Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for Unity Diner, 60 Wentworth Street, London E1 7AL
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 Unity Diner, 60 Wentworth Street, London E1 7AL. 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 Winston Brown, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained that the premises licence was being sought for a vegan restaurant/diner and cocktail bar. He explained that it was mainly a booking only restaurant, and when entering, customers would be seated by a host, there was a seated waiting area and it was a very controlled environment. The clientele they attracted were calm and measured. He explained that hours had been amended subject to the comments from the Licensing Officer.
He explained that the Licensing Officer visited the premises on 29 November 2019, and found the premises selling and displaying alcohol without a licence. He explained that the applicant believed that having made an application for a premises licence meant they could sell alcohol and therefore accepted that there had been a breach. Mr Brown highlighted the fact that there had been seven temporary event notices so far, and all carried out successfully with no complaints or concerns. He said that if Members had concerns about the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) named on the application then the Applicant would be happy to change the DPS as the Applicant accepts that there was a breach.
Mr Brown stated that Environmental Health had come to an agreement, as the Applicant was happy to accept the conditions proposed and believed to have met their concerns.
He also said that the licensing conditions proposed met the concerns regarding the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and that the clientele which the premises would attract would not be the type to cause problems. It was further noted that six members of staff had Level 2 training for the relevant field and all staff were trained to use and download images from the CCTV system. Mr Brown concluded that the Applicants took the licensing objectives seriously.
Members then heard from Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer. She referred to her representation on pages 62-62 of the agenda pack and explained that during her visit to the premises, alcohol was on display for sale during the consultation period, and therefore she was not confident that the Applicant would uphold the licensing objectives. She further explained that the premises was in the CIZ and that the application and the oral representation made at the meeting did not justify a premises licence being issued in the CIZ given the presumption against grant of a licence for premises in the CIZ.
Members also heard from Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer. She explained that she had initially agreed to conditions, but upon visiting the premises, concerns had been raised. She stated that the Applicant had a lack of understanding of the Licensing Act and the Licensing Objectives.
She said she welcomed the training undertaken by members of staff but there needed to be greater knowledge of the licensing objectives. However there had been some TEN applications and there have been no complaints or problems.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That staff and the Applicants have had training and were aware of the licensing objectives.
- That the Applicants were under the assumption that they could sell alcohol once an application had been made.
- The premises had a CCTV camera system in place and had notices displayed around the premises asking customers to leave quietly and respect the needs of local residents.
- That the restaurant mainly had pre-bookings but it was possible to accommodate walk in customers.
- Customers would mostly be seated.
- That it was a food led environment and happy to have a condition to only serve alcohol with a meal.
- That doors are kept closed and the premises were well insulated, therefore there was no noise escape.
- That there had been seven TEN applications without complaints.
- That there was a bar area where customers could eat and drink.
- There would be no drinks promotions.
- The restaurant had 75 covers (seats).
Members adjourned again at 7.25pm for deliberations and reconvened at 7.45pm.
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 Legal Representative and the Officers representing the Responsible Authorities objecting to the application, with particular regard to the four Licensing Objectives.
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, and Environmental Health regarding the impact of the premises on the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and concerns relating to the previous breach 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. For instance, the Sub-Committee were concerned that the applicant had insufficiently addressed how there would be no addition to the cumulative impact in the particular area in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder objective. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the operating schedule as presented at the Sub-Committee meeting rebutted the above presumption.
The Sub Committee were 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 Unity Diner, 60 Wentworth Street, London E1 7AL be REFUSED.
Supporting documents: