Agenda item
Licensing Act 2003 Application for a new Premise Licence for Noodles & Beer, Unit 6, 31 Bell Lane, London, E1 7LA
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Noodles & Beer, Unit 6, 31 Bell Lane, London, E1 7LA. It was noted that objections had been received by Officers on behalf of the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health as well as from a local resident.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Darren Almeida, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant explained the premises licence was being sought for a Noodle restaurant, which had a total of fifty three covers (seats). Mr Almeida explained the Applicant had put forward conditions, as per the supplement agenda, taking on board the advice of the Police Licensing Team, with whom it had agreed conditions. It would ensure a CCTV system and a Challenge 25 policy, is in place to combat against any crime and disorder or public nuisance, should it arise. Mr Almeida said staff would be trained to use the CCTV equipment and relevant notices would be placed outside the premises to ask patrons to leave quietly. The restaurant is not a nightclub so therefore there is no risk of a large crowd leaving at the same time. There would be a steady flow of customers coming and going, who would eat and leave the restaurant quietly. Mr Almeida said the concerns raised by the local resident had been addressed on page 6 of the supplement agenda (points a to e) concerning the breakout of noise from the premises. Mr Almeida said the adoption of the proposed conditions should allay the fears of residents and would uphold the licensing objectives. Mr Almeida requested the premises licence be granted.
Members then heard from Ms Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer. She explained she objected to the application as scant detail was provided in the initial application on how the Applicant would uphold the licensing objectives in particular the public nuisance objective. Ms Cadzow said that having looked at the proposed conditions put forward in the supplement agenda, she remained concerned at the Applicants ability to report and log incidences of noise and public nuisance. She said the conditions did not specify times for the disposal of rubbish and bottles which she would expect to see in the proposed conditions or any mitigation against the level of noise that would be permitted before doors and windows would be closed. Ms Cadzow reminded Members the premises was in a cumulative impact zone (CIZ) and the onus was for the Applicant to show how the licensing objectives would not be undermined.
Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer concurred with the objection raised by Ms Cadzow stating that his objection related to the premises being in a cumulative impact zone. He said the Applicant’s representative had made no attempt to address how it would rebut the presumption of refusing the licence, on the grounds that the premises is in a CIZ. Mr Ali said the conditions put forward did not, on a balance of probability address why the application should not be refused and the negative impact it would have on the area.
In response to questions the following was noted:
- The responsible authorities did not feel the written application or the oral representation made by the Applicant’s legal representative rebutted the presumption of why the licence should be granted, as the premises is situated in a CIZ.
- The Applicants legal representative agreed there was no designated smoking area for patrons to smoke and initially said he would be happy to accept a condition to limit the number of smokers to five smokers outside at any one time. When challenged further, he stated his client would be happy if this was limited to three smokers.
- Members sought clarity why speakers would be placed away from adjacent walls of residential properties, page 41 of the agenda, when no licence had been applied for, for regulated entertainment. Mr Almeida said this must be an oversight from a previous template being used.
- In response to what would be done to mitigate against the disposal of rubbish, the Applicant’s legal representative said the conditions put forward were not detailed so to allow the Sub-Committee to impose timings. Mr Almeida said his client would accept a condition that no waste should be disposed after 9:00 p.m.
- In response to how the presumption that the application be refused because it is in a CIZ, is rebutted Mr Almeida said the premises qualified as an exceptional circumstance. It was a small premises with fifty three covers and would operate within the council’s legal framework hours. He said the business was not alcohol led and was located on the periphery of the CIZ away from the busy Brick Lane end and more towards Aldgate. He said the adoption of the proposed conditions would ensure the licensing objectives would be upheld. However the Chair commented that the name of the premises Noodle and Beer suggested otherwise that the premises, is not alcohol led and did not meet the exceptional circumstance criteria.
Members adjourned at 19:15 hours for deliberations and reconvened at 19:42 hours
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 licensing objectives:
1. The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
2. Public Safety;
3. The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
4. 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 the evidence before them and heard oral representations at the meeting made by the Applicant’s Legal Representative and 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 this had not been addressed by the Applicant in their application or their submission.
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 they would not negatively add to the cumulative impact in the particular area in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder objective and the public nuisance objective. The Sub-Committee were not satisfied that the proposed conditions as presented at the Sub-Committee meeting rebutted the above presumption and concluded the premises did not qualify has an exceptional circumstance. The premises exceeded the limit of being a small premises with a capacity of fifty persons or less which intended to operate within the framework hours or that the premises is not alcohol led; because the name of the premises would suggest otherwise.
The Sub-Committee were of the view that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption against granting a premises licence for a premise 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 Noodles and Beer, Unit 6, 31 Bell Lane, London E1 7LA be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- BellLane31.U6, item 3.1 PDF 274 KB
- BellLa31U6.Appendix.Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 3 MB
- FW Premise Licence Application - 31 Bell Lane_Redacted, item 3.1 PDF 111 KB
- Licencing Letter - Accepted Conditions, item 3.1 PDF 355 KB