Agenda item

The Council’s Licensing Officer presented a report in respect of an application for a premises licence submitted by Zim Bar, 20 – 30 London Road, Barking.

This application was due to be heard on 24 April 2012; however, on the day of the meeting, the applicant’s representative requested that matter be rescheduled for four weeks later, on the basis that they required more time to examine the papers. The meeting was cancelled and Board members, responsible authorities and interested parties wishing to attend the meeting were informed.

The applicant was seeking a licence for the supply of alcohol, the provision of late night refreshment, and the provision of some regulated entertainment (music and dance). The times sought for the licensable activities were 11:00 to 01:00 on Monday and Wednesday and 11:00 to 03:30 on Tuesday and Thursday – Sunday.

The matter was before the Board as the Licensing Team had received valid representations opposing the grant of this premises licence from the following:

• The Metropolitan Police

• Environmental Health (Noise)

• Community Safety and Public Protection (Child Protection)

• Eight Local Residents

The Democratic Services Officer stated that she had received two emails from the applicant’s representative; one at 3.47pm with a document attached to it providing commentary on the Police’s representations, and, one at 4.39pm stating that the firm would not be attending the meeting because the Police had sent them further documentation late last week, which they needed more time to analyse.

The Designated Premises Supervisor, Peter Kamau, the Sole Director of Zim Bar, Lawrence Ssendege, and the Manager of Zim Bar were present. The Chair invited them to clarify the situation.

Mr Kamau stated that the applicant wished to seek an adjournment of the matter because the applicant did not have legal representation due to a lack of funds. In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Kamau stated that this was the main reason for seeking the adjournment.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Kamau stated that in response to a request from their legal representatives, the Police had sent them further documentation late last week including CAD and CRIS reports, which their representatives needed further time to analyse. This was the secondary reason for the applicant seeking an adjournment.

In response to a question from the Council’s Legal Officer, Kevin Baumber, Counsel for the Metropolitan Police, stated that the papers being referred to were the underpinning documentation for the Police’s representations and did not contain any substantial new information. It was not thought that these papers would serve any further purpose and this is why they were not provided to the Board. They were provided to the applicant only upon request. With regards to the papers being provided to the applicant late last week, the request was made late, considering that the applicant had been granted a four week adjournment, and they were provided in a timely fashion.

The Board adjourned to consider the request for the matter to be adjourned.

Upon reconvening, the Democratic Services Officer stated that the Board, having considered the applicant’s submissions, hadagreed to grant the request for an adjournment because the applicant had requested this on the grounds that they did not have legal representation (due to a lack of funds), a fact which emerged during the meeting. This was the second time the matter had been adjourned, which was most unusual. The Board warned the applicant that the matter could not be continually adjourned and that it would be rescheduled to be heard on 20 June 2012 whether or not they had acquired legal representation. The Council’s Licensing Officer would confirm this in writing to the applicant. The Board requested that the further documentation of the Police, referred to during the meeting, be made available to the Council’s Licensing Officer.