Agenda item
Application for a premises licence variation for Preem, 118-122 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Principal Licensing Officer introduced the application stating that the Applicant was seeking to extend the hours of operation plus remove some of the conditions on the licence. Mr Ali referred Members to page 22 of the agenda which stated the current opening hours and the new hours being applied for. Mr Ali referred Members to the site plan appended at Appendix 3 and the representations of the Responsible Authorities. Mr Ali said these could be found at pages 75 to 84 of the agenda. Several objections had also been received from local residents and Housing Associations in the vicinity and these were documented on pages 86 to 111 in the agenda pack.
Members heard from the Applicant’s Solicitor, Mr Anthony Edwards who stated his Client had been operating in Brick Lane for more than 20 years and, in a tough trading environment, was seeking an extension of opening hours and a relaxation of the condition to have SIA accredited door supervisors throughout the week. Mr Edwards referred Members to the supplementary agenda and the proposed amendment to the extension of hours, seeking extended hours to 02:00 hours in respect of only 120-122 Brick Lane rather than for the whole restaurant, so as not to add to the cumulative impact. Mr Edwards referred to the objections raised by residents, and said these were not specific to the restaurant, but complaints in relation to the general neighbourhood. Mr Edwards referred to the objections of the Responsible Authorities and said that whilst it is clear there are issues with touting in Brick Lane, his client would ask all employees to sign the restaurant’s customer service policy, which states that they will not engage in touting or offer reductions or special deals.
Mr Edwards continued, stating that the need to have SIA accredited door supervisors for the whole week was excessive and expensive, and his Client was seeking variation of the related condition to apply only to Thursday to Saturday.
The Members also considered the objections of the Responsible Authorities who said touting had been a significant issue in Brick Lane and there had been on-going and historic breaches. Kathy Driver referred Members to page 76 of the agenda, paragraph 5, stating that as recently as the 22nd July 2018, Mr Hussain’s employees were touting for business. PC Mark Perry added that it was a question of trust when considering the application which sought more than what was provided in the existing premises licence: could Mr Hussain be trusted to abide by the variations sought given the history of compliance at the premises showed issues had arisen regarding compliance with what was already required in the premises licence as it stood? PC Perry said that the restaurant’s history showed a flagrant abuse of licensing requirements, which did not uphold the licensing objectives. PC Perry said anti-touting requirements had been contravened, and there was an increased risk of anti-social behaviour and public nuisance as a result.
PC Perry acknowledged that the condition to have SIA accredited door supervisors on duty from 18:00 hours Monday to Sunday was perhaps onerous, and consideration should be given to relaxing this condition.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted:
– Information provided by the Licensing Authority on pages 76-77 provided information of the complaint history against Preem Restaurant and the recorded incidents of touting. It was at its peak in 2012 -13. However, the issue of aggressive behaviour and touting in Brick Lane continues to this day.
– The Applicant assured Members that steps had been taken to remedy against touting and complying with the licensing conditions. Mr Hussain said his employees had been warned against touting and would only be offering the menu rather than any special deals.
– In reference to page 69 and why some restaurants are open until 3:00 a.m. PC Mark Perry explained that one other set of premises, Jasmine had been subject to a review, when touting in the area was at a peak. He said extra CCTV and SIA accredited door supervisors had resulted in a reduction of complaints, but the issue of touting still remained.
– Mr Anthony Edwards stated that the vast majority of the objections received were from residents of Spitalfields and not Brick Lane itself. When Members enquired what the Applicant had done to alleviate noise and public nuisance caused by drunken patrons leaving the premises, he said his client had not received any direct complaints from his neighbours.
– In response to Members enquiring how busy the restaurant is, Mr Hussain confirmed that the restaurant would be at full capacity at 12:30 a.m. on a Friday night. Mr Edwards further explained the extension of hours to 02:00 a.m. would apply to only half of the restaurant.
– Mr Azmal Hussain gave assurances to the Members that he would no longer tout for business.
The Licensing Objectives
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:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merit. The Sub Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representation from the applicant, the Licensing Authority and the objectors with particular regard to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm and prevention of crime and disorder.
In reaching their decision, Members noted the application was for varying of opening hours for Preem Restaurant from 12:00 (midday) to 01:30 hours (following day) Monday to Sunday to 11:00 a.m. to 02:30 hours (following day) Monday to Sunday. The application was also seeking to remove the condition to have SIA accredited door supervisors on duty on Monday to Sunday from 18:00 hours. In addition Preem Restaurant was seeking an extension in the hours for the sale of alcohol and provision of late night refreshment. Members of the Sub-Committee heard from the Applicants Solicitor Mr Anthony Edwards who stated his Client had been operating in Brick Lane for more than 20 years and, as per the supplementary agenda, was proposing an amendment to the extension of hours, in that the extended hours be granted in respect of 120-122 Brick Lane rather than the whole restaurant to 02:00 hours, In order to reduce the cumulative impact. Mr Edwards referred to the objections raised by residents and said these were not specific to the restaurant but general complaints in relation to the neighbourhood. Mr Edwards referred to the objections of the Responsible Authorities and said that whilst it is clear there are issues with touting in Brick Lane his client would ask all employees to sign the restaurant’s customer service policy, which states that they will not engage in touting or offer reductions or special deals.
The Members also considered the objections of the Responsible Authorities who said touting had been a significant issue in Brick Lane and there had been on-going and historic breaches. Kathy Driver referred Members to page 76 of the agenda, paragraph 5, stating that as late as the 22nd July 2018, Mr Hussain’s employees were touting for business. PC Mark Perry added that it was a question of trust. In seeking extensions to the terms of the premises licence, could Mr Hussain be trusted to abide by the licensing conditions given what had previously happened? PC Perry said that the restaurant’s history showed a flagrant abuse of the conditions, which did not uphold the licensing objectives. PC Perry said anti-touting requirements had been contravened, and there was an increased risk of anti-social behaviour and public nuisance as a result.
PC Perry acknowledged that the condition to have SIA accredited door supervisors on duty from 18:00 hours Monday to Sunday was perhaps onerous, and consideration should be given to relaxing this condition.
Upon considering the application, Members were not satisfied that the Applicant had shown he could be trusted to uphold the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance in light of the written and oral evidence provided by the Responsible Authorities. However Members agreed that part of the condition to have SIA accredited door supervisors on duty could be relaxed. Members had heard from Mr Edwards that residents’ complaints were not specific to the premises and related to issues in the neighbourhood generally.
In reaching their decision, the Members took into account that the premises are situated in the Cumulative Impact Zone, and the applicant’s written and oral representations failed to satisfy the Members that if extended hours were granted and late night refreshment permitted, that would not add to the cumulative impact of public nuisance and / or crime and disorder in the Cumulative Impact Zone.
The Members also took into account that the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy meant that where there is any application for a premises licence or a variation pf such licence under the Licensing Act 2003 relating to premises in a Cumulative Impact Zone, the presumption must be to refuse such application unless the applicant can show evidence that granting such application would not add to the cumulative impact in the area.
Members felt there was no evidence that removal of the condition requiring SIA accredited door supervisors to be on duty would add to that cumulative impact.
Members reached a majority decision. Members agreed by a majority to refuse the application in part as to the extension of hours and provision of late night refreshment.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee made a majority decision to:-
RESOLVED
That the application for a variation of a premise licence for Preem Restaurant, 118 – 122 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL be REFUSED in all respects aside from removal of the licensing condition to have SIA accredited door supervisors on duty on Thursday to Saturday from 20:00 hours.
Supporting documents:
- BrickLane118-122, item 3.1 PDF 136 KB
- BrickLa118-122.Appendix_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 3 MB
- RE Licensing Hearing - 30th October Preem_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 50 KB
- Preem restaurant 30th October committee_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 49 KB
- CUSTOMER SERVICE POLICY, item 3.1 PDF 38 KB