Licensing Sub Committee - Thursday 16 July 2026, 6:30pm

Licensing Sub Committee
Thursday, 16th July 2026 at 6:30pm

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

I am the Chair of the Licencing Subcommittee.

This meeting is being held in person.

Committee members and key participants are present in the meeting room.

I believe there is no one joining remotely.

There is one person.

They are on our screen.

So we just need to keep an eye.

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

I would remind members at the meeting to only speak on my direction

and to speak clearly into the microphone to ensure that their contribution can be properly

recorded.

Can members and officers please introduce yourselves, struck from my right.

Naveen Miller -Johnson, Licencing.

Fahad Nazir, Democratic Services Officer, supporting Licencing Subcommittee this evening.

Jonathan Melnick, Legal Advisor to the Subcommittee.

Thank you.

Councillor de la Muerta.

Councillor Martin Parker.

Thank you, members.

Have we got any apologies for absence?

No, Chair, no apologies.

Thank you.

Do members have any declaration of disclusable pecuniary interest?

Any of us?

I'll just say that we have a lot of discussion about the

Thank you.

I have particularly anything to discuss about this day.

All these three applications fall in my ward.

That's all.

Can members please note the rules of procedure on page 9 to 18 of the agenda?

Now I move to you, for her now, to announce those in attendance.

We have Alec Tomlinson representing the applicant and Deren Nel in attendance for the first

application.

None of the objectors are present for this item.

Thank you.

Thank you, Fauna.

Can I ask the Dean Millard Johnson, licenced officer, to introduce the report?

Thank you.

This is an application for variation of a premises licence for Holy Carrot, which is

at 61 to 63 Brushfield Street, London E16AA.

This premises falls within the Brick Lane

Community of Impact area.

A copy of the variation is enclosed at appendix one,

which is pages 38 to 50.

The applicant has described the nature of the variation.

This can be found on page 32,

but I'll give you a brief summary.

They wish to extend the start time

for the retail sale of alcohol from 11am to 10am.

They wish to add permissions for off sales and also they are seeking to amend various conditions.

A copy of the existing licence can be found at appendix 2, pages 52 to 64.

Photographs of the venue can be found at Appendix 3, pages 66 to 67.

Maps showing the local vicinity can be found at Appendix 4, pages 69 to 70.

And details of other licenced venues can be found at Appendix 5, page 72 to 74.

Representations have been received from residents.

This can be found at Appendices 6 and 7, pages 76 to 81.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Do members have any questions to the officer?

Thank you.

Sorry, excuse me, Chair.

There's also a supplementary agenda for this item.

Thank you.

Can I ask, do you have any objectors here?

So, we can discuss now the members, if you have any questions.

Sorry, yeah, we just got passed. Sorry, I beg your pardon. Can I just ask the applicant

to present your application?

Thank you chair, I appreciate that.

Hi, my name is Alex and I'm the solicitor who submitted the application.

I'm joined here by Devon Nell, she's the restaurant manager and operations manager for the site.

By way of background, Holy Carrot is a contemporary vegetable led restaurant

contained within the old Spitalfields market.

It is a sister restaurant to the original Holy Carrot which is in Notting Hill.

It's established itself as a high quality dining destination with a strong emphasis

on sustainability, seasonal produce and responsible hospitality.

As outlined in our supplementary information, the business has built an excellent reputation

since opening, following the success of the original Notting Hill restaurant and it caters

to a broad range of customers seeking a premium vegetable based offering, including myself

As a long -standing vegetarian, I went to the original restaurant, I've been to this one,

I believe it's fantastic.

The application itself is modest in scope.

It's intended to provide greater operational flexibility while remaining entirely consistent

within the licencing objectives.

The variation seeks four changes.

Firstly, to permit the sale of alcohol from 10 rather than 11am on each day.

This reflects the restaurant's intention to open and expand a brunch offering on the site.

It simply allows the customers to enjoy enjoying brunch to order alcohol should they wish to do so.

From the beginning of service as opposed to having to wait until 11am.

It does not alter or change the nature of the business.

Secondly, we seek the permission of off sales but we have limited this strictly to sealed containers.

The purpose is straightforward.

Customers dining at the restaurant who look to enjoy a bottle of wine should have the option to purchase one a sealed bottle and take home if they want to.

This is common and sensible within most restaurants and does not create a risk of street drinking or public nuisance we believe.

Thirdly we seek to remove conditions 1, 10 and 21 of the current premises licence.

These conditions are no longer considered necessary or proportionate and we don't believe their removal will undermine any of the licencing objectives.

Finally we seek a modest amendment to condition 31 to allow customers seated in the external terrace area

to consume alcohol without having the requirement to eat a meal.

This reflects modern dining habits where customers may wish to enjoy a pre -dinner drink,

a glass of wine with a friend, or just a drink in a beautiful restaurant at the end of their night.

Importantly, this does not change the character of Holy Carrot.

It will remain a restaurant, it is not intending to be a bar.

The focus of the business and will continue to be high quality food.

The menus that you've been presented in the supplementary agenda demonstrate this clearly,

with an extensive range of seasonal dishes supported by a specially curated drinks offering.

Members will appreciate that the premises is not seeking later hours, we're not seeking an increased capacity.

The application is simply intended to allow the business to operate in a manner that better reflects customer expectations of a contemporary restaurant.

Throughout its operation, Holy Carrot has demonstrated a commitment to responsible management.

There is nothing within this application that would adversely affect the prevention of crime and disorder,

public safety, prevention of public nuisance or the protection of children from harm.

The changes sought are proportionate, practical and appropriate for a well managed restaurant opening within the Spitzfield market.

We have received two objections to the application, one from a local resident who is our neighbour and another from the local residents association.

We have reached out to both. Our neighbour has corresponded with us and indicated to the local council that they will not be in attendance today as they are happy with the works we have carried out at the premises.

We will of course continue to liaise with them. We also offer to meet with the local residents association to attend the premises to better understand what we are asking for and that offer still remains on the table.

At present we have not heard any correspondence back.

There is no objection from the licencing authority, there is no objection from environmental health

and there is no objection from the police.

For those reasons we respectfully submit or invite the subcommittee to grant the variation

as applied for.

Thank you and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

Do members have any questions to the applicant?

Please go ahead.

Councillor Woy.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your presentation.

Just you're asking in terms of the extended time for sales.

In terms of obviously that would bring its own challenges, obviously you want to increase your customer base etc.

In terms of your staff, what sort of training in terms of have they done in terms of basically for you to, for your operational duties.

Are they trained in terms of what sort of training?

Did they need to take any extra training in terms of understanding the whole process?

Of course, and just so I'm clear, this is just in relation to the 11am to the 10am, is that right?

Just so we're clear, the premises can open, it does have opening hours of earlier,

at the moment we're just unable to sell alcohol if we wanted to open that, that is the difference.

Devon will clearly explain all the training that the staff go through.

It's quite regimented, so I'll pass over to Devon.

We have a two -week training plan for any new starter,

which goes through all the legal compliance side of the business.

Obviously, anybody that is intoxicated, we no longer serve at all,

but we don't expect anybody at that time of day.

We just, in Portobello, we have found a really strong

brunch trade Saturdays and Sundays, which we'd like to replicate

in spittle fields, which does mean sometimes,

We only open at 10 .30 on the weekend and we were hoping if somebody wanted a mimosa or a Bloody Mary with their brunch we would be able to offer it.

It's by no means to have bottomless brunches or anything like that at all.

It is just so that we have the full menu available at that time of day when we start trading.

You have indicated

that

the off sales

would be

of wine.

Would you be

prepared

to set that as a

condition?

We do do beer as well,

which we would like, obviously,

the ability for people to take away.

So we would like to be entrusted

so that we would run the off sales appropriately and within the, I would say, the manner of

the site.

It is a very selected drinks offering, it's not a traditional, as you say, operation of

a bar or a pub or anything like that, so we would like the flexibility and the trust to

open the sealed containers to a nice beer or as I say any other sort of spirit which

we may be able to do by sealed containers, yeah.

Yeah, so that would be the potential issue there is that you could then sort of do spirits

or something else and then...

We could.

Do we sell any spirits?

We don't have a back bar.

The way the restaurant's designed, there's a fire escape along the back of the bar, so

we have no back bar.

We buy in all our cocktails pre -batched, so we don't really sell a lot of spirits.

I wouldn't, I think since we've opened, we could open three months, I maybe have sold two gin and tonics.

So it's not a big offering that we have on site or a big list that we carry of spirits.

It's kind of a token bottle. That's it's a in case somebody wants a gin and tonic.

I wouldn't think that spirits or people buying a bottle of spirits at all would be what we are looking at.

It's, we've got cans of beer. We have no draught beer.

It's just cans and bottles of beer and bottles of wine really that we could do as sealed containers.

Thank you.

Just from

the current running

of the premises,

have you ever been confronted

with it?

I believe there is a local residence

surrounding your premises.

Have you ever confronted

with any of your issues

with the local residence at all?

Have we had any issues with local residents?

In terms of running the venue with the timing or noise or anything?

As I say, when we initially took on the restaurant, there was correspondence with our neighbour who sits directly next to us.

That was more so to do with the building works, as Darren will explain.

We immediately entered dialogue with that neighbour and that resident to make sure that obviously what we were doing was acceptable and agreeable.

Since then we've had a very good working relationship with that resident and that

neighbour. We've invited them into the restaurant the majority of the time in

all honesty they're not at their premises they're elsewhere but when they

are there we obviously have correspondence with them to make sure

that they're happy. The majority of their concerns was in relation to plant and

machinery works, less so about the actual operation of the restaurant.

Yes so if the venue was a retail space before we took over so we had to build

the plant room and everything in and our plant room party wall sits onto their apartment.

So initially it was the noise of the building works, the drilling and then the sound of

the extraction.

So we've done quite a lot of work since we've opened, we've put vibration pads, we've put

acoustic sounding boards, we've put jackets around all the fans.

So we've done significant work to work with them until the point where they're happy.

We got a noise consultant in as well to come and do an acoustic survey which he put some equipment up for a couple of days to assess different noise levels at different night.

He's passed us completely as well and any recommendations he passed on to us, to the neighbour, we've done everything that they've said.

So at the moment the last communication I had with the neighbour they were happy with what we've done and he did say to me that he was going to withdraw his objection around that stating that they were happy that we've done everything we could.

But it was nothing to do with the trading per se.

It was the sound of the plant room.

Just from my understanding, how long you are running the premises since when?

We opened on the 21st of March.

The 21st?

Of March of this year.

Of March this year.

Just one more question.

I mean, I just look at the removal of conditions

and this relates to the...

You have some condition you want to take out

that especially condition 31,

the same in supply of alcohol for consumption

in our centres shall only be whiter, which is...

How do you, at the moment, what difficulties you are getting,

relating your consuming the drinks outside and inside?

Is there any difficulties in your business?

Yeah, so in short, so the terrace, although it is a terrace,

is a conservatory out the back of the premises.

At the moment, as per the wording of that current condition, everyone who would like

to have a drink there must also order a meal.

The difficulty that we have is that the kitchen closes at 3 o 'clock and reopens again at 5

o 'clock for the evening meal and we do get people coming into the restaurant wanting

to sit and have a glass of wine or sit and have a glass of prosecco and at present we

can't serve them, we're not allowed to do so because they would like to sit in that

terrace, look at old Spitalfields Market, pass by and then order their food at 5 o 'clock.

By the wording of that condition we technically can't do that, so we're turning away trade and that is significant.

What we would like to be able to do is have people come in, sit, have a glass of wine if they like to, look at the menu.

If they don't like the look of the menu, let them leave, that's not a problem.

It gives us that operational flexibility whereas the moment we're stuck and we can't do so.

Just out of curiosity, what's the average price of a bottle of wine at your premises?

Or possibly even the cheapest?

Because I noticed the beer inside was referred to in the menu on the supplemental pack, but not the wine,

which I suspect was more the issues that you were looking at selling.

So it might be useful for the committee to get an understanding of that.

We have only eight whites and eight grids.

The house wine entry price is £38 a bottle,

and I think the most expensive one is £100.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We don't have any more questions.

Now, we're going to move to the concluding remarks.

Since we have no objectors here, present or last the applicant.

We have one minute to present your concluding remarks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

This is a modest and sensible application.

We believe it seeks to provide Holy Carrot with greater operational flexibility without changing the nature of the premises.

Holy Carrot is and will remain a high quality restaurant.

It is not seeking later hours, increased capacity or changing of its restaurant -led operation.

This application simply seeks to allow brunch service from 10am,

permit the sale of sealed bottles of wine or other forms of alcohol,

remove outdated licence conditions and allow customers seated on the terrace to enjoy a drink without the requirement of food.

These measured changes reflect customer expectations and the way successful restaurants operate today.

We don't believe they undermine any of the licencing objectives

and the premises will continue to be a responsibly managed operation, as it has been since its opening.

For those reasons, again, we respectfully ask that you grant the application as applied for.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your contribution today.

The subcommittee will deliver it in a private session after this meeting ends.

and the democratic services will send out the decision to you all within five working days.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you, Jesse. Thank you, Constance.

Just fitting in.

Thank you very much.

We go to our second application, 4 .2.

This is an application for a new promises second on speed of 68.

Can I ask Farhana to announce those in attendance, please?

Yes, Chair, I can do. We have Ms Genevieve Woods, who is the barrister,

David Izani, the solicitor, and a cohort of other attendees, which are Matt Wildman,

Torben Anderson, Brynie Masters and Will Taylor. Those are for the applicant.

And we have Ms. Susan Kay, the objector, and Caroline Hamilton, who is online, but she's using a colleague or partner's laptop,

So it's coming up with different initials up there, but that is Caroline Hamilton.

Chair.

Thank you.

Caroline Hamilton, can you hear us?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Can I ask Lavin Miller -Johnson, licenced officer, to introduce the report, please?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

This is an application for a new premises licence for Second Homes, Spitalfields, which

is at 6870 Hanbury Street, London E1 5JL.

A copy of the new application is enclosed as Appendix 1, pages 92 to 111.

The applicant has described the premises as a co -working space and cultural event venue,

consisting of five floors.

There is a bar and a café on the ground floor.

There are external terraces located on the fourth floor.

A copy of the existing licence can be found at appendix 2, pages 113 to 125.

The licence for activities and timings that have been applied for are for sales of alcohol

on sales Monday to Friday from 8am from 800 hours to 22, 30, 100 hours.

Saturday from 9 until 22.

30.

100 hours.

And Sunday from 9

until 22.

30.

100 hours.

Provisions of

regulated entertainment

indoors.

Monday to Friday from 8

until 11.

Saturday and Sunday from

Sorry, Saturday from 9

until 11.

PM.

And Sunday from 9 until

20 to 30.

Hours of the premises will be open to the public Monday to Friday from 8am until 11 .30pm,

Saturday from 9am until 11 .30pm and Sunday from 9 until 11pm.

There are no non -standard timings.

The premises will be open, sorry, the opening hours are unrestricted for members of the co -working office.

Photographs of the venue can be found at Appendix 3, pages 127 to 128.

The site plan of the venue is included at Appendix 4, pages 130 to 134.

Maps of the area are included at Appendix 5, pages 136 to 137.

and details of other venues that are close by can be found at Appendix 6, pages 139.

Objections have been received.

These can be found at pages sorry, these are at Appendix 7 to 15, pages 141 to 169.

There are some conditions to be taken into consideration and these are at pages 68 sorry

86 to 88 and conditions have also been agreed with by the police and this is at page 88.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

Just for my help, I recognise Mr Anderson, I've seen him before.

Is it Brian E Masters? Is that right?

And can I just know which one is Mr Taylor?

Excellent. And that would leave you as Mr Wildman.

Would you mind actually just in terms of the committee,

what your roles are within the business?

because it might be useful to know as well.

So I'm the director of operations

for both locations for Second Home

and Will is a general manager for the Spitterfields location.

Yeah, I'm an acoustic consultant.

I work with Torben at RBA Acoustics.

Speaking, when the?

Thank you, Jonathan.

Okay.

Do you remember to ask, obviously, a question now,

or shall I take the application first?

Yeah? Thank you.

Can I ask the applicant to make their representation?

You have five minutes to present your application.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Ms. Woods, and this is an application

in respect of Second Home in Spitalfields.

As you know, the designated premises supervisor sits beside me.

Second Home is first and foremost a workplace.

It provides flexible co -working spaces such as desks and meeting spaces to its members.

But secondary to those functions, not alcohol -led but ancillary to that work,

Second Home does also hold some events which are relevant to its functions.

And it has done so over the course of many years, having first been licenced for that

purpose in 2014.

Recent events in the past year include a leadership event with curated talks, an art event with

spoken word poetry and local dance performances, and a networking event for a charity fundraising

platform.

These are the general kinds of events which this premises holds.

They are not alcohol -led, they are arts, books and community.

That growth and contribution to the local area and the local community is not only an

asset which I recognise myself as a resident of Tower Hamlets, but also a factor which

is to be taken into account as part of the statutory guidance when considering this application.

As you're aware, this premises does sit within the CIA for Brick Lane, but in my submission,

the presumption which ordinarily applies within that area does not apply to this application.

And in my submission, even if it did, this is an exception which ought to be granted

despite the existence of the CIA.

There are three key reasons for that.

The first is that the presumption does not apply in this case because this is not a wholly fresh licence.

This is the replacement and surrender of an existing licence, which is a specified exemption to the CIA presumption.

Second, the CIA doesn't restrict this licence because there will be no additional cumulative impact on the area

because the functions which it seeks by way of this application are already in place,

and I will explain a little bit more about that in just a moment.

And third, because of the fact that this is not an alcohol -led venue and because significant mitigation has been put in place,

even if the presumption were to apply, there has been enough done by this diligent DPS and by this applicant to ensure that there isn't an adverse impact on the licencing objectives.

So taking those points one by one, if I may, first, as I say, this is not a fresh application.

This is a business which has an existing licence and the proposal is to surrender that licence

if this application is granted.

And it therefore falls within the replacement provisions of the CIA, rather than to be treated

as a wholly fresh application.

The current licence is out of date.

It needs modernising and it needs strengthening to ensure that the conditions are up to date

and reflect modern licencing and to reflect the CIA.

That is partly why this applicant has come forward, seeking to strengthen this licence.

Second, there will be no additional impact on the licencing objectives,

because this licence, including the addition sought, is already operating in practise through the use of temporary event notices.

This applicant has had 15 TENs granted over the past year.

And those TENs have been used to hold events of exactly the kind which are sought to be held under this licence application.

The events have been held over the past year without the benefit of the additional restrictions and conditions which we seek to apply by this licence.

So there are fewer safeguards in place for the previous events.

However, throughout that whole period there has not been a single complaint.

Those events have been successful, embraced by members in the community, and have not had any adverse impact on the licencing objectives.

In fact, there have been no complaints in relation to this venue since Brian E. Husits beside me, the current DPS, took over approximately four years ago.

And there has been a wholesale change in management four years ago, which has led to a clear licencing period which follows.

As the licence sort is currently in place by use of those TENS, the effect of granting this licence is that you will save the Council the hassle of repeated applications for TENS,

and ensure that there are stronger, better conditions in place so that these events can be run safely and without adversely impacting this community.

Third, a number of strong mitigation measures have been put in place to ensure that there

is no additional cumulative impact upon the Brick Lane area.

The conditions sought are significantly more onerous than the previous iteration of the

licence, but all of the hours are within the framework hours, so there's no application

to exceed that.

In fact, the hours which are sought only differ from the existing licence by half an hour,

half an hour per day.

And that's something that's been requested to bring the alcohol sale hours in line with

the current permitted hours under the licence for regulated entertainment.

There are additional conditions in relation to security and robust conditions in place

to manage noise.

I can provide further information about both of those on request.

And as you're aware, we have representatives from RBA Acoustics, which conducted a bespoke

acoustics assessment of the impact of noise on the terrace and they are present and able

to answer questions.

Their acoustics report found that there would be an increase in the level of noise by just

2 .1 decimals at the highest if there were to be 30 people on the terrace for an event

at Second Home, which is categorised within the regulations as just being just audible.

And of course, under this licence, it's not 30 people on the terrace which is sought,

but only 15, so half of that.

This is an applicant which has been careful and diligent in ensuring that the impact has

been assessed, considered and mitigated.

These mitigation measures have been reviewed by Environmental Health, by the Police and

by the Licencing Authority, and all three have withdrawn any objections to this application.

That is a reflection of the strength of those mitigation measures and of the commitment

of this applicant to engaging with the community and working with the licencing authority to

ensure that its venue can hold events in a way that is safe and respectful to its neighbours.

Considerable work has been done to engage with neighbours and that is something I can

again provide more information about if it would be of assistance.

We will continue to engage moving forward and if residents remain concerned we are able

to provide a phone number for real -time concerns to be raised and addressed.

For those three reasons, the CIA presumption does not apply against the grantor of this

licence and I would urge you to formalise the arrangements which are already currently

in place by the use of TENS to support this applicant in safely holding events which support

local artists, local businesses and entrepreneurs and give back to the community in a way which

is safe.

Unless I can assist further, that is the application.

Thank you.

Can I ask the objectives?

I've got Nicola Cadzo.

Is he here?

Ms Kay is on the...

Oh, right.

Okay.

Just the residents.

and you've got Susan McKay, who's present,

and Caroline Hamilton, who's online.

And Miss Wood took seven minutes for her presentation, so.

All right, okay, so I'll try, I'll try.

Yeah, thank you.

Can I have the objectors to make your presentation?

You have just been reminded that it's taken seven minutes.

I'll give you seven minutes or two as well.

Each, sorry, seven minutes each

between Susan Kay and Caroline Hamilton.

So you are?

I'm Susan Kay.

Susan Kay, yeah, please.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Chair, members of the subcommittee,

my name is Susan Kay and I'm a member of SPIRE

and I'm speaking today in place of our chair, Chris Lloyd, who is unable to attend.

SPIRE reviews licence applications in the ward to ensure that the interests of residents and other constituents are properly protected.

We support a balanced ward in which commerce can thrive alongside a safe, clean and liveable neighbourhood.

We object to this application because it seeks to turn Second Home into a much larger events venue with serious consequences for the neighbouring residential estate and other residents.

The building is currently used primarily as a co -working space. It was never designed or constructed to operate as a dedicated events venue and does not have the specialist sound insulation normally expected for premises hosting large music and entertainment events.

events. The key legal point is that the premises has historically been treated as a workspace

with only limited additional licencing activity and the 2022 rooftop application was withdrawn

before determination so there is no approved precedent for the larger events led use now

being proposed. Our main concern is the proposal for 20 large events each year including music

events with more than 150 people attending and pre -booked events of up to 500 people.

That is a major increase in scale and intensity. The premises sit immediately beside a large

residential estate where many families with children live and repeated large events would

inevitably have a significant impact. The application does not explain how the building

will be adequately soundproofed and how noise will be properly controlled, other than amplification

will be lowered if deemed unacceptable. It says the outdoor terrace will remain open

until 22 hours, but it gives no clear assurance about how noise from large indoor events will

be contained or how disturbance to nearby homes will be prevented. The issue is not

It is not just what happens inside the venue,

it is also the arrival and departure

of large numbers of guests, queues outside,

people gathering on the pavements,

and the noise from smokers, taxis, and general dispersal.

Taken together, these factors would create

serious nuisance for residents,

particularly later in the evening.

The current premises licence permits opening

from eight until 11 Monday to Saturday,

and 8 until 10 .30 on Sundays.

These hours were considered appropriate

because the building's principal use was a co -working space

with limited additional events.

This proposal represents a significant change

in both the nature and intensity of the use.

It moves away from a limited activity venue

towards a much larger and more importantly,

an event -led venue.

Given the building's location immediately adjacent to residential homes and its lack of specialist soundproofing,

residents believe the proposal would create an unacceptable risk of public nuisance.

For these reasons, we ask the subcommittee to refuse the application as submitted,

or at the very least to substantially reduce the scale and frequency of large events

and ensure that the licenced objectives are fully protected

for the benefit of the surrounding community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can I ask you, Susan Kaye, join on.

Sorry, Caroline Hamilton, can you please present your objection.

Thank you.

Well, having been a neighbour of second homes since...

Can I just ask Caroline Hamilton to come on the screen so we can see you when you're speaking

so it's more visible to us.

Thank you.

That's great.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Well, having been a neighbour of second homes since 2014, unfortunately they've had a very

bad history of when they've had late night events. It is a residential area, and with

late night noise, parties in the past where police have had to be called, even when we've

gone round to ask them to keep the noise down, and they say about the terrace and having

events on there. Well, they've got the acoustic report, but that's only for people. One of

the last parties they had there, they had fireworks going off, and they hadn't let any

the neighbours know with pets and unfortunately their community engagement is not very good

with the neighbours and they don't in forms of events. So I think to change this place

from a co -working space into an event space would be a big mistake. They've shown in the

past that they have not behaved themselves and they've caused a nuisance to residents

and it is surrounded by residential apartments.

So I strongly object to this application.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can I ask the members, if you have any questions,

please ask other parties, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

What floors do you propose holding events on?

Because I've had a look, it seems to be that you're suggesting that the whole building

is going to become an event space because that seems to be what's suggested by the application

for the licence.

At present, under the existing licence, only the ground floor is licenced for the holding

of events.

But using temporary event notices, events have been held in a range of different spaces

in the building across different floors, although primarily using the fourth floor and terraces

which are on the fourth floor.

The intention is primarily to use the existing licence ground floor and the fourth floor,

Though for smaller events and different types of events, there may be scope to use the range of spaces available throughout the building.

And that's in part why the plan has been provided.

It's rather an unusual layout because it is designed to be an open co -working space with flexible hot -desking and meeting spaces.

So there are a range of different spaces which can be used.

And the reason for licencing the whole building is to ensure that the flexibility that this applicant has had with the TENS,

the events which have been held over the past year, can be taken forward into the permanent

licence.

Yeah, but if you licence the whole building, then that means then that you could have a

lot of events which don't hit this 150 limit that you're proposing throughout the building,

whereas isn't that currently restricted in some way?

At present, the licence restricts events to 150 people.

Through the use of tents, there have been a large number of events

with different attendances, different sizes of events,

ranging from very small events to much larger events

in different spaces around the building.

The building is used by members for working and enjoying

and socialising on a regular basis, not as formal events,

but day to day.

So there are always smaller gatherings, meetings occurring,

which are not licenced activities,

and which do not fall within the scope of this application

in the building itself.

What is sought by this application

is to impose stricter conditions and to licence the building

as a whole so that what's currently being done by TENS

can instead be done without multiple applications

to the council 15 times a year.

I must say I remain confused as to the need to actually extend it, licence beyond the

ground floor if the other events that are happening in conjunction with co -working,

they wouldn't require a licence. So you seem to be advocating some sort of a licence,

So there are two differences.

The first is in relation to on sales only.

And the second is in relation to the use of larger spaces

for events.

So at the moment, for example, if this applicant

were to hold an event on the fourth floor using the terrace

and its wonderful views, it would

apply for a 10 to the council in order

to facilitate that event happening.

And that has been happening 15 times in the past 12 months.

and those events have been held, have been successful, no complaints received,

and that is something which has to be done on an ad hoc basis at the moment,

because it is not covered by the existing licence.

The application is to ensure that flexibility is granted without having to do ad hoc arrangements,

so that safer structures can be put in place.

You may have seen with the application a range of different policies which have been put in place by this applicant.

noise management policies, policies for dispersal, security, welfare and vulnerability.

All of those are policies which are being drafted and applied to this application to

ensure that those events, depending on where they're held in the building and the nature

of those events, are done in a manner which is safe and which doesn't impact on the residents.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation.

Just a few things. I actually know the area quite well.

It is right bang in the middle of residential area.

There's a lot of residential area around that area.

On your application you are currently, you've said you are running events, people attending in the region of 150

and you want to increase that to 500 possibly. That's quite a huge jump.

Currently when you hold an event, you've also said basically in terms of some of the things that you're going to put in place.

For example you said you're going to increase and have two SIS security guards there.

So currently when you're running event firstly, my first question is how many security personnel you have currently.

And secondly, if you do have any and if you increase it by 500, is two going to be enough?

The next thing is it's a work space.

Sorry to go past council, but the risk is if you ask too many questions at once,

you're probably not going to get an answer to any of them perhaps.

I thought you had just asked the second question,

because I've got how many SIA they've got and if they increase it,

is two going to be enough?

Sorry, Jonathan, I'm going to ask another one.

Yeah

Thank you, sorry, so the the next question is it's a workspace

Is it in terms of what we said you said on the application that

There's not going to be no live music in the lobby area. So that's going to reduce some of the noise going out

Do you think that basically having the upstairs lobby open, how is that going to, in terms

of increase that noise going up and how are we going to mitigate that going forward?

I'll come back to my next questions after I've got a few more other questions.

On the first point in relation to security, the two SIA security staff specified in the

conditions are specified as a minimum only. So when the event hits 250 attendees or more,

then it is a mandatory requirement to have at least two SIA staff, but it is also a requirement

that Second Home conducts a full risk assessment of that event.

And as part of that risk assessment, it must consider whether,

particularly for events that are larger than 250 persons,

whether additional security staff will be needed on top of that.

And that will depend in part on where the event's held,

the nature of the event, the sale of alcohol.

So on each instance, the conditions of the licence require that to be risk assessed.

That risk assessment to be provided to the police

and therefore communication to be established with the police

to ensure that it is safe and adequately secured.

So that's in relation to the first question.

In relation to your second question, which is about the mitigation of noise,

this is something Second Home has taken very seriously.

That's why we've commissioned this bespoke acoustics report

and we have also put in place the detailed noise management policy,

which sets out at great length the different measures which Second Home is using to manage noise.

and those are measures that have been put in place and tested in practise

through the temporary event notices that have been held at the premises.

So we've been testing this in effect by holding events.

And not one of those events has there been a single complaint from any neighbour or resident

about noise, nor any concerns raised with second home.

So we've written the policy, we've been complying with that policy and working with residents

trying to engage opening up lines of dialogue so we can ensure they know where to reach

us if there are concerns.

And yet, no concerns have been raised.

So in my submission, the proof is in the pudding here.

We've tested it in practise and it is working.

Do you have any other questions?

Yeah, go on.

Okay, I've got a couple of questions.

First of all, as you know, it falls within the CIZ area.

It has been there for quite some time and it is for some reason in the area.

Because I live locally as well, I have got some experience.

Two things I want to ask this time is, in terms of changing, converting the property,

because this is a residential building.

I've been there for, you know, decades, you know,

maybe if not hundreds.

So what have you done to accommodate all this

at the venue at the same time?

It was the major work you have done inside

that it wouldn't impact or you didn't come outside the venue

to accommodate all these people inside.

Secondly, this is a street that is partially business and residential.

The people live above, even right opposite to the venue, the proposed property.

There are hundreds of residents living above flats across the road,

and a very narrow street and a narrow payment as well.

So how would you make sure that the impact of that inside the venue wouldn't come out to disturb people in the street?

Especially when you're talking about very, very narrow street.

I have seen some shops myself around the Brooklyn area,

they've got a small venue inside overloaded with customers impacted on the payment.

So how do you overcome that?

In relation to your first question about conversions to the property,

there are two limbs to the answer.

The first is to say that I think the way that this has been described

is as though there is a change in purpose or a conversion to the purpose of this applicant and of this property.

But in fact this is an applicant which has had a licence to hold events for 12 years

and has been doing so to different scales and degrees throughout that time period.

I understand the fear that because of this application it seems like there is going to be a dramatic change.

That is very much not the intention. The intention is to regularise something that is already happening.

So it's not a case of a significant change to the premises or to the purpose of this business,

which remains primarily and will remain a co -working space.

The second limb is to say that the increased size of events which has been tested in practise

through the TENS is something that's been very carefully considered in terms of what

steps can be taken to ensure this isn't impacting residents.

And there are a number of steps which have been taken.

Some of those are set out in the conditions, so for example, the direction which speakers

are pointing, the fact that there can only be 15 persons on the terrace after 10 o 'clock,

Thought given to ingress, egress, dispersal of attendees, and of course steps taken in

relation to the collection of waste.

A broad range of measures have been put in place specifically at this venue, considered,

written down into policy, and implemented in practise through the temporary event notices.

And those have been successful in ameliorating the impact of larger events.

So the licence already allows the 150, where there have been additional events.

We have been testing, we have been thinking and working to try to make sure this doesn't increase the impact on anybody else.

And those factors which we have put into place, those steps which have been taken, consulting with the experts who are present, does seem to have worked.

Thank you.

In terms of the large events that you proposed to hold, 20 you're proposing per year.

These large events, are they ticketed and how you, in terms of the marketing process,

how do you market it, these events.

and also how many small events have you proposed as well?

So the limit is for 20 events over 150 persons every year.

And that does line up broadly with the 10s that have been done.

There have been 15 10s in a one year period,

and 20 is obviously, 15 is the limit on 10s, 20 is a modest increase from that number.

So it does line up with what's already being done in practise.

The events are pre -booked events.

There's a range of different kinds.

It might be a business which uses the facilities which wants to host a corporate networking

event.

It might be a member who wants to celebrate their birthday at the location.

But they are pre -booked, pre -managed events with notice given in advance to the licencing

authorities, to the police, for example, as part of our conditions, with a guest list

and not open to the general public for pre -booked events.

These are events where we know who is coming in advance

and we manage the size and shape of those events.

So, someone just walking past can't just go in and so it's all pre -booked, ticketed, etc.

That's right. Under the existing 2014 licence there is in fact no restriction on the premises operating as an open bar

which is a matter of concern to the applicant

and part of what we're seeking to rectify

by replacing that licence with the one which we are seeking.

So we recognise those risks.

That is, we are not looking to operate as a bar, a pub,

a nightclub, any alcohol -led venue.

This is a workplace.

And like any workplace, there are opportunities

to hold social events, networking events,

and that is simply what this applicant wishes to do.

So just basically the reason for asking that is so...

God forbid you hold an event and if something happens, etc, you would be able to share information.

I'm sure you've read somewhere here that you are willing to share information with local authorities as well as the police.

Absolutely, and part of what we will be doing as part of the conditions of the licence, agreed with the police,

Part of why they withdrew any objection to this is that we're going to notify them in

advance of events over a certain threshold and make sure they're risk assessed, they

agree with the amount of security provided and they're comfortable that the arrangements

are safe and secure.

And yes, of course, we'd be willing to work with the police, with fire authority as required

to ensure that our events and our members remain safe.

I just want to, just for clarification, I did answer the question but just, you know,

in terms of, say, people are gathering outside in the street and because it's not only for

residential areas, it's just due to being the pavement,

being very narrow, and to know what percussion

you are to take to overcome those people

who probably the time of entry or time of coming out,

just to allow them that is somewhere you cannot

hang around with the big groups.

Thank you for the question.

It's a very helpful question and something

We've given a lot of thought to you may see that the dispersal and egress policy of second home has been disclosed with this application

And that policy sets out in detail the steps which will be taken to ensure that

Dispersal is done in a safe manner and to reduce crowding on the pavement outside and subsequent noise

So for example the policy goes through a wind down procedure

To ensure that events rather than just being cut off and everybody being sent out into the street at once

There's a gradual winding down process to scatter dispersal

that there is supervision in place of exits with signage and staff or security as appropriate,

overseeing egress and dispersing crowds so that they are not crowding onto the pavement.

And ensuring that that policy is implemented in a way which is tiered to the size of the event.

So for larger events there are different procedures, for smaller events they are bespoke.

It is a tiered policy, if you look at it, which deals with events under 149 persons,

events between 150 and 249 persons, and then has a different set of procedures for larger

events.

So a lot of thought has been given to how to manage that precise problem based on the

different size of events.

And again, this is something that has been tested and put into practise through the events

which have been held.

And again, we've had four years free of complaint from any resident.

I understand from the objections that were raised, there has been a difficult history

under previous ownership some years ago, but this is a management team which has changed

wholesale, which changed four years ago, and in that time, those problems have not been

repeated.

This is not the management team that has ever had fireworks.

This is not a management team that has dealt with police being called to the venue.

This is the management team which has drafted these policies to ensure that residents are

safe and members are safe.

Thank you very much.

Do you have any more questions?

Thank you, Chair.

Just in relation to proposed condition 2 about the capacity of events over 150 people, you

have got four floors, possibly five.

We have got the grounds through to the fourth.

then obviously one possible issue that might arise is you've got an event on say the ground floor with 30 people

and then another event the floor above with 70, but as drafted at the moment that condition doesn't bite

as long as the individual events are under 150. What would your client's position be if the committee

reminders to grant to modify that so that it would catch multiple events at the same

time with a cumulative number of people in excess of 150.

Can I just be sure I understand the question? Apologies. Is the suggestion that the number

will be kept cumulatively across events so that there can't be multiple events which

individually exceed the cap? Is that the suggestion? Apologies if I've misunderstood.

If I may make it clear, I think it's just making sure that we don't have multiple events

on the same day, where you might end up with two, three, four hundred people in the venue,

but because each event is under that 150 limit, none of them are actually caught by that 20

capita.

I mean, that would obviously be a massive concern for residents.

We say accumulate them and then...

My understanding, I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, is that that is certainly not the intention

of this application and a clarification to ensure that that is clear to all on reading,

clear in the minds of the committee and alleviates that worry.

We would certainly have no objection to that.

One other one, just in relation to the, well two actually, in relation to the roof terraces

and conditions that were agreed with the noise team.

I think first one, from 2200 hours until close, only one of the fourth floor external terraces.

It doesn't say it, I think the assumption is, but let's just be clear, only one of those terraces at any one time, yes?

Yes, that's correct.

And...

The only other point really potentially might get caught, condition D of that,

no music to be played or presented on an external terrace obviously.

At the hours you're seeking you're outside of regulated entertainment anyway, so technically it doesn't buy it.

I mean, what if that was to be modified so that it would prohibit the operation of loudspeakers

on the terrace?

That would then capture anything like amplified speech that might cause a nuisance.

Would there be any objection for that?

There are no speakers at present on the terrace for safety reasons, and there would be no

objection taken to making that a condition of the licence as well.

I appreciate, obviously, there's something wrong with the webcast, Ms Hamilton.

I'd just be curious if you're able to answer this, if you're not, don't worry.

But I appreciate there's obviously certainly been issues in the last, historically with the premises.

I was wondering if there's been anything specific in the last four years.

Can you pop the mic on when you answer, please?

Sorry, I forgot. These two ladies who were objecting, they lived behind this premise.

So they were one of the objectors that approached SPIRE and that's why we got involved.

And we have been involved, there was right from the start, so in 2014, I think Randall Teale,

who was running SPIRE at the time, he came to object to various conditions which were agreed upon, I think.

And then in 2022 there was an application for the roof terrace to be somehow used

and that was not filled in somehow properly and then the whole application was taken down

and not proceeded with.

So they live locally, they live right behind and so I can't really speak for them

and say how badly they were affected, they just are.

And they feel that turning it into what is almost

a nightclub, you know, that there are going to be

all these events, 20 of them, with up to maybe 500.

If it is successful, they're going to perhaps demand

for more, more time, you know, because perhaps

the working space is not doing so well at the moment.

I mean, economically, I can understand,

you want to have a kind of a venue like that

and round Brick Lane it's very popular.

And so we're not against that, it's just I think we feel

that these large numbers of people coming,

which yes, they are saying it's going to be controlled,

but a lot of people feel that doesn't always follow through

in the end, you know, because it is a commercial enterprise.

And obviously, you know, we're not saying

they shouldn't succeed, and we know very much

about the nighttime, you know, economy

that everybody's talking about at the moment,

and especially around our area in Brick Lane,

this is an important issue.

So we're not against that.

I mean, you know, but I think it's turning

what is a workspace somehow,

perhaps the workspace is not doing as well,

so let's turn it into an event space.

That's, I think, the feeling of a lot of the people

on our committee and sort of residents that I've spoken to.

Thank you, Jane.

Thank you very much.

If you don't have any more questions.

If you don't have any more questions, I would ask

to move into the concluding remarks.

Can I ask the objector first?

You have one minute for your final concluding remarks.

Yeah.

I'm sure you can repeat it, but that's good to hear.

Yeah, if you have anything to say, I will also ask the...

I lost Caroline.

You lost her, yeah?

Yeah, I lost her.

Okay.

There were work meetings and they were not able to attend

and they were open to be able to speak, which one of them did.

So, I guess.

Anything you want to say as a final?

I can say, well basically what I just said to you,

I think that just, sorry.

Basically we're SPIRE and the rest of us are concerned that this will turn into a sort of a nightclub venue.

If it's successful there will be more and more applications for as well as this perhaps the 20 large events a year,

which if you allow that, that would happen. And then they can still do their tens and they can still have extra.

So the fear of people living locally has been that this can be turned into a nightclub type of music and DJs and all sorts of events

that we feel is going to be very detrimental to the area particularly.

I mean not any other part of Brick Lane if it's the Truman Brewery which has big warehouse spaces that's fine.

But this is really in a very residential area.

The pavements are very narrow.

It's a very narrow street at that point.

So there's been a lot of comment that this is not something

that we would feel comfortable with as a community

happening in that street particularly.

Thank you.

Can I ask the applicant please a final remark?

I do understand the concerns that are being raised

because there is a real fear that this is a significant change.

But in fact it's not.

This is something Second Home has been doing over the course of 12 years already.

We are not turning Second Home into a nightclub.

We are not doing a massive or dramatic change in the scale or nature of events.

We are regularising it under a single licence and ensuring that the policies are in place

to keep it safe.

Just to give an example, we have an event coming up that will be 300 people under a

10.

It's not a nightclub, it's not a rave, it's a book fair designed for people to come together

and celebrate and communicate about reading.

These are the kinds of events that Second Home is hosting, events that are designed

to support and enrich the community.

I understand there was a painful history with previous owners and previous managers.

that this management should be judged on their own record and not the record of wholly separate

individuals and their record is clear and clean.

Bryony is conscientious and careful and wants to do the right thing by residents, which

is why she spent such a lot of time reaching out to them, offering meetings, emailing and

communicating to ensure they're safe.

As I say, we are willing to offer a phone number so that residents can raise concerns

and that they can be addressed in real time.

And in addition, if there is residual concern on the part of the committee, we would be

willing to reduce the maximum capped number for the events down to 400 or even 300 if

there are real concerns.

But we maintain that 500 is a safe number for this venue, particularly with the arrangements

we've put in place through the policies.

So in conclusion, I would invite you to grant this application.

There is a reason none of the licencing authorities object.

It is safe.

Thank you for your contribution.

Today the subcommittee will deliver it in a private session.

After this meeting ends, the Democratic Service will send out the decision to you within five

working days.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can I ask Farhana to announce the 4 .3 agenda on the attendance, please?

Thank you.

Yes, Chair.

We have Christopher Montanez representing the applicant, and the applicant is Lily Chung -Fang

key in attendance and objectors are Corinne Holland from Licencing and Nicola Cadso from

Environmental Health.

Thank you.

Can I ask Lavin Miller again to, the laceracer, to introduce the report again please?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

This is an application for a new premises licence for Lebanese Grill, which is at 80

Brick Lane London E1 6RL.

The premises falls within the Brick Lane Community of Impact area.

A copy of the application is shown in Appendix 1, pages 178 to 197.

The applicant has described the premises as a takeaway shop selling Lebanese -style food.

The hours that have been applied for are late night refreshment indoors, Sunday to Thursday from 2300 hours until midnight,

Friday to Saturday from 2300 hours until 200 hours the following day.

Opening times for the premises are Sunday to Thursday from 10am until midnight,

Friday and Saturday from 10am until 2am the following day.

There are non -standard timings. These can be found on page 191.

Photographs of the venue can be found at Appendix 2, pages 199 to 200.

The site plan of the venue is included as Appendix 3, page 202.

Maps showing the facility are included at Appendix 4, page 204.

Details of other licenced venues in close proximity are at Appendix 5, pages 206 to

211.

Objections have been received from responsible authorities and residents.

These can be found at Appendices 6 to 10, pages 213 to 245.

Conditions for consideration can be found at Appendix 11, which is page 247.

Thank you, Sher.

Sorry, there's also a supplementary agenda for this item.

Thank you.

Can I ask the applicant to present your application?

You have five minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, chair and members.

Thank you for giving the opportunity to speak.

Firstly, I would like to thank the responsible authorities and residents who have taken time

to consider this application for attending.

I completely understand the concerns that have been raised.

Brick Lane is a busy area, and the Committee has an important role in balancing the needs

of businesses with the needs of the residents.

I'm not here to argue against the cumulative impact assessment or suggest it shouldn't apply.

Instead, I'm here to explain why I believe that this particular application can be granted

without adding to the accumulative impact zone.

What this application is, what I'd like to address is,

before we talk about the objections,

is that this is a small independent takeaway.

It's selling freshly prepared Lebanese -style food.

We're not asking to sell alcohol.

We're not asking to provide regulated entertainment.

We're not operating as a bar or nightclub or somewhere where people stay drinking late

into the evening.

This application is simply for late night refreshment.

The main point I'd like the committee to consider is that the committee isn't being asked to

guess or how this premises might operate.

This venue has been operating for two years or so.

The committee has, you know, gratefully has evidence with the recent tens that we applied

for this year to show how this venue can operate.

We operate for 15 trading days until 3 in the morning.

Those events allow the responsible authorities to see how the premises operated during those

late night hours.

And if I refer to the licencing authorities' own representation, there was no specific

complaints as far as we are aware and relating to those periods other than

there was one particular inquiry about the trade -in hours which was explained

by the fact that we actually had temporary event notices to cover those

days. I hope the committee can see that evidence and you know to help them

decide on the application. Also highlight that we do understand the

concerns raised by environmental health. I'd like to just kind of assist in allaying some

of those concerns. The upstairs flat is currently owned under the lease of the applicant, so

there is no residents living above, there's no residents living on the stage right, so

speak as I believe that's a temporary hotel and on the left hand side I believe it's a

set of offices so again there's no residents in immediate vicinity upstairs left and right

of the premises. I also like to say that I completely respect the concerns raised by

local residents, we're not trying to dismiss them at all. Brick Lane clearly has some challenges

and we are here to acknowledge that.

However, I must help the committee to distinguish

that between the wider issues of Brick Lane,

generally, we are here to obviously talk

about this particular premises and its operation.

And this premises is obviously willing to accept

the responsibility for its own customers,

but not necessarily for the adjoining venues.

So also similarly offering similar services.

We have provided a number of conditions

with this application that help the applicant

to help them with taking responsibility

for their customers and how they operate.

And that's why we propose CCTV incident logs,

customer notices, encouragement to keep the area clear,

to discourage loitering and such. My client clearly wants to take a position of being

a responsible business and a good neighbour and as I've mentioned they have been there

since 2024. So the bottom line is we're not here to ignore the CIA. We want this application

to be looked at and so merits and the fact that it has been operating now for two years.

We believe that the evidence that the temporary event notices have arisen and no other issues

have arisen in the past year, you know, can show the committee that the operation has

been working responsibly.

And we believe the conditions that have been offered demonstrate their commitment to the

Committee can see that grants in this application will not impact the community of impact.

So thank you for listening.

I appreciate careful consideration that everyone will give to this application.

I hope the information will provide to the demonstrator with it to listen to the concerns

raised and to address them, willing to engage with everyone, any kind of recommendations

or anything that they wish to put forward and show that we can operate responsibly.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Can I ask the objectors to make your representations?

You have five minutes each.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair.

My representation is on appendix 7, page 227 to 228.

There are images of residential on page 228.

My representation is based on the prevention of public nuisance

and the fact that the premises is in the Brick Lane Community Impact Zone

and the increased hours for the week.

there's a big concern about noise outbreak affecting residents, accessing the rest of

the premises and the hours of operation.

Now I appreciate that the applicant has provided some conditions.

some conditions, but I wanted to look at on page 197, condition 9, the premises should

make available upon request contact details such as email to residents to make sure if

there are any issues relating to noise. Now my query on that condition is what actions

will they take if residents do contact them with regards to complaints. There's no details

of that, so I'd be interested to know what they would do if residents ring up and do

complain, because we are in the CIZ, there are residents in close proximity. And also

condition 11, a reasonable step should be taken to ensure that any persons loitering

outside the premises, disperse quickly and do not congregate. Now what does the applicant

mean by reasonable steps? There's no details of what they propose to do should people be

loitering outside. They've got their meal, they're loitering outside and they're causing

a public nuisance. So it would be interesting to know what the applicant means by reasonable

steps and also they have discussed that they have had temporary event notices, temporary

events. Now we don't know if all those TENS were actually used, we only have the applicant's

on that, but the fact that even if they have had tens and there have been no complaints

made to the noise team, you have several complaints from residents whilst they're not here, their

representations are on page 230, 242 and 243 and each one of the applicants, two individuals

and the Residence Association have concerns about crime and disorder in the Brick Lane

area in the CSR, public nuisance and public safety.

And that's, so whilst there may not have been any complaints received by our team, I don't

know why that is, but obviously they've got big concerns about the licence and objectives.

As I said, crime disorder, public nuisance and public safety.

That is all from my representation.

I'd just like the applicant to clear up about conditions 9 and 11 on page 197.

Thank you.

Can I just move to you?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

My representation is on page 213 in Appendix 6.

As we've already said, this premises falls within the Brick Lane

cumulative impact zone and the application is beyond framework hours.

And there's also non -standard hours that they've applied for,

in particular bank holiday weekends, Friday through to the Tuesday morning.

until three o 'clock each day.

This application came in front of the licencing subcommittee

last year in February 25 and it was refused.

I've included the decisions of that meeting in my representation

and it's on page 218 to 223 for members' information.

I'm glad to say the applicants stated they have been operating this premises for two

years because actually this application is in a slightly different company name to the

one that was made last year by Express being spelt differently and it's a different company

number but obviously it is actually the same operator.

And obviously our food registration records relate to the original company name and not

this company name that is applying throughout the moment.

So I don't know why the previous companies dissolved and you've started a new company.

The premises was written to on the 11th of March 25 after it was seen operating by an

officer at two minutes to midnight on the 7th of March. A ten was in place from midnight,

but obviously there was no ten between 11pm and midnight, but the assumption is that they

obviously carried on trading from 11 to midnight and then the ten kicked in. I don't know why

they applied for the 10 from midnight and not from 11pm

when they needed it for late night refreshments.

The application that was heard before the subcommittee

last year also had issues with 10s being applied for correctly.

And this is shown in the decisions of the meeting.

It is noted that three 10s have been applied for covering

the 15 days, as said.

and we haven't had any complaints regarding those temporary event notices,

but obviously that's over 15 days and not a full -time licence all year round.

The agent states that the flat's above a lease by the applicant,

however if granted this could affect residents beyond the immediate premises

as customers take away their food.

And the likelihood is that some of these customers have been drinking,

going there in the late night and walk off with their takeaway purchases,

making their way home or to transport hubs.

This could potentially lead to antisocial behaviour

and noise nuisance to local residents.

There's no specific application, there's no specific reference

in the application to deliveries,

but having looked at their website earlier today,

they've got Just Eat deliveries and they've got Hungry Panda deliveries on there.

So obviously delivery bikes cause an additional nuisance

with the noise of the bikes and drivers hanging around outside premises

waiting to pick up deliveries or often waiting to receive a delivery order

and they often chatting to each other and that in itself can cause a nuisance to residents.

The onus is on the applicant to show that they can demonstrate exceptional circumstances

to why their application should be granted and that they won't add to the cumulative

impact of the Brit Lane area. If they can't do this, then the application should be refused.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Now I come to the members.

Do you have any questions to the applicants?

Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the applicants, for your presentation and also the objectives.

Just one question.

In terms of...

I have... I'm talking from sort of like a personal experience.

This question is for me just to understand.

On the proposed conditions on page 197,

It says there's ABC police and where appropriate London ambulance would be called in case there's

an emergency or anything as such.

Crime scene would be preserved as to enable for forensic investigation etc.

So there's ABC and A, B and C.

In my experience, I've got friends who own business, fast food as well as restaurants, etc.

How tangible is that? If that's referring to your staff who will be doing this, how...

Because when it's busy in a restaurant, in a food environment, how will they be able to, in terms of, deal with that?

I just want to understand.

In regards to the conditions directly for the police,

is that what we're talking about, condition one?

Condition two.

So AB, there's three points, AB, see it.

Well, if it is witnessed, then obviously it will be expected that the applicant and the

person that's managing should be contacting the police about the incident.

They will have CCTV in place because it's a condition and again, it requires a standard

condition in most premises licences in a similar format.

This will be evidence that the police will be able to collect if that's what you're querying.

Is that answering your question?

Page 204.

All right, stand.

Che.

Sorry, I'm finished.

Just another point.

So if you go to again same page

Number nine is saying premises shall make available upon request contact details such

such as email

To residents to make contact in if there are any issues relating to noise

In terms of GDPR, how compliant would that be?

Are we allowed to...

Sorry.

That's absolutely fine.

Obviously the applicant, assuming that they were the licence holder at that point,

would be the data processor for the purposes of the GDPR.

But it's, don't forget it's the other way round.

It's not residents being required to provide their data.

It's them providing the contact email address that residents can contact.

And say I live wherever you're causing all sorts of problems.

That's not a problem for GDPR.

That would be, effectively be the necessary concern.

And what I would also say is always that the issues about GDPR

not really for the licencing authority, therefore mostly for the ICO, the Information Commissioner's

And no doubt the applicant in particular circumstances, particularly if they've got CCTV, they'd have

to be registered with them in any event because they'd be capturing images of pretty much

everyone who walks into the shop and probably outside.

I'll take this opportunity to, if you don't mind, to answer part of your question about

also our environmental health team's question of the similar nature to that, if I can make.

Is that okay?

Yeah.

The contact details will be freely available.

I mean we've already been in contact with previously one of our local residents.

We did preemptively engage with that local resident before we made the application.

We tried to preemptively engage with yourselves before the 28 days as well about the application.

Those contact details will be available upon request.

Now again how we handle the complaints again depends on nature of the complaint but that's

the purpose of the CCTV, the owners can actually review some of the information.

Again, not all complaints necessarily are regarding the venue itself.

It could be matters happening around the venue and the venue could be, again,

from previous experience sometimes can be misattributed to the venue,

but all opportunities to learn and improve because the whole point is that

If there is an issue that happens and either member staff isn't acting accordingly or isn't going out quickly enough to deal with an issue,

then that is good evidence for them to fall back on and them to try and improve on.

I've dealt with, for example, other establishments where neighbours have contacted the operator,

the operators reviewed the CCTV and could either confirm that what they've reported is correct

or is correct and they can look into how they can again try and mitigate any future issues.

Again it's a little bit difficult without actual examples happening.

But the idea is to provide that safeguard for the residents and for the licence holder

to use to kind of, again, improve their operation. No operation is perfect. But these kind of

systems help to kind of go, okay, that is our responsibility, we need to improve on

that. If it's a case of, again, there were customers or the delivery drivers being outside

that's a constant running issue, then having that information is useful because the whole

point is that the applicant doesn't want to be contributing to being a nuisance, wants

to be a good neighbour. But for that to happen, obviously, we need to be made aware of any

concerns or issues. Not just concerns and issues of Brick Lane in general, but issues

that concern the actual establishment.

I was just going to ask in terms of takeaway, food that's going out.

How many persons at one time can be queuing up inside the restaurant?

Yes, that's about eight to ten people inside it.

And is there any sitting facilities?

Yes, several, six chairs, stools, six stools inside.

Six stools, are these for the...

For the customers to see.

For the takeaway customers to...

Yeah.

Just while they wait for the food or to consume their food?

Yeah, when they wait for the food.

I think if it's a kind of breakfast bar set up,

there will be stools by the side for them to make use of right away

or if they wish to consume their food at the establishment.

When you mentioned breakfast bar,

is it like breakfast bar is usually to consume food while you're standing?

Is that what it is?

Well, there will be stools available for people to sit or stand by the breakfast bar.

So there will be kind of tall stools.

There will be a small ledge on the side.

that's set up.

I need to go and make sure just to point out that if you are minded to grant the application

then the applicant is going to have to make an application to VARES to submit a compliant plan of the premises

because that which is on 202 doesn't actually meet the requirements of the Licencing Act.

That's just a relatively minor point, yeah.

Right.

Where are we?

Okay, have we got any more questions?

If you don't, then go to the

go to the

yeah

In concluding remarks, can I ask the objectors, please can you come, we have one minute for

your concluding remarks. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I'll be very brief.

I mean, this is, it does fall within the Brick Lane Community of Impact area.

It is outside of framework hours. It doesn't fit into the possible exemptions within the licencing policy.

And the onus is on the applicant to show that they won't add to the community of impact of the area.

and obviously it was refused last year.

I'm not sure what's changed since last year,

but that's everything, thank you, Chair.

Do you want to share?

Well, everything that Corinne has said,

and also there has to be consideration that

whilst the other objectors aren't here,

there are several residents that have got concerns about public use

and some crime and disorder.

Thank you.

The applicant, please.

Sorry, Chair, can I just ask,

there's obviously other questions that were raised,

which we, again, just set up and wasn't sure what I could.

They asked questions and we haven't been able to answer.

I think we have discussed already,

and we'd rather not go to the questions anymore.

Can we just go for your concluding remarks, please?

I'd suggest.

You can obviously address those points

in your concluding remarks, Mr Montanis.

The chair may give you a little bit of leeway.

Probably, you know, just a bit more if you want to.

I'll keep it brief as brief as I can.

In regards to concerns about different companies, again, as you all know,

licence holder and the company under the FBO don't necessarily need to match,

but my client and change partner,

Again, due to the issues that were raised in 2025 that precede this, precede me coming

on board to help them and them not understanding all the matters of temporary event notices

in the application, I came in after that to assist them with the hearing.

Could you address the chair please, thank you.

Yep, they decided to part ways and my client decided to continue under new business.

Now in regards to the takeaway, my clients actually stated that they withdrew those services

and they're not sure why they are still available on the website in regards to deliveries.

They're not actually offering those deliveries.

If you wish to make that into a condition, you are very free to do so.

In regards to crime disorder, obviously the police haven't made an objection.

We've again provided conditions that we hope tackle those concerns.

And again in matters raised about the residents,

I'd like to again address that some of those issues are we don't have dates, times or anything.

We don't know if they were really specifically about our establishment,

are the establishments next door and also we're also in operation at the same time.

Those 15 days were during the very busy season of Ramadan.

Those temporary event notices.

Other premises were also in operation that have similar hours

or early hours as well.

So again, a little difficult to work with the information

that's been provided to work out what's gone on

and whether it's our establishment.

But beyond that, hopefully that might answer some of the questions raised.

I believe that.

And again, if there is concerns about the non -standard timings,

again, very willing to either reduce those or dismiss them

if they wish, if they wish them

to be used more temporary event notices for that

and to have the opportunity to object, they can do so.

And again, it's down to the committee's power

to determine whether those non -standard timings should be

there or removed completely.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much.

The subcommittee will deliver it in private session after this meeting ends.

So the democratic service will send out the decision to you within five working days.

Thank you for coming here. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your contribution today.

The meeting is now closed.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Interactive webcast player

Licensing Sub CommitteeThursday, 16th July 2026 at 6:30pm

Licensing Sub Committee
Thursday, 16th July 2026 at 6:30pm