mr Melnick on the issue of what's on the licence granted
would you like in terms of what these five should look like?
The planning decision says that allow customers to buy drinks at a bar or out rely on a paint
wood service.
It does, I mean obviously pubs are considered to be community assets and I know they were
considerations do take that into account and that condition here
Does make it very very clear
that
People should be able to just go in and buy a drink and effectively stand at the bar
Without relying on so whether it necessarily prohibits vertical drinking
Is perhaps a slightly?
argument what it says is allow customers to buy drinks at a bar without relying on table service, so I
for them having to do this off the cuff, but one argument is that they can still go and buy at the bar
but then they've got to go and sit down as opposed to just standing within.
I don't think planning are not necessarily going to be concerned with precisely how people consume it
but what they want is effectively that pub element and part of that pub element is of course going to the bar.
Mr Thomas, I don't know if there's anything that comes out of that and of course you should obviously throw that
then open to the officers as well if they have anything to say.
Think there's two things really in reality that area which is edge blue on your plan is for all intents and purposes of a
Holding area where customers would have a drink whilst waiting for the tech for all intents and purposes
we're not offering a condition in that respect because somebody might just want to have a drink on a
Sunday afternoon or something, but that is the area where customers would come in meet the mates with a
Have a drink and set when our preference would be that they don't have to sit down
But yes, it's a grey area in terms of the planning.
But the planning does say that it must allow customers
to buy drinks at a bar without relying upon table service.
I think that's the...
Chair, also paragraph 18 .6 of your policy,
which you're probably, I'm sure you're well aware of,
says that licencing committee
shouldn't cut across planning.
So, hence why the planning does here,
to a great extent, have privacy.
I'm just I just wanted to be absolutely clear and I know quite what we can't do
but I wanted to absolutely online on the record so we know yes I suppose I'm
sorry if I'm repeating myself of course the the licence which was surrendered
previously allowed vertical drinking throughout the premises across all
several hundred metres of it yeah but obviously we have to look at what's
before us today.
Okay, thank you very much on that.
Colleagues, questions?
No, I'm okay at the moment.
I may come back.
Yep, I want to ask more on the,
how you tackle people from drifting outside
with their drinks.
We've agreed no off sales, so alcohol can't be taken outside.
But again, I should have actually addressed it
when I was addressing the condition which Nicola proposed.
We'd be happy with the condition that no glass was taken outside.
In fact, whilst I'm on my feet, so to speak,
would it be okay if I proposed an amended condition in that respect?
Please do.
Thank you. So it was the second of Miss Cadstoe's conditions.
And it would read as follows.
Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and re -enter the premises
on Norton Foulgate, e .g. to smoke or make a phone call,
shall not be permitted to take glass containers with them,
and shall be limited to 10 persons, or 15, whatever number you think,
after 2100 hours.
So that condition chair does a couple of things.
It makes it clear that the smoking areas on Norton Folgate,
It makes it clear that customers can't take glass containers outside onto Norton Folgate.
And it makes it clear that the number of smokers are limited to whatever number you think, 10, 15, after 2100 hours.
So I think that kills three things with one condition.
Just a minute, Mr. Thomas. Just to clarify, in relation to the wording C for the external airing of the plan, would that then be deleted by, or would that stay in?
Just so I'm clear what's the staying in?
Well, I think either, because of course we're referring to Norton Folgate now and not the rear external seating area.
So it could be left in or it could be deleted.
But the external seating area, of course, is at the back and it's contained by planters etc.
And it's completely private, it's not a plant or a private highway.
The only reason you could perhaps leave it in is if we were ever to have seating on Norton Folgate.
But that's not the intention at the moment.
It'd be easier probably to leave it in.
Nicola, in relation to that particular condition, do you have any views?
Obviously one is just the amendments that patrons pay to temporarily leave
and then re -enter the premises on Norton -Folway,
So it makes clear where people are going to be smoking and then leave the rest as is you content with that
Sorry
No, and if they're saying that's that's limited to after 2100 hours as I said then they say after 2100 hours
Yes
Yeah, I have no problem with that condition being amended
Thank you
What days are you expected to be the busiest and how many SIA trained security are you looking to have?
We weren't intending SIA from opening. We are very much a food concept.
Do you mind if I hand you over to Ammar? He's going to explain the concept to you so you can get a good feel of it.
But the answer is, unless I misunderstood it,
necessarily intending to have SIA from day one.
Obviously we'll risk assess it,
but it can create a certain look and feel.
Ammar, do you want to just, without taking too long,
just explain the concept?
Sure.
So, sorry.
Sorry?
What's SIA?
Security.
You're not gonna have security guards.
But talk about the concept as well.
Sure, yeah.
I'm one of the co -founders of Kong.
My fellow co -founder is Andrew Wong of Two Mission Star A Wong.
It's a Chinese two -mission star restaurant.
It's a project we've wanted to do for a while.
In essence, it's a Chinese gastropub.
We've been working on this for about the last two years.
It's just under 6 ,000 square foot.
As Alan mentioned, 10 -11 % of it is, 12 % of it is the section by the bar, but the rest of it is sit -down seating, which is what we're proposing to do.
It is from morning, from 8am till 10 -11pm, seven days a week, dumplings and noodles at breakfast and lunch, with some grills in the evening, and pints of beer and some drink is basically what we're offering.
It's typical price point is around 35, 40, 45 pounds a head is what we're looking at.
It's not a pub in essence, it's pretty much a gastropub or a restaurant is what we're doing.
Talk about the rear garden.
Yeah, so the rear garden is, it's a private courtyard, it's got offices all around,
it's got planters, we've got these big umbrellas, some lovely lighting and it's got a 41 -foot
seats in it so it's low level sort of veranda type seating is what we have
it's very casual almost like I was sitting in a sort of a nice garden
no vertical drinking out the back it's all suited. No vertical drinking.
Do you want to hear anything more about the menu?
Have you seen the pictures?
Not so much about the menu it's just more about the CIZ and how your
understanding of the CIZ and how you try to mitigate all those issues that are
in line with the policy?
Yeah, so in terms of the policy, as I've explained,
we are not a new use.
So cumulative impact is concerned
about new uses coming into a cumulative impact area
where the existing infrastructure of an area
can't cope, transport, ambulance, police, et cetera.
So breaking that down into constituent parts,
we have been at pains to make sure
that the customer entrance and exit is on Folgate Street,
where there are cabs, busses, Liverpool Street is just
a couple of minutes away.
So in terms of dispersal, it's very easy in two respects,
both in terms of how people get there and can get home.
But secondly, we haven't got that entrance and exit
next to the residential on Folgate Street, which
is absolutely crucial to this.
The second leg of it is that, of course, this is not a new use.
we are just replacing a more intense use that was there until only a couple of years ago.
But even if an exception was required, it's there because you've heard me at all.
So in terms of addressing the other constituent parts of the CIS,
we are not primarily a vertical drinking venue, we are very much food -led,
we await a waitress service throughout the premises,
We have mitigated concerns about deliveries and servicing by having conditions.
We've got an extensive servicing plan which has been granted under planning.
So where you tend to get cumulative impact, both here and elsewhere, is where everything's not joined up.
So what you've got here, you've got a joined up landlord, and that's recognised by what Mr Lloyd says in his letter of support.
but you've got a landlord that has genuinely curated this area to make it better,
to make it safer, thus reducing cumulative impact.
Plus you've got an operator whose operation is such that would not be normally associated with cumulative impact.
No off sales, very little vertical drinking, food load, etc. etc.
So you put all those things together and those are the reasons why cumulative impact isn't impacted
as we've set out at some pains.
One second, Jeff.
I'm asked to add, I'm sorry.
Give anarchy to you.
I'm asked to add, sorry, Chair,
that not only British Land improved the area specifically,
they've manifestly improved the public realm
by having light in there.
They also have their own 24 -hour security and going back to my previous point where you tend to get cumulative impact is where you've got disparate
landlords and ownership and
Nobody's taking control or care of it and you've got the absolute opposite here and that I can assure you
You've got an operator who who won't let you down in that respect and he's taken how long shall these summer?
20 he's got a 20 -year lease
It's Thomas if you could sign out for it. I got mr. Melnick then counts ready
I
Sorry
Right, I mean what what council is saying is saying is that obviously it's being referred to as not a new application
But obviously it says so in the report
I think they want my advice to the committee is going to have to be the existing licence or the previous premises licence lapsed
To that extent this is an application for a new premises licence committee is going to be advised to take into account
Among other things the fact that it was previously licenced and of course, I'll take factor in
You know the planning considerations, but as things stand this is a premises that does not currently hold the benefit of a licence
Yes, yes, I still know.
Chair.
It's a new licence application, obviously, but it's not a new use.
The previous licence was surrendered, albeit not by my client,
because obviously he didn't have an interest in the premises there.
It doesn't really matter who surrendered it.
The fact is it was surrendered. It didn't lapse because the company went insolvent.
It was part of the landlord's development plans that that licence would be surrendered to provide this opportunity
for another tenant going forward and your policy is quite specific on surrender if you look at page 102 of the
main agenda pack if I might call it on myself
of. Page 102 of your main agenda pack. Possible exceptions to the Brick Lane cumulative impact
assessment area. And it's the third bullet point. Applications for licences where the
applicant has recently surrendered a licence for another premises of a similar size and
providing similar licence activities in the CI area.
Now, I would accept that we're not the ones surrendering it,
but it doesn't matter, because it's still been surrendered
and therefore there has been no addition to cumulative impact.
What this condition...
Not only does this...
This condition is actually much wider than what we're talking about here.
This condition, this exception rather,
would allow you to swap a premises from one part of Brick Lane
to another part of Brick Lane,
bearing in mind that we're right on the extremity of it.
What we're proposing, not swapping one for another,
we're talking about replacing a less intense use
with a more intense one that has existed until recently.
And there is a continuous nature of that use due to the planning.
So the licence was surrendered in 2021,
the planning was granted,
and obviously the premises have been re -let to this applicant.
So the surrender is an exception in two respects.
Firstly because it's not a new use.
I really do think we, I'm sorry, I'd like to get back to the meeting.
But it is an exception and it makes it clear at page 102.
I think Mr Thomas you really have explained that and we have got it before us.
It's quite an somewhat interesting but possibly tangential remark.
It is quite clearly there.
I think we can, I'd like to get questions going on rather than just going around in a circle or something.
Actually I'm not sure, I would like to know, any CCTV camera is...
CCTV camera?
CC?
Actually I would like to know any CCTV camera outside of the show?
CCTV?
TV
what what's the capacity
Mr. Melnyk.
I just want to cheque on something because my understanding I could be wrong, so I'd
like to be clear and hopefully Miss Holland can assist.
The last licence, was it surrendered or was it lapsed?
Obviously ultimately the licence has ceased to be, but I think it is useful to, or it
may be useful for the committee to be absolutely clear.
Well we've got it shown as lapsed because obviously the building was, that went, so
it lapses under the licencing act.
It doesn't lapse of course automatically when a building is subject to the A3D2 case, which
is quite interesting if you wanted to go there, but the licence doesn't lapse if the building
is knocked down, it just becomes, well this building wasn't locked down for a start.
We are 100 % sure that the licence was surrendered.
It may or may not necessarily make any practical differences.
Certainly not an heroin stuff getting bogged down.
It is a very technical point.
Mrs Thomas has mentioned a couple of times that there's no off sales
but obviously the application is for off sales
and I'm not aware that it's been withdrawn.
So can that be clarified?
I slightly misled you, not deliberately. It's off sales in sealed containers only.
So no street drinking effectively. So if somebody wanted to take a bottle of wine with them
they could. But there's no street drinking. I'm sorry if I got that wrong.
Are there any other questions to anybody at which point otherwise I should invite people to sum up
That case we moved summing up and Nicola
Thank You chair
Just kind of point of clarification
Obviously you've heard the capacity now, which was one of my questions.
That's been clarified.
This licence was originally issued in 2005, so the CRZ wasn't around in 2005.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
That CRZ came more later, so the issue of the various restrictions wouldn't have been
placed on the licence, because the previous licence was issued in 2005.
And according to my information, it lapsed in 2021.
Like I say, it doesn't make a difference.
According to our information, it lapsed in 2021.
It wasn't surrendered.
The policy says applicant has recently surrendered a licence,
but the operator was a different operator, not the current operator.
So again in summary I won't repeat my full representation.
In conclusion the current application as it is although the conditions often does mitigate some of the concerns
by having that side area of Foggage Street not used to mitigate some of the concerns.
However, you've heard the capacity of the premises, 180 capacity,
doesn't fall under the exception of the CIZ and the licence of variety of fuels application be refused.
Thank you.
Hello. Yeah, following on from Mosin,
My concern was about the capacity because we're talking about 180 people but what if
you say 50 % of that capacity wanted to go out onto the street to smoke.
It doesn't seem to be any numbers for the external area at the back or the numbers that
are likely to be going outside and without any security, what's to stop half the venue?
I know that's probably an exaggerated figure, what's to stop, say, thirds of the people
going outside, the outside, whether it's at the front or the back, if there's no one,
how are they going to mitigate that, how are they going to stop the numbers cascading outside,
Either whether it's in Norton Folgate or at the external area at the back. So I still have concerns. I appreciate
Their agreement to amendment one of the conditions, but I still have concerns about the whole application
Thank you
Mr. Thomas you
You have heard them miss cat Charles comment on people outside in your summing up. You may wish to address that
Jack, can I repeat again? We have tried to meet the officers on site.
We offered them on at least two occasions meetings to come down site
so we could resolve these problems. We've left messages and it's been frankly difficult.
It's a shame we've had to discuss these matters today.
In terms of the points that Mr. Alley has raised,
This is a smaller premises than before.
We've had an architect look at this, we've had expert evidence,
and you'll see that in the committee pack.
It was 415 square metres, it's now 405.
It was on several floors, including a basement, and including a much bigger beer garden.
It is a much smaller use with much more restrictive conditions.
We are not relying upon the 50 covers or less of small premises exception.
We are relying upon the fact, A, it doesn't require an exception because it's not a new use.
Even if it did require an exception, it's clear in your policy that the surrender of a licence can constitute an exception.
But even if neither of those applied, it would still be exceptional because it's a mainly seated venue.
it's right on the end of the cumulative impact area.
It's got excellent and unparalleled transport links.
There's no risk of customers going to the residential areas,
so they come out and they go home.
So it's exceptional in all of its merits,
not just those two discrete points that I mentioned.
Chad, can I just address a couple of things
from the environmental health representation?
We have 24 hour security. That's unparalleled within the special policy area.
We can limit the... So there are two outside areas. We've got the private outside area at the back.
That's a maximum of 40 covers and I think we'd be happy to...
If you thought the outside eating and drinking was an issue, we'd be happy to restrict that to 40 persons
in that rear seating area.
The reason that rear seating area is important,
and this was Nicola's third condition,
she's asked for all outside tables and chairs
to be rendered unusable by nine o 'clock.
Now, as I've explained, we don't have any external tables and chairs
on Nortonfold Gate.
The only external tables and chairs we have is in a rear
contained seating area where there's no vertical drinking.
If you impose to a condition that all tables and chairs
that would be rendered unusable by nine o 'clock,
the customers would have to stand
like they did when it was the water poet.
And that would be completely contrary to what we want to do.
The rear area, as you've heard from Amar,
is completely contained by four sides of office block.
No residential overlooking, no risk of noise escaping at all,
no representations made in respect of it.
It's all seated, it's all wait -or -wait for service,
and there's no smoking out there.
So there is no need whatsoever to restrict that area to less than 11 o 'clock.
And frankly if that area was restricted to less than 11 o 'clock,
it scuppers the whole, that seating area at the back is absolutely essential to the financial viability of this product.
In terms of the doors and windows, which was the first condition,
as you've heard, all of our windows are sealed double glazing.
So they are closed not just after nine o 'clock. They are closed at all times
We have not applied for regulated entertainment
So that condition just doesn't work if you thought it was really necessary that
External doors had to be closed after nine o 'clock
Safer access and the media egress then so be it chair
But bear in the mind that the only entrance doors are to the rear seating area where?
where waiters are going to be coming and going,
and on Norton Follgate you might take the view, Chair,
and I hope you agree with me,
that any condition on keeping the doors closed after 9 o 'clock
is possibly necessary in this location.
In essence, Chair, this is clearly exceptional under your policy.
It's not a new use, there was a licence that's been surrendered,
It's smaller than the previous licence, it's a less intense use than the previous licence.
And everything, including the local residents and the planning, is pointing out to this application being granted.
Because it's something that your colleagues in planning want to be there.
It's part of the current historical and cultural use.
And even the local residents want it to reopen, because at the moment it's just there gathering dust.
Let me just cheque if I've missed anything
Think mr. Thomas you've had while you're coming up
I'm so sorry chair. Oh
And of course we have limited number of smokers outside on awesome fogo term
after
after night after nine o 'clock
Jay you've been very patient as usual. Thank you
We've now concluded this item on the agenda.
We will notify you of our decision within five working days.
And that decision will tell you if we wish to impose
and whether we've accepted the appeal
or approved the application, rejected the application
or approved it with additional conditions.
We will also you have the right to appeal on anything, but you will receive it from the Jasmine in five working days.
So thank you very much.
Chair, thank you very much indeed. I think you've got the wording of the condition which I proposed in terms of smokers.
And also, yes, I think that was the only additional condition.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your patience.
Thank you very much. We now move to 4 .1 on the agenda.
I'm just wondering if anybody is here.
It's Moishe and Nicola and it's the same people.
It's Cazzi, Santo, if we just do 4 .1, Corinne has spoken to them so Corinne will be able to just explain what he said.
Item 4 .1.
Item 4 .1, we're absolutely here. Is everything okay?
The applicant isn't here, but Corinne has spoken to them, so if you ask Corinne to just give us some...
I can order everybody. We move now to item 4 .1 on the agenda and I can confirm to you
the applicant isn't here but Ms Holland may give us an explanation to that. Therefore
I'd like to invite Ms Holland to present the report. 4 .1 on the agenda is application for
Whitechapel, 42 Whitechapel Road, London, E11JX, pages 53 to 104 on our bundle.
Sorry, I should have read that.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
//The Chair.
March followed by the agenda pack to the contact details that was sent over from licencing and I haven't had no response
And but I believe Miss Holland has spoken to them since
I'm Corinne
Thank You chair
Yeah
Just before the meeting is it was referred that it wasn't here. I
said he had got the invite but wasn't attending. I got the feeling I didn't think they thought
they had to attend. So I said well it will be heard in your absence and he said yes that's
fine. So I think that's what's happened. But yeah he did confirm to me he had got the invitation.
I don't know if the applicant knows the full procedure.
Sorry, I can confirm in the emails that are sent with the letter it does say please email
me to confirm that you will be attending the meeting and registered to speak.
So emails on a recorded practise does explain that they are required to attend and if they
wish to attend to inform me and register to speak.
Gotcha.
Yes, like I said, he did say he wasn't sending anyone to attend.
So, this is an application for a new premise licence for 5 Akis, 42 Whitechapel Road.
It does fall within the Community of Impact area.
The applicant has described the premises as a fast food restaurant with a ground and first floor with capacity to seat 45 people.
Copy the application is in appendix 1 on page 60 to 75.
The hours that they've applied for and the activities is late night refreshments only from 11pm till 2am.
and the opening times 11 a .m. to 2 a .m.
Sorry, did I say p .m.?
11 p .m. to 2 a .m.
and then the opening times 11 a .m. to 2 a .m.
The plans of the premises are in Appendix 2 on page 77.
Maps showing the vicinity of these premises in Appendix 3 on page 79.
Photographs were included in Appendix 4 on page 81 to 83.
And nearby licence premises are shown in Appendix 5 on page 85.
There's two representations to this application, and they come from the licencing authority,
and that's on page 87 to 92 in Appendix 6.
And the environmental protection team is appendix 7 on page 94.
There's conditions in appendix 8 on page 96.
There's conditions which were volunteered in the operating schedule and there's conditions
which have been agreed with the police in there.
And then the brick lane CIZ policy is in appendix 9 on page 100.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. We move straight away to Mohsen and Nicola.
Thank you, Chair.
This premises also lies within the CRZ.
As I've said previously, the CRZ decision was taken to continue the CRZ in 2024 as this area has been saturated.
and this particular bit is the additional bit that the CIZ has been added into.
Going through my representation, which is in pages 87 to 92,
the first thing I mentioned was the hours are late hours, until 2 o 'clock.
They've already started advertising those hours, as you can see a printout of the Google Maps.
and obviously at the moment they're not licenced,
so that is a bit of a concern.
There's no reference in the replication form
about the premises lying within the CISN,
so there's a concern that they don't know
the impact that they will have on the CISN
and whether they have thought about
the various conditions, et cetera,
or whether they've given any thought to those concerns.
So in short, the licencing authority is concerned that if these hours are granted,
it would undermine the licencing objectives and if members are minded to grant the application,
they are requested to reduce the hours more closer to the framework hours. Thank you.
I'm reviewing the application under the licencing objective for the prevention of public nuisance.
The first point is that the hours are beyond Council's framework hours.
They're asking for two and a half hours on top of Council framework hours on Monday to
Thursday, two hours Friday and Saturday, three and a half hours on a Sunday.
As Mohsin has said, the premises is within the community of impact zone and the applicant
does not provide any details of any noise mitigation measures for the late hours sought,
the potential antisocial behaviour, the increased risk of footfall whilst operating until 200
or 200 hours. The operating schedule itself doesn't provide sufficient information regarding
dispersal and preventing groups loitering outside, any external noise management of
the premises. As Moshen has pointed out, there is no reference in their application to the
CIZ or how staff will manage noise and customers at the late hours sought. So in conclusion,
and environmental protection have concerns over the significant increase above framework
hours and lack of information in the operating schedule to promote the licencing objective
for the prevention of public nuisance and therefore ask the committee to refuse the
application.
Thank you.
I'll move straight to questions.
The applicant is not here.
I've got a concern which was raised and is put in and mushing some contributions.
This advert saying they're open to 2 a .m. already.
One, do we have evidence they're trading till 2 a .m. and do we have evidence this advert
is accurate?
We haven't done any, at the point of writing representation, we haven't done any visits
to the premises, but since then we would have added it to see if there are trading. At the
moment I don't have any evidence of it.
Really beyond that there's not much we can ask because they're going beyond the framework
hours and I
Would ask you you mentioned the area is saturated and it is within walking distance of here
and there are an awful lot of similar prompt properties and just looking at the
Having looking at the various the list of what we've got we do try and keep within the framework hours
Am I correct?
You
Of other others within this vicinity that go beyond the framework out
The list has been provided on the
Next question.
Alana, if I ask you any question, who is going to answer?
This ghost.
Chair, did you inform the applicant to attend the meeting?
Yes.
The question from Councillor Oudin was if the applicant was notified and the answer is yes.
Simi just notified us five minutes ago.
Simi has confirmed the applicant was notified and Corinne has spoken to them by phone this afternoon.
I did talk to worth noting they didn't ask as they could have done for an adjournment they could have communicated to that miss Poland
I'm in fact is they're not here
Any summing up
Cheque the fact that they are not here is also a concern and and they're only down the road 42 by Chippel Road
So they could have literally just come after you phoned them if they wanted to.
Corinne? Nicola?
It just seems that they haven't come here to hear their application.
They're not really bothered, it seems to me, but I mean, as Mohsin said, it's only down the road.
I'm at a loss as to why they haven't turned up to be quite honest.
I think...
Okay, well there's nothing more we can say, is there?
I think Councillor Oden also mentioned the licencing objectives, which they are five
minutes away, but I think, you know, whatever the...
No, it's fine.
I think there is a problem here. They were notified, they were notified in writing, they were telephoned today, and frankly they're running a business here.
If they are running a business here they must have the basics of what they're doing.
I mean it's no good of just saying they're running a business and they're going to operate as and when they want to and if we
Say you can't they first ignore the letter and then when the phone call comes
and perhaps
Corrine Corrine could once again say confirm what was said on the phone call
Yes, I mean obviously I phoned them
Literally just as you were walking in so I was on a limited time too, but obviously I said did you get?
notification that the hearing was today and he confirmed they had.
So I said, well don't you think you should be attending?
He said, well, you know,
sort of as in like, well they weren't going to. So I said, well obviously it's your
application
so surely it should be you putting your case forward
at the hearing. And I said, it's likely to be heard
in your absence as you're not here.
I didn't go down the line of asking if he wanted an adjournment
because I felt he should be here.
When he confirmed he had got the email,
if he'd said he hadn't got the email it might be different,
but as he confirmed he had got the email,
I thought that that, you know,
and the email clearly states about attending.
It's the same email that goes out to every applicant that applies.
So
Mushroom and just to confirm since my representation was made. Nobody has reached out to me to discuss anything
Right, I think we close on that we will do it for deliberation item number five quickly Simi
Do you have any other any applicants for?
extensions yes
I'm just gonna just quickly go through it just for menting purposes and the greens and grains 37 brick lane London e1
PFC Watney Market, 273 Commercial Road,
a fresh feast hospitality, 44 Artillery Lane, London E1,
Unit 5, Skylines Village, London E14,
Cafe La Vista, 15 Brick Lane, London E1,
the original crispy cod of 139 Watney Street, London E1,
Holy Carrots, 61 to 63 Brushfield Street, London E1,
Lebanese Grill, 80 Brick Lane, London E1,
Chicken Cottage 90, Whitechapel High Street,
London E1 and Fresco casino 96 Brick Lane London E1.
If members could please agree an extension to July 31st, 2026 please.
Agreed.
Sounds like an awful lot of people hope that she will.
Thank you.