Agenda item
Licensing Act 2003 Application for a Premises Licence for The Grill & Spice, 5-7 Osborn Street, E1 6TD
Minutes:
In attendance
Anthony Edwards, TV Edwards (Applicant’s Legal Representative)
Mr Mohammod (Applicant)
Mark Perry (Metropolitan Police Licensing Team)
Nicola Cadzow (Public Protection, Environmental Health)
Mohshin Ali (Licensing Authority)
Roger Evans (Resident, on behalf of Jon Shapiro)
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licencing objectives:
1. The Prevention of Crime and Disorder
2. Public Safety
3. Prevention of Public Nuisance
4. The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits and the Sub-Committee carefully considered the written and verbal representations made by the applicant and his representative; and for the objectors, a local resident and the three responsible authorities, namely the Licensing Authority, the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Protection. The objections related to the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance;
The Sub-Committee noted that they were asked to consider the application for a new premises licence for The Grill & Spice, 5 – 7 Osborn Street, E1 6TD.
Applicant’s representations
Anthony Edwards of TV Edwards addressed the meeting and advised Members that the application had been submitted to allow the applicant to provide Late Night Refreshment (LNR) and that no alcohol would be sold. The premises served the local area including patrons from the neighbouring hotel and other nearby commercial premises. Mr Edwards informed the Sub Committee that the applicant took over the business 1 year ago and the applicant had been under the impression that the premises was permitted to serve LNR. The applicant had unwittingly served LNR without the proper authorisation for the last 12 months.
Mr Edwards advised members that the Premises was only small and was situated at the commercial end of Osborne Street.
As soon as the applicant realised his mistake, the unauthorised licensing activity ceased and a premises license application was submitted. In the interim, Mr Edwards reported that the applicant had applied for several Temporary Event Notices (TENs) to allow the provision of LNR. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had provided LNR without the appropriate licence for approximately 12 months following the applicant taking over the premises, there had been no complaints or concerns raised regarding the management of the premises and no reported incidents of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) which had emanated from the Premises.
Mr Edwards stated that given that there were no reported incidents or complaints in respect of the premises, this rebutted the presumption that the premises would have a detrimental impact on the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ). Furthermore, the presence of SIA security staff during the hours for provision of LNR would ensure that the premises continued to have no impact on the CIZ. The SIA staff would be there to ensure that no alcohol was brought onto the Premises and that no customers were able to loiter outside of the Premises once they leave.
Mr Edwards also raised the point that the hotel opposite the Premises had not submitted an objection to the application.
Objectors’ representations
PC Mark Perry of the Metropolitan Police
Licensing Team addressed Members and expressed concerns that the
applicant had carried out unlicensed activity from when he took
over the business until May 2017. PC
Perry felt that the applicant was under an obligation to
investigate the permitted hours for licensed activity and it was
worrying to hear that the applicant had not carried out the proper
checks.
PC Perry advised that the Brick Lane area had the highest levels of
ASB in Tower Hamlets and if this application was granted, it would
be the only premises with such late opening hours. This would lead to the premises becoming a magnet
for patrons who had been drinking elsewhere to visit the locality,
thereby increasing the potential for ASB and crime and
disorder.
PC Perry submitted to the members that the authorities and local
community had worked together to try and reduce ASB in the
Cumulative Impact Zone and granting the licence was likely to
increase ASB in the area. PC Perry
recommended that the Sub Committee should refuse the application in
full. However if Members were minded to
grant the application, he suggested that Members should agree the
hours and conditions as recommended by PC Alan Cruickshank in his
written representation on page 57 of the agenda pack; namely
increased hours for only Friday and Saturday up until
midnight. PC Perry also highlighted
that the applicant’s agent had not responded to an email sent
on 30th June 2017.
Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Technical Officer addressed the
meeting and stated that the hours applied for was in excess of
framework hours. Ms Cadzow reported
that the premises were in close proximity to residential dwellings
and there was potential for public nuisance through the extended
provision of LNR and access and egress for patrons. Ms Cadzow stated that if the premises were allowed
to serve LNR until 5am, this would encourage late visitors to the
area and cause noise disturbance to residents. Ms Cadzow submitted
to members that in her view the application should be refused on
public nuisance grounds but should members be minded to grant a
licence that the hours of the licensable activity are limited to
framework hours.
Mohshin Ali, Senior Licensing Officer addressed the meeting on
behalf of the Licensing Authority and advised that the premises had
been issued with a warning following a visit on 12th May
2017 for carrying out unauthorised licensable activity. Subsequently TENs had been submitted to allow the
premises to serve LNR at weekends and an application for a premises
license had been submitted on 21 June.
Mr Ali recommended that in the event that the Sub Committee was
minded to grant the application, that the hours for LNR be reduced
to framework hours. Mr Ali also
questioned the timings applied for on the TENs as the hours applied
for did not include the provision of LNR from 11pm – 12
midnight.
Roger Evans addressed the meeting on behalf of Jon Shapiro by
proxy, a local resident. Mr Evans
stated that the premises did not cater to local residents and had a
very poor hygiene rating; most patrons came to the premises after
drinking elsewhere in the locality. Mr
Evans stated that he had been the victim of 2 assaults in the
previous 2 months and if the hours applied for were granted, this
would increase ASB, causing nuisance to residents especially
residents of 2 hostels nearby housing vulnerable people.
In response to questions and comments from Sub Committee Members,
the applicant and his legal representative stated the
following:
· The premises had seating for 16 patrons downstairs and the upstairs was not in use.
· The premises would be able to uphold the licensing objectives as no alcohol would be sold so it would not attract the wrong clientele and the SIA staff would ensure that the licensing objectives were met during the hours of LNR provision.
· Since the applicant took over the business, there had been no reported incidents and the premises had not been the subject of any complaints had been made to the Metropolitan Police or the Council.
· The customers were people coming back into the area where they live after work rather than people attending when under the influence of alcohol.
· The TENs had passed peacefully without incident
· The applicant had been providing LNR for 12 months before he realised that a license was required
· From 11pm – 12 midnight on the days before the TENs, the premises did not serve LNR and staff used this time for cleaning up. The reason that the TEN was applied for from 12 midnight to 5am was to ensure that only one of the TEN quotas for the year was used. If the Premises had a TEN from 11pm to 5am the following day then two of the annual quota would be used.
· The applicant was apologetic for carrying out unauthorised licensable activity and as soon as he became aware of the breach, he submitted TENs and applied for a premises license
At the conclusion of the oral representations, the Sub-Committee withdrew to deliberate in private with the Legal Advisor and Clerk.
The Sub Committee was mindful of the serious concerns of the responsible authorities regarding anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder and public nuisance and noted that the LNR hours applied for were far beyond the Council’s framework hours. Members accepted the evidence of the responsible authorities in respect of the likelihood of crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour and had doubts regarding the applicant’s ability to promote the licencing objectives given his clear lack of knowledge of licensing requirements.
Members were of the view that the applicant had not adequately rebutted the presumption that the Premises would contribute to the cumulative impact already being experienced within the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ). Nor had the applicant adequately demonstrated how he would promote the relevant the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder and public nuisance
The Sub Committee had particular concerns that:
· The applicant gave oral evidence indicating that he had been providing LNR for 12 months without authorisation which showed his lack of understanding of ensuring that the licensing objectives were upheld. It was only due to the enforcement visit that the applicant then applied for the TENs.
· The approved TENs did not provide enough evidence to satisfy Members that the premises would not add to the cumulative impact within the CIZ as they were for weekends only and did not show what would happen if the premises were opened late throughout the week.
· Members were persuaded by the particularly compelling evidence of the Metropolitan Police in relation to the potential impact on crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour and in line with section 2.1 of the Home Guidance were guided by the police representations.
· Members were also mindful of the strength of the objections which had come from three separate responsible authorities as well as a member of the public.
Members had mixed views on whether to grant the application with reduced hours for LNR given that the applicant had provided unauthorised LNR for 12 months and during this time there had been no complaints or concerns raised regarding the management of the premises as confirmed by Ms Driver.
In considering their decision Members had regard to the guidance issued by the Home Office under Section182 of the Licensing Act 2003 concerning Crime and Disorder. Therefore considering all of the above, by a 2.1 majority, on balance, Members had no confidence that the applicant would promote the licensing objectives and agreed by a majority decision to refuse the application.
Decision
Accordingly, for the above reasons, by a majority decision, the Sub-Committee
RESOLVED - That the application for a Premises Licence for The Grill & Spice, 5 – 7 Osborn Street, E1 6TD, be REFUSED.
Supporting documents: