Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for Jack the Chipper, 74 Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7QX
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Jack the Chipper, 74 Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7QX. It was noted that objections had been received by Officers on behalf of the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Kevin Morris, the Applicant’s Business Consultant explained that he was not the agent at the time the application was first made and had only recently taken this case on. He explained that the Applicant had spent £100k on refurbishments to the premises and the rent and rates for the premises was high.
He explained that there had been a breakdown in the relationship between the previous agent and the applicant, and the applicant had assumed that the premises had a licence as the previous business that occupied the premises had a premises licence. However this licence lapsed in 28 August 2019. The applicant was unaware of this and was unaware that he could not sell alcohol. The applicant accepted that there had been a breach of the Licensing Act 2003 on his part regarding unlicensed selling of alcohol. Mr Morris explained that had he been the agent at the start of the process he would have explained to the applicant what he could and could not do.
He explained that subject to consultation with the Police, the hours applied for had been reduced to 12 midnight Sunday to Wednesday and 1am on Thursday to Sunday. It was noted that restricting the hours would help reduce noise levels.
Members then heard from Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, who referred to her statement on pages 61-68 of the agenda and explained that she was objecting on the basis that the premises was within the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ). She further explained that the premises had been brought to the Council’s attention when officers from the Tower Hamlets Waste Enforcement Team had found dumped waste, including receipts from these premises. A check of those receipts against licensing records confirmed that there was no licence in place and therefore, a warning letter was sent to the premises on 23 September 2019, advising them to cease the sale of alcohol and any other licensable activities. Following this, there was a successful test purchase, on 29 November 2019, when officers were able to make a purchase of hot food at 11.27pm and therefore, a further warning letter was sent.
Ms Driver was surprised that despite the warning letters, the applicant continued to trade without a licence. She asserted that the applicant did not understand the laws and regulations regarding licensing, and therefore she was not confident that he would comply with conditions and promote the licensing objective. Ms Driver also stated that Applicant nor his representative have addressed the issues of the CIZ and have not demonstrated how he would not negatively add to the cumulative impact zone. Ms Driver concluded that that the previous licence only had late night refreshments and not the sale of alcohol.
Members also heard from Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer, who explained that the applicant had not provided sufficient details in their operating schedule demonstrating how they would promote the licensing objective of public nuisance and how they would not add to the cumulative impact in the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That the Applicant was unaware that there was no licence in place.
- The Applicant would promote the licensing objectives by having no regulated entertainment, sound proofing the premise, and ensure the responsible sale of alcohol.
- When asked how the applicant would rebut the presumption against grant of a premises licence for premises in the CIZ, it was presented that the hours had been reduced to help address noise disturbance.
In summation, Ms Driver said the premises was clearly within the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy had not been addressed regarding the presumption in it against grant of a premises licence for premises in the CIZ. There had been clear breaches of the legislation, and the owner was present during the successful test purchase, so there was no confidence that the premises management would uphold the licensing objectives. It was also noted that the hours applied for were beyond the Council’s framework hours.
Mr Morris concluded that the applicant needed to be trusted, that there had been a lot of naivety from the applicant’s part, but he had been made aware of his obligations if a licence were granted. Mr Morris said that he had limited knowledge of the CIZ and was therefore limited on the advice he could give his client.
Members adjourned the meeting at 7.10pm for deliberations and reconvened at 7.35pm.
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;
- The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm.
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and heard oral representations at the meeting made by the Applicant’s Business Agent and the Officers from Responsible Authorities objecting to the application, with particular regard to the prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ), and so, the effect of a premises subject to a licensing application being in a CIZ is that there is a rebuttable presumption that where relevant representations are received by one or more of the responsible authorities and/or other persons objecting to the application, the application will be refused.
The Sub-Committee noted that under the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Applicant can rebut the above presumption if they can demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives by not adding to the cumulative impact of licensed premises already in the CIZ.
The Sub-Committee considered that the onus lay upon the applicant to show through their operating schedule, with appropriate supporting evidence that the operation of the premises, if licensed, would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
The Sub-Committee noted the representations from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health regarding the impact of the premises on the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and concerns relating to the previous breaches of trading without a licence.
The Sub-Committee therefore considered that it had not heard enough evidence that rebutted the presumption against granting any further premises licence within the CIZ. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the operating schedule as presented at the Sub-Committee meeting rebutted the above presumption.
The Sub Committee was therefore not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify a grant of the application, and were of the view that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption against granting a premises licence for a premises situated in a cumulative impact zone, in that the applicant failed to demonstrate how they would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives by adding to the cumulative impact in the area.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Jack the Chipper, 74 Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7QX be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Jack the Chipper cover report, item 3.1 PDF 350 KB
- Jack the Chipper Appendices Only, item 3.1 PDF 6 MB
- Letter - Inspection, item 3.1 PDF 45 KB
- InspSheet, item 3.1 PDF 394 KB
- Pic.002, item 3.1 PDF 758 KB