Transcript

Right, apologise to get all the technology going. We've slightly overrun by six minutes, but you'll have a piece of news to know that we will actually not overrun, ultimately, for the whole length and breadth of the meeting. I'd like to wish everybody a good evening welcoming to this meeting of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Licensing Subcommittee held today on Tuesday the 21st of January. I'm Councillor Peter Gold, and I'm the Chair of the Licensing Committee. The meeting is held in person, as we can see, but it will also be recorded by the Council's webcam and can be shown at a web meeting, so everybody can look and see what happens. Committee members and key participants are present in the meeting, but there may be some people who will join remotely online. I'm not sure about that. May I remind everybody to only speak on my direction. This is not a council meeting or a meeting of parliaments, and we don't actually approve of people shouting across everything. If you wish to say something, give me a wave and I will call you. And when called, as you can see, when I'm speaking, you can hear me, because I'm spitched on for the microphone. If you don't switch your microphone off after I've called you, the next person can't be heard, so they'll be happily speaking. But for anybody listening on the webcam, all they will see will be a mouth like somebody with a head like a goldfish guy like that. So please switch it off, otherwise I shall wave and say please switch it off. Finally, can I say to everybody, if contributing formally, could you tell us what page you're talking about? Because we have an enormous agenda, and I like to hear everything that people are saying, and there is nothing more frustrating if somebody says, I wish to refer to an issue. And instead of being able to turn the page over, people are going, because they're not listening. So everybody could identify what page they refer to. So may I now, having introduced myself to... Pardon? And which agenda was his two supplements? Oh yeah, no, no, I've got that, the members of agendas, but I'll refer to them when we get the report presented. Can I now invite officers and members to introduce themselves, starting with Miss Holland? Thank you, Chair. Corinne Honan, Licensing Officer. Simi Azmin, Democratic Services. David Wong, Legal Service, to provide legal advice to the councillors. Councillor Sillagong with Spearfield in Bangatown Ward. Good evening, everyone. Councillor Mushtaq Ahmed from Bethnal Green West. Thank you very much. So you've heard who we all are, I remind everybody. Are you aware of environmental protection? Sorry. Sorry, Mr. O'Leary, if you'd like to say. Yeah, no, O'Leary, environmental protection. Sorry, I didn't realise, I forgot Mr. O'Leary sitting in that position. So I do record my apologies. I think that's all I need to say at this point. Item number one, or the first item on the agenda, is formally apologies for absence. We are fully quora, and the committee is three members, and we have three people here, so there are no apologies. But it's a formality, we record there are no apologies. Do any members have any declaration of disposable or pecuniary interests? Yes, I have none. None. The rules of procedure are contained on pages 9 to 18 of our very full agenda, so everybody will be able to see what they are. As we go to the meeting, I will explain how reports are introduced, who reports, and the contributing process. But the formal rules are proceeding 9 to 18 on the agenda for anybody who is looking. We now come to minutes of the previous meeting held on the 3rd and 12th of December 2024 for formal approval. I chair both of them, and I'm very happy with them, and I know both colleagues were present at them. So are you happy with the minutes, colleagues? We will formally, minutes agreed, we will formally sign them after the meeting. For a formality, I will refer to item 4.2 on our agenda, which is the application for a new premises licence for popular pizza, 536 Commercial Road, London E1 OHY. And Ms. Yasmin, would you like to report? Sure, Chair. Chair, we have received some medical, the applicant has been called to a medical emergency and therefore has asked for an adjournment. I'm subject to legal advice, we will grant an adjournment with the request that we have the medical evidence given to us for the reason for the adjournment, because that is quite complicated. We're correct on that, aren't we, Mr. Weiss? Thank you. And that will be put on the decision letter. Are you agreed that we adjourn subject to the receipt of the medical evidence? I agree, Chair. So I can now confirm that item 4.2 will no longer be heard at tonight's meeting. If you're here, you've got an evening off. We now move to item 4.1 on the agenda, which is the application for a new premises licence for 324 Basement and 326 Ground Floor and Basement, Hackney Road, London E27AX, which, for the purposes of information, is 39 to 136 on the formal agenda, and we both have supplementary, we all have copies of two supplementary agendas, which we've had before the meetings and we've all had the opportunity to see. Thank you very much. Very quickly, if Ms. Yasmin would announce those in attendance, and we quickly go through those. Sure, Chair, thank you. So in terms of those representing the applicants, we've got Olga Coruccino, Dina Matins, and Oliver Maha. And in those that are making representation against the application, we have got Mr O'Leary from Environmental Health, Luke Elford, the legal representative, on behalf of Samantha Harold, who's also here, and Jennifer Alderholt. Thank you. After the application has been presented, the applicant will be invited to speak and will be given a total of five minutes to make the representation. The objectors will also be given five minutes each to make their representation. I'll let each speaker know when they have one minute remaining. Please note that the members have read the agenda pack in advance. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Everybody got – that's all quite clear, what we're doing. Thank you very much. And as Ms. Yasmin has introduced you all, I've worked out who everybody is now. Thank you very much. I'm now going to invite Corinne Holland to formally present the report to the committee. Thank you, Chair. This is an application for a new premise licence for the basement of 324 and the ground floor and basement of 326 Hackney Road. The applicant has described the application as an extension of an established business, which has been operating since 2016, at 326. And then 324 will be – is in addition to what they're already operating. A copy of the application is in Appendix 1 on page 50 to 70. There is a supplementary agenda that the applicant has submitted. Within that supplementary agenda is a revision of hours. So the hours in the committee report have subsequently changed as to what we're considering today. So the hours we're considering for the basement of 324 Hackney Road is the sale of alcohol for on-sales only, Monday to Thursday, 10 till 11.30pm, Friday, 10 till midnight, Saturday, 9 till midnight, and Sunday, 10 till 10pm. And then live and recorded music is Monday to Thursday, 9 till 11.30pm, Friday and Saturday, 9 till midnight, and Sunday, 9 till 10pm. Late night refreshments is Monday to Thursday, 11 till 11.30pm, Friday and Saturday is 11 till midnight, and Sunday is not required because they're not open after 11. And the opening times are Monday to Thursday, and the opening times are Monday to Thursday, 9 till midnight, and Sunday is 9 till 10.30pm. And then the cafe side, which is 326 Hackney Road, is for on-and-off sales of alcohol, Monday to Friday, 10 till 10.30pm, Saturday, 9 till 11.00pm, Sunday, 10 till 10pm. 10.00pm, with opening times, with opening times of 9 till 11pm, Monday to Saturday, and till 10.30pm on Sunday. Those hours are slightly different to what was submitted in the supplementary agenda, but I've had to take into account what was initially applied for, because some of the hours in the supplementary agenda were longer than what they initially applied for. So those hours are what's being applied for, plus the reduced hours. If you've got any queries, let me know. And the seasonal variations applied for, the non-standard hours applied for in the application, there was no timings put in with those, so we can't take those into account. And in the supplementary agenda, they ask for Sundays and bank holidays, or Sundays before bank holidays and bank holidays. They can't be taken into consideration, because they weren't in the application. So there's already a licence for 326 Hackney Road, and this is in Appendix 2 on page 72. A site plan is in Appendix 3, page 82. Maps showing the vicinity of these premises is Appendix 4 on page 85, and there's some photographs in Appendix 5 on page 87. Details of nearby licence premises are in Appendix 6, page 90 to 91. This hearing's required because relevant representations have been received from the Environmental Protection Team, and that is in Appendix 7 on page 93 to 101. And there's also additional evidence that's been provided, or documentation that's been provided, in the supplementary agenda too. There's a representation from a Samantha Harold, that's in Appendix 8 on page 103 to 104, and that also has additional documentation submitted in Supplementary Appendix 2. And then there's a further representation from Jennifer Osterhout, Appendix 9, page 106 to 107. Then conditions were agreed with the police. There were hours modified as well, but now the hours I've given you have taken those into consideration as well. So the conditions agreed with the police are in Appendix 10 on page 109 to 115. And then general guidance is pages 117 to 136, that's Appendix 11 to 17. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Ms. Holland. May I thank you for consolidating all the various times, because my head, when I first got the paperwork, my head was spinning round the top, and my jaw did hit the ground, and I saw on one page it was saying until 5 o'clock in the morning. And I thought, no, that can't be possible. It looks like somebody ticked something and hadn't checked what they ticked. So we now have a consolidated times, which when we get formal questioning, we understand. Colleagues, do you have any questions for Ms. Holland? Yeah, I have a quick question, basically. The type of activities, it says, in line with the one already been licensed. Can you just remind me the type of activities? Okay. Is that okay? I think I've got a question on that for the applicant, but that'll be for later. Thank you very much. With no further questions to officers, we now move to the representation, both for the applicant and the objectors. It's been agreed five minutes each, is it? Thank you very much. Obviously, you can expand on the five minutes, and we will question for as much as we feel necessary so that we get a proper decision, a decision that is both within the law and acceptable to as many people as possible. So I'd like to invite, I think I have down just Mr. Oliver Marr to speak. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct, Councillor. Well, Mr. Marr, the floor is yours, but if you turn that thing off. Mr. Marr, the floor is yours, so off you go. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Good evening. My name is Oliver, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of the applicants, Olga and Dina. So the existing business itself is the Café Deli and Wine Space, which is located at 326 Hackney Road, also known as a Portuguese love affair. It's been a pillar of the local and somewhat vibrant community of Hackney Road. Since around 2016, and prior to this, the owners also had a shop on Columbia Road of the same name, where they had an off-sales alcohol license since 2013. The café itself has grown to serve food, drinks, and host kind of small events, such as free jazz concerts, performances, and other creative events that often give a platform to other members of the local community. These events have always been kind of ancillary to the business's core functions as a café in Delhi. So both Olga and Dina emigrated from Portugal about 20 years ago, kind of with a vision to share kind of their fantastic culture with London. They're both experienced business owners, and their vision to kind of extend their existing offering to the basement was basically born out of feedback from patrons and the wider community. So leasing the basement from the landlords kind of enabled the applicants to appeal to the demand and grow as a business that's in the existing premises is kind of vastly curtailed by its size. So in terms of the proposed license, we'd just clarify that it's not a new and separate venture, but it's an extension of the existing business, and they wish to use this as a kind of a wine bar slash creative community space, in particular to celebrate and empower the LGBTQ plus community that often are part and parcel of a Portuguese love affair. I'd reiterate the statement already made in the applicant's supplemental representations on page three of their supplemental agenda that this is not a nightclub. It's never intended to be a nightclub. And I think that the revised hours should demonstrate this. So the importance of this license, I guess, first to touch on is financial. Make no mistake, the continued growth and success of the existing business of a Portuguese love affair is wholly dependent on the granting of this premises license. Failure to grant this license will likely lead to the foreclosure of the existing premises and Tower Hamlets will lose another much-loved establishment in the community. It will also lead to the loss of employment for the business's staff, many of whom are from marginalised groups of society. In addition, the granting of this license ultimately enhances the Hackney Road community. It helps deliver community-driven events like have been supplied in the Supplemental Agenda and that have already been held previously. It's a space for all with a particular emphasis to act as a safe harbour for the queer community who suffer from a significant lack of inclusive venues in Tower Hamlets as well as nurturing creativity, inclusivity and community amongst its patrons, whether they're queer or not. The applicant's primary thought in applying for this license is how they can enhance the community, not take away from it. So we believe that we have taken sufficient steps to promote all the licensing objectives and after detail, we appreciate that the original application maybe could have been a bit clearer in what we were trying to achieve. But since, particularly with the help of the Met, we really feel that we've been able to make kind of supposed harm that's supposed to come out of the granting of this license. We understand that some of the objectors have raised objections regarding, well, I think from the two main concerns seem to be the prevention of crime. The license's impact, rather, on the prevention of crime and disorder as well as the prevention of public nuisance. We believe that we've taken sufficient steps to address all of those. But I guess to touch on them specifically is that within the prevention of crime and disorder, we've incorporated kind of the Met's detailed recommendations into our operating schedule, which includes robust CCTV measures, SIA licensed security staff, incident report logs, welfare and vulnerability training for staff, and we feel that those concerns raised by the objectives in respect of crime and disorder have been sufficiently addressed. So we would also submit that the application for the late-night refreshment license would highlight that this does not operate as a nightclub, and in addition, it further serves to show that the venue discourages drinking in a manner that is likely to lead to crime, disorder or public nuisance. In respect to the public nuisance, particularly noise, I guess to put it simply, we're concerned that the noise produced from other premises is also a contributing factor to the overall sound that is perceived by the objectors in their residential apartments, and that they mistakenly or, for whatever reason, think it's coming solely from the applicant's basement. The EPOs have been invited in on three different occasions to kind of come in and inspect the equipment, or take recordings if required, but they've declined each time. You have one minute remaining. Oh, sorry, okay. Hopefully, I can expand a little bit further. I thought I was going to have a little bit more time. In respect of the objector who says that she lives directly above the 324 basement, we would contend that this is not quite accurate, that actually between the 324 basement and the objectors flat lies a commercial unit in between. Within the objectors, one of the objectors' witness statement at page 15 of the supplemental agenda, labelled Supplemental 2, it seems to be a lot of the noise seems to emanate from a chimney that is shared between all parties. So we would take issue that it's solely the basement noise that's attributing to this via the chimney flue, because we'd like to point out that the commercial unit, which is a barbershop or something, also shares chimney flues, and we think that the actual noise from there can emit up into the flat property. And we would also like to explain that in the applicant's noise diary of their witness statement, where they refer to base, all those representations referring to base in the noise diary are at the same time that the commercial premises below is also open. A quick Google search will show you that these premises are open either past 8, and other commercial premises is open until 2am on Friday and Saturdays. In addition to this, a lot of the references are to heavy bass in the witness statement, or references to bass. It's highly unlikely that the noise described originated from 324 as the premises, because the sound equipment they have lacks the ability to be able to produce low frequencies known as bass. We don't have a subwoofer. The equipment that we have produces higher frequency sounds. They have two speakers and a microphone. So this would have also been apparent had it been inspected, and we would welcome a sound expert to kind of conclude the same. But I guess on a positive note that we've been reassured that those higher frequency sounds can be addressed quite easily, and so that the applicants would be happy to kind of install this as a condition to the granting of a licence that is further soundproofing, insulation of this chimney flue. And we've kind of already started engaging with reputable sound companies to see if this work can be done. We're hoping to be able to share some quotes with you and stuff like that today, but unfortunately they haven't come through yet. So I guess to summarise and to wrap it up before we address some questions is that we would submit that the immediately impacted neighbours, both residential and commercial, are overwhelmingly supportive of this licence being granted, as are the community at large. There's many letters of support, both from the community at large and also in media central properties above, and also commercial properties above. Our petition has reached over 1,000 signatories, and we also have many other people from the local community in support here this evening. So the representations objecting to this licence are made by a minority of individuals, and so we would respectfully request that the committee consider that the overwhelming support for the community, including our immediate neighbours, would be to grant this licence subject to any conditions that you deemed appropriate. Olga and Dina have tried to engage with all objectors as much as possible prior to this meeting, and they would look forward to engaging from after this licensing resolution for everyone. I guess I open it up to questions. Thank you, Mr. Marr. I'm not going to read out my representation. I believe it's already in the appendix, but I'm just going to summarise my representation just to save us time. A particular law of a located at 324 Basement and 3261 Floor and Basement Hackney, Road London E27AS, applied to a steny operating hours and activities. A proposal raises significant concerns related to public nuisance, particularly regarding noise control and patrons' behaviour as detailed below. Now, below is the original proposed hours for the licence premises, which has been drastically reduced based on the agreement with the police and also the hours have been further reduced. However, we have issues with the personal noise being witnessed at the premises, which I indicated in my supplementary information. On the 4th of November, my colleagues had a working out of our witness noise nuisance. And in their description of the noise, they confirmed that it was extremely loud. Sorry, on the 3rd of November, it was extremely loud. And this is where they had a temporary event notice. The manager acknowledged they complained that the terminal agreed to reduce the base levels. Environmental protection concerns were that there were insufficient measures for noise control, particularly during late hours. Second supplementary information was on 11th of January. This is quite recent. There was loud, loud band reported as intrusive, preventing sleep, and normal activities. Officers confirmed excessive noise levels within the complainant's property. Now, after I was engaged with the management, a manager confirmed a loud band was performing. Documentation for 10 allegedly appeared incomplete, but there was a tense on the night. Action taken, the officer requested a reduction in the music level and also recommended we start a Section 80 abutment notice on the premises. And I believe this is still, my colleague is still in discussion with the premises on how to proceed with this. Now, ideally, the officer should have served a notice on the night, but for obvious reason, because of the ongoing issue with the premises, they had a pause on it to discuss it with one of my colleagues, Nicola Carlson. I believe there's been a meeting set out on the 30th of January. They're going to look at the premises to look at whether it's actually suitable or is there any recommendation they can do for noise mitigation measures. Now, we believe that the time, the most recent complaint was actually around 10 p.m., which, I mean, it's still not midnight, it's within 10 p.m., so which gives us concerns that even if a reduction in the hours still wouldn't have any effect on the noise nuisance that premises would be creating. Now, as a result of that committee, we do not recommend, we recommend a refusal of this application, citing significant risk to public nuisance. The history of complaint, coupled with insufficient mitigation measures, demonstrate a failure to meet the licensing in 2023 of preventing public nuisance. Also, they propose to use a Iron Square Garden. Again, Iron Square Garden is, you know, if used during late hours, as well, it's going to cause significant, you know, noise nuisance to the residents because of the number of footfalls. So, based on all these reasons, we do not support this application, Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Leary. I now move to Mr. Elford. Councillor, a very good evening to you all. Luke Elford, on behalf of Samantha Harold, who sits to my left this evening. Councillors, my client is concerned with the part of this application that relates to the basement of 324 Hackney Road, which she lives above. And you can see at page nine of Supplemental Agenda 2 exactly where Ms. Harold lives. My client is not totally against this application. I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear. Subject to appropriate and proportionate conditions being attached, my client is not concerned with the part of this application that relates to 326 Hackney Road, effectively the existing business. you will need to consider, of course, what appropriate and proportionate conditions are, because they haven't been suggested to you for that part of the business. But the existing licence is relatively useful to you in that regard. You will also need to consider the external area and whether it is appropriate and proportionate councillors to allow the use of that area until 11pm, because your policy councillors suggest an earlier finish time for external areas of 9pm. So we are content with that part of the application. My client submitted a representation on the 25th of October and you can find that in your main agenda pack, pages 103 and 104. We have also submitted a witness statement and that can be found at pages 3 to 10 of Supplemental Agenda Pack 2. Now, I'd like to apologise that that was sent to you so late. The fault is all mine and if you must blame anyone, blame me. My client has been disturbed by noise from the basement path of this premises both during the daytime and in the evenings. And if you look at my client's noise diary within Supplemental Agenda Pack 2, you will see that when my client has been disturbed. We don't accept the explanation offered by the applicant that this is someone else's noise, not theirs. We think that's a very irresponsible line to take and not one that we would have expected from them. Noise that has been experienced by my client has also been independently verified by your environmental health team who say at page 11 of Supplemental Agenda Pack 2 the noise is capable of stopping my client from watching TV and capable of stopping my client from sleeping in their own home. It sounds as though and Mr O'Leary has mentioned that there may be an abatement notice forthcoming if things do not improve. So councillors, there is very clearly a problem here with noise transfer through this building and it is ongoing. We're not sure what, if any, acoustic works have been undertaken at this property and we're not sure to what specification. But whatever has been done, councillors, is not enough. We would expect that if the basement is to be used for these kinds of activities that the works would have been done in advance and you councillors should expect that also. You're told that if you're minded to grant this licence the applicant will then go and do these acoustic works but I'm afraid, councillors, that is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. you're being asked by the applicant to legitimise an ongoing public nuisance issue that is experienced by my client and others. Now the application has undergone various revisions since it was first submitted and it has come down from very late hours to more moderated hours. If I was being more cynical I might say that those reductions in hours were to make the application more acceptable to you and on the face of it the reductions are welcome but they do not address the key issue of noise escape. Various events have been held by the applicant whilst waiting for this hearing and unfortunately for the applicant those events have gone against them because they have disturbed my client and others and they have also come to the attention of the environmental health service. The basement in its current form is not suitable to host any types of entertainment at all because noise travels up the structure of the building. The louder the noise the greater the disturbance. But we're not just talking about music noise and DJs it can be as simple as people moving furniture or customers clapping. that is the kind of noise that is reaching my client's house or home. The biggest worry is that you will agree to grant this premises or this part of the premises rather a licence to sell alcohol and the reason for that I need you to turn to page 67 of your agenda pack. You have with you this evening a very learned legal advisor who will be able to explain this to you but if you grant an application to sell alcohol within the basement area of this property all of these activities live music recorded music performances of dance would be permitted until 11pm purely by virtue of the alcohol licence. That is why we reluctantly must ask you not to grant the part of the application that pertains to 324 but we are quite content if you do grant the part of the application that relates to 326 for example the existing business. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Elford and Ms. Yasmin and we have also Jennifer who also wishes to speak hello my name is Jennifer Osterhout and I live at 322 Hackney Road and I have been there for 22 some odd years and I really like the plaintiffs I don't know and I have known them and I have been a patron and a customer to them since they opened and I love their little restaurant exactly how it is and it has never caused me any problems at all it is a plus for the neighbourhood but I have to tell you that I have witnessed crazy amounts of noise and I've been away a lot of the time because I am repairing my roof and doing works to my house so I come during the day or I'll leave at 10pm at night to go sleep at a friend's house but I can remember the worst night that I have and I was away in December for Christmas but the worst night that I have heard I was walking back to 322 Hackney Road coming from Beth Mill Green Road and as I approached the block before Ion Square began so this is at least two blocks away from our block I could hear Ibiza levels of music with speakers and I couldn't imagine that this would be them I thought what's going on and as I got to my home I realized there was like a nightclub level of noise coming from below basically below my home yes and so I was and then that was at 1130 and we have proof because we were texting back and forth saying like are you okay blah blah blah you know what should we do about this and then another point I like to raise is that I am friends with all the businesses below me and I patronize all of them and always have done and the hair salon has just opened up he doesn't even have any clients yet and he's never played music ever and then on the other side of them is another hair salon who doesn't make a noise nobody makes a sound and then there's a clothing boutique so and then there's a zoo with donkeys opposite us so and there's a flower shop that closes at five so literally there's nobody that I can imagine could possibly be making a sound and I know there is nobody else making noise on my entire block and that's all I have to say thank you very much you're welcome um Miss Holland can you tell me how many tens have been applied for in the last year in 2024 we had nine tens which took up 21 days and then this year we've had two tens which taken up two days they reset on the 1st of January every year yeah no I realise that no so there were nine covering 21 days over in the last year yeah that because we've had lots of reference to tens but I wanted to get the picture of how many tens there were that's yeah so they all started from October the 12th 13th of October was the first tens so they've had 21 days since that date oh so it's 21 days since the 12th or 13th of October yes because there weren't any prior to that okay the really I direct this to the applicant I think there is unanimity across the board that the restaurant is very very popular what we seem to have is this issue of noise from the basement and our job is to resolve that to allow your business to continue as I say there is no question one looks at the documentation I've had here and I have some knowledge of the area in fact I have quite a bit of knowledge of the area therefore it's getting the best of possible can you explain to me this issue of the noise and because when we get both when we get council officers who've been on site and put in writing that they have levels of noise that have been described that is a very very serious problem sure thank you councillor I'd just like to address the point that so there was nine tens made across 21 days in October is that correct that's correct right no hold on there's been so we've got them submitting to Hackney Road oh Hackney Road 324 basement there's been nine tens which a total of 21 days in total since the 12th the 12th and the 13th of October was the first ten applied for and then obviously it's gone there's sort of two in October there's four tens five tens in November and then three tens in December then there's actually Hackney Road 326 in 2024 there was two tens for two days and then I think let's see if the oh and then that's hang on sorry I've got to look at 2025 now Hackney Road the basement is two oh no can't open that one at the same time hold on a minute sorry 2025 for the won't let me open that one either sorry I have to shut shut the 24 ones down then open up the 25 ones there's been in 2025 for the basement of 324 there's been three tens over four days thank you mr mark thank you so I'd just like to give a bit of additional context that the applicants took the basement space from the landlord in June and I think as was reacted to that it seems to be that there's been quite a lot of usage from October onwards to the end of the year I'd like to contextualise that a little bit whilst waiting for this licence to be granted the applicants have felt the need to host 10 licensed events to be able to generate some income to be able to sustain the lease payments for this basement and so the hope is that moving forward on a successful granting licence with conditions attached that the premises will be open on a more frequent basis on a Monday to a Sunday allowing more consistent source of income to be generated so the need to host late night parties based on 10 hours is not required I think in additional additionally it's quite important to note that out of those nine 10s that were spanning across 21 days in 2024 there was only two complaints registered with the EPO so two complaints in 21 days in 2024 I appreciate I think you said three 10s have been issued in 2025 and we received one complaint that resulted in EPO attendance in that year so I think out of all of the days that have had events hosted that actually there's not been that many complaints or at least to the extent that's been made out by the objectors so I'd just like to pick up on that point and then to address the objectors point directly about we're not taking any blame of that we're not contributing to any noise or we're not producing any sound that's definitely not what I just said I think you've misstated what I've said what I did say was that it's not clear that other premises are not contributing any sound and the 324 basement is the sole source of sound we appreciate that there's sound emitted from live performances from music from other events and from moving furniture which is why the applicants have taken steps to insulate as much as they can I think that's been shown to some extent in the EPO's own report where I think on the I think it's the 11th of January 2025 the EPO attended the objectors residence and for 10 minutes I think that's the standard time of assessment with the TV off and he noted that I quote loud amplified music with a heavy bass was emanating from down below sorry excuse me so on that night in question which is the 11th of January the performers actually used a single microphone with two speakers and music produced was percussion only they were not amplified at all no bass amplification was used I'm sure many of the people here were actually there that night and there's probably plenty of videos that would support that and it's in line with their kind of farm themed events so as I said no bass amplification was used and I think it's interesting to note that in that same report the EPO actually supports our position I believe that I quote he heard faint music emanating from the premises at street level unquote now it's just confusing to me that you would not be able to hear heavy bass immediately outside the premises but you can hear it not one floor between but two floors between I appreciate some sound may travel through the chimney flue like I've alluded to earlier and we would welcome to take steps to address that but as I also said the commercial unit which I can't remember which objector raised it the hair salon I think to characterize it's actually a barbershop that's been open again they may not be licensed to play music or anything like that but there is music that comes from that property and they also have a chimney flue that goes up in the building as can be seen by the witness statement itself you can see the applicant's own flat highlighted in yellow there's a property that currently has JMB electrical something or other that there is the barbershop this is page 9 of the object as witness statement in their supplemental agenda can you see it yes so this one that says JMB this is the barbershop here as you know two doors down is the entrance to the basement property there's a little unit in between one of the objectives said that it's a florist I believe it's actually closed so I don't know when the last time she was actually the other side I can't see it here I don't think there was a florist there's also another premises closer to the existing premises in white there both of those properties operate in the evenings and bubble tea shop itself actually operates until the late hours what we're saying is it's not our problem we appreciate that sound is created from the property but to characterise it as it's solely from us is untrue we believe that the heavy bass music that is heard and that seems to be the point in question is that the effect of the bass doesn't emanate from Portuguese love affair or the basement because they simply don't have the equipment to facilitate low frequency sounds that's that's all that's all I pose very interesting question if it doesn't emanate from you where does it emanate from well well exactly I think what I'm trying to say is that the commercial premises that are open beneath directly beneath the objectors flat play music I can get a video out for you now they may not be licensed to but they play music and it's loud it's techno electronic based something that the applicants haven't done themselves as you can see here from what I said one of their events that was complained about was a farm themed event I think those people sat on straw bales cowboy hats banging metal buckets that's not bass music thank you chair I just want to ask it seems like quite a few terms that have been applied for I mean how do you justify the difference when these events takes place and the normal license they their usual business what's the difference to I mean have you got any complaint of any of these tents at all are we talking about the basement area well there has been complaints because not to the licensing authority they've gone to the noise team so that they obviously call out the noise team because of the complaints we've received two complaints so far that was after they made application for license for the premises but as I explained the first one when we received was in November just about when they applied for the license then from the officers description of the noise it was excessively loud now what we do officers go into the complainants premises to verify it audited based on you know from an average person standpoint that when they verified they were sent us a report of what they witnessed and from their report it was clearly loud and we seek to engage with the applicants so look this is what obviously that didn't stop us from still issuing the tents but they will obviously try and make mindful of this and try to mitigate for that noise news however again this year we still with approval and we still had a complaint of noise on the 11th of January and which the officers recommended that we should serve an abatement and we still haven't done trying to discuss that with them now I know he said from street level it was faint now that is the reason why we don't assess noise from street level we assess noise from the complainant flat or resident or home that's why we assess that if we assess it based on several factors we then obviously would I charge it to be such a new or not but in this case it was really really loud or was loud and recommend that we serve a notice and ideally based on our policy procedures the officer should have seven notice on the night but for whatever reason they didn't do that they allowed that for to have a discussion around it because of the ongoing issue with their license application now which obviously resulted in my colleague emailing you to have to visit the premises I think on the 30th of November to see if I need to have a look at the premises and see if there's anything further that can be done or recommended for them to do thank you chair can I just come in a minute I just want to correct one of the tens for this year because it's been applied for but it's actually for next weekend so obviously there's two that's happened this year the 11th and the 18th and then they've applied for next weekend for the 24th and 25th I just wanted to correct that to the applicant I I really as I say the only issue that really does concern me in particular is this issue of noise and I think somehow one needs to resolve the situation the applicants can't say where this sound that they think could not be them has come from and the objectors when I looked over there were equally quizzical so it must be coming from somewhere have have you actually commissioned a noise report thank you councillor no we haven't commissioned a noise report but that is something that we would happy to do would massively welcome the opportunity to be able to do that I think just to address the noise concern we actually found it very helpful that the objectors witness statement specifically reference this chimney breast or this chimney flue that is supposedly a big contributor to noise that is shared across different floors of the properties but it's actually useful to know that we can now take additional steps within our premises to be able to insulate our portion or our side of the chimney flue and that would hopefully mitigate further sound coming from escaping the basement but I'd like to say it's not a case of we saying we don't know where the noise comes from we are saying that along those commercial premises there are other noise emitters we also make our own noise but it's interesting to note that out of those nine tens that span 21 days we received two complaints in 2024 and of the two tens approved this year we received an additional complaint all from the same individual and it's interesting to note that the most recent one no issues if moving furniture produced such poor noise as was referenced surely any event held we would receive complaints every single time I think it's not relevant of who made the complaint a person isn't fully entitled to complain as much as a problem because they live on top of something and it affects them they have a right to do so we have to consider and see what we can do about if I could direct the question to environmental health what enforcement have you actually considered taking about this noise and what backup would you wish to do regarding that particular enforcement I ask you have you considered taking enforcement steps with regard to the noise issuing noise abatement notice or anything that is what the recommendation was that we serve an abatement notice and we have to discuss that with my line manager see if we can do but clearly the abatement notice there to be served which we are in all likelihood going to discuss in order to regulate the activities thank you perhaps mr wong should who's directed me to a couple of legal speaking wait till i finish mr wong has directed me to both appoint here and he's given me deliver some advice subject to the answer i received from mr o'leary which i would consider my colleagues i know will when we adjourn if i could if you could explain that to the meeting just to clarify to assist mr o'leary in assisting the councillors i think the point that's being made is because there appears to be this question as to if the noise is not emanating from the premises where is it emanating from what i think the councillors are getting at is what evidence has environmental health actually got and if they've got sufficient evidence is it sufficient for them to found any enforcement action do you see the point that's being made mr o'leary yeah yeah the the office's reports was provided to supplementary evidence and that was also sent to the applicant now as i said we are holding on to service of the vetment notice with a view that you know further mitigation measures could be applied in order to improve the conditions of the premises so that noise nuisance could be you know could sort of reduce further if not completely eliminated but that's the discussion we have and we don't necessarily have to serve in notice is there to be served if that doesn't improve answers your question does answer your question i come back to the point i think there is a general consensus that reservations of noise i don't know how it could be legally drafted but could we have could you mr wong's given me some advice on this that i'd like i think everybody to hear saying to the chair sorry i was saying to the chair that in terms of the operating schedule i have to say that i'm partway through scrolling down i think it's supplementary agenda one where the applicant has produced a list of proposed conditions that they're offering on pages five and six and i was saying what the councillors could do of course if they were to grant the application would be of course if they felt there were any conditions which would support the prevention of public nuisance in terms of noise disturbance they could add those conditions onto the operating schedule is what i was saying and indeed that's not unknown because for example there are many premises in the borough which have a condition attached to their license to the effect that there shall be no noise emanating from the premises so as to cause a public nuisance and i see the applicants nodding you've obviously heard of that before and that's basically what the members what the councillors actually could do were they to grant the application by way of imposing conditions on the license i think the question that the councillors might be asking and i'll ask it basically on their behalf further is if the councillors were minded to do that would the applicants have any problem with that so just to clarify the question is would the applicants be in favour of any additional conditions being attached to the license and us agreeing to those to address the concerns about the noise disturbance from the premises yes of course we want to help and be we want to engage with our community as a whole not just the patrons that we serve and so if that serves in benefiting from the objector's own experience then of course we would look to engage with those additional conditions I think I referenced earlier that we are looking to take measures to further sound proof including the chimney breast that we weren't necessarily aware of but it was helpfully pointed out in the witness statement of the objector we're looking to do additional sound curtains and other sound proofing measures could I call on Mr. Elford on behalf of the objectors I just wanted to answer the same question to us which is would we be happy with noise conditions being placed on this license and I take you back to what I said before councillors which is if you grant an alcohol license regardless of what conditions you put on about noise this premises this part of this premises basement of 324 will be able to have entertainment from 8am in the morning to 11pm in the evening by virtue of the live music act 2012 and the deregulation act 2015 and none of the conditions you put on will bite during that period so you can put a noise limiter condition on doesn't bite between 8am and 11pm because of this deregulation and that is why we had to ask that you refuse to grant an alcohol licence to the basement very very important this is not something that can be remedied by condition I wish it was but it's not Mr. Wong I'm desperately trying to find to resolve this situation to the better everybody because it's clearly that the two residents who are objectors very much approve of your premises but at the same time they have concerns about the noise which is backed up by the council and Mr. Elford in true legalese as bolder classic googly at us I wouldn't say truly I think Mr. Elford understands what I'm trying to get at we have a problem here we truly do have a slight problem here Mr. Wong what is your advice on Mr. Elford's contribution I think you can understand where councillors have come from that we've asked as many questions as we have we've now got to weigh up a decision may I ask you all to sum up it's been a somewhat difficult evening on this one could I invite people to sum up oh sorry councillor Salukah thank you chair just want to mention a couple of times or more the chimney breast and the what sort of is it something the produce of these noise is it something also to do the building structure itself do you reckon is it something do because the chimney as I can see the chimneys normally go straight up and just the noise travels through the chimneys as well to answer your question yeah I assume that noise travels up a kind of a void that is within the chimney it's a chimney flue where smoke would go in where a fire would be placed and it goes and escapes all the way up to the top this is an old building block that's been converted into mixed use at the bottom and residential at the bottom I assume as from the witness statement provided by the objective that there are historic chimney breasts throughout each floor and the smoke emits through the top and eventually up to the top I think you can see the chimneys stack themselves in two of the images I think the first one is from EPO's report on page 96 of the public agenda on the witness statement in their supplemental agenda what you can see on a cross from there is in a different part of the same building block you see the chimney stack that effectively goes all the way down into the basement where there is a chimney and so noise can escape go up as can the other chimney breasts within the block I'm not an expert as to the structure of the building also is it a listed building under any I don't think it's a listed building but it's an old building and quite interesting if it interests you the basement has been the site of a pub called the Nags Head since the 1700s that closed in 1991 so the building itself I think is I think I had it's an old building I think the object has have and all the windows in the building are single glazed I'm not too sure of the listed status or if it's in a conservation area but it is an old building and so probably not too well insulated structurally including I imagine the chimney flue that serves between the different properties finally do you know of any restrictions that that you would kind of it will stop you from getting noise proof is there any because if it's likely if it's a listed building it might have some conditions to it that you cannot do certain things to the building in any way yes as far as we're aware it is not subject to any building it's not listed it's not under conservation area as far as we're aware I think we share maybe a lease holder and we share a common freeholder and I assume that as he owns the whole block that any work that he's done has been in line with any listed building status and given the extent of the work to the property I assume that actually there is no the building is not subject to any listed status or other measures that would impact our ability to provide additional noise measures within the basement have you considered a noise limiter I'm not too sure a noise limiter we actually bought one for last weekend to make sure we wouldn't pass the limit which by looking at Google and our hamlets apparently there's no limits but we kind of look at other neighborhoods and we made sure that we never passed the limit and quite often below I think it was below 60 or yeah below 60 decibels so certainly all limits don't worry Mr Alford do you have a view on that do your clients have a view on that the problem is this if you have a noise limiter it needs to be set by someone who is an acoustician who understands the way that noise travels this is a building that as the applicant themselves has said is an old building not well insulated there is problems with noise going up the building it would be a very very tricky process and more to the point the noise limiter would not have effect from 8am to 11pm this is really reluctantly must invite you to reject the part that applies to the basement the applicant can go away they can do further noise works can prove concept that it doesn't disturb people and they can come back the object is half a minute to sum up so I give Mr. Alfred a minute then I will give Mr. Maher a minute and then we will explain to you what happens next thank you chair you've listened incredibly patiently there's a lot of paperwork in front of you and you've heard a lot this evening bottom line is this no problems whatsoever with the 326 Hackney Road part of this application subject to conditions but we must invite you to refuse the part that relates to 324 there is not there are no conditions that could be added this is not a case where you could remove certain licensable activities as you put it I bowled you a googly it was not my intention and I hate sitting here being legalistic about these things but if you grant an alcohol license to the basement of 324 Hackney Road the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance will be undermined it is being undermined and you will be legitimizing it thank you Mr. Aleri thank you chair the premises is clearly located in the proximity to non sensitive so noise sensitive residential or commercial properties including residential flats above in our view the application as it currently stands first to meet the objectives of the licensing act 2003 relation to public nuisance for the following reasons potential noise breakouts from the venue which could likely affect the residents lack of measures to manage noise assess and egress of patrons which is critical given the likelihood of patrons being in high spirits during late night hours the hours of operation doesn't really make any difference because it reduced it because the noise it actually happened before midnight the use of the area later night also is considerably going to be a problem as well based on the potential for significant public nuisance environmental protection still do not support the application for a Portuguese love affair 3-4 basement and 3-6 ground floor and basement Hackney Road London E27S granting the licenses likely to increase public nuisance for residential and commercial properties including the use of the external areas later at night thank you chair thank you chair thank you councillors for taking time to listen to our application I guess to sum up I would reiterate that this is not a live meet this is not a night club this is a inclusive community driven space that will listen to the community and hold community based events it is not necessarily a music venue that hosts live music every day the majority of events that have been held thus far have included a Christmas market poetry reading queer writing workshops south south and as as a result by allowing the license to be granted you'll enhance the community and allow the existing premises to remain in place I would like to reiterate that the lack of viability of this business at 324 due to the failure to grant a license even with conditions the failure to grant a license will inevitably lead to the foreclosure of the existing premises that the objectors themselves say they have no problem with I think the hours being proposed are reasonable and that we understand that the community at large should be given the space to enjoy and whilst we will take our best efforts to mitigate the impact on local residents immediately impacted neighbors many of our immediate impacted neighbors are massively in support of this including the record shop next door there's an overwhelming support as you can see here and I would just like to thank you for your time and I hope that we can reach this resolve the situation for all parties moving forward and hopefully upon maybe one day in the future that the objectors would actually come to the venue themselves and try and enjoy themselves there so thank you for your before I may conclude my contribution perhaps I should apologise to Mr. Elford for using the expression Google to learn it contributor I would not wish to use a demeaning remark that could be considered a demeaning fantastic term and I shall be using it again soon Google Google May I thank everybody for your contributions today the subcommittee will deliberate in a private session after the meeting formally ends Ms. Yasmin from Democratic Services will send you a decision notice within five working days which will tell you what decision we have reached how we've reached it and whether the decision was a unanimous vote three out of three or whether there was a majority vote on it for your information when we do adjourn obviously Ms. Yasmin will be present with us to take notes her only job there will be to take notes the decision will be ours and ours alone and the mission will be ultimately the three members which will be communicated to you thank you very much for everybody coming along may I say what a pleasure it was to see a full and interesting gallery do come along again it really was interesting I hope you all found the minutiae of local government interesting or not interesting whatever you do but thank you for your contribution thank you for being here Ms. Yasmin do we that this part is formally closed do we have any extension deadlines no chair we don't we have no deadlines I therefore formally close the public part of the meeting and once again thank you