Agenda item
Application for a Variation of a Premises Licence for (Enso) 94 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for Enso Restaurant, 94 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL. It was noted that objections had been received by officers representing the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, Planning and the Metropolitan Police.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Altamasul Islam Khan, Applicant, explained that the premises was a Japanese/Thai Restaurant which currently had a licence until 12 midnight and were seeking to extend the hours for sale of alcohol, late night refreshments and regulated entertainment until 2am and until 4am for mainly online food delivery platforms. He explained that the variation in hours would allow customers to stay in the premises longer and would satisfy customers demands.
Members also heard from Mr Mir Haque, Manager of the premises who explained that the premises would have no recorded music after 2am, there would be no DJs, and no live music to avoid public nuisance, and that they would instruct customers to leave quietly and assist them in calling cabs home etc. It was noted that he and the applicant had experience of managing late night premises, had good relations with the Spitalfields Resident Association forums and have had no objection from residents. He further explained that they had a strong team of staff, they would operate the Challenge 25 policy, ask customers to leave quietly and ensure no one congregates outside the premises.
At the request of the Chair, PC Mark Perry, Metropolitan Police, referred to his representation contained on pages 255-256 of the agenda and highlighted that the premises was in cumulative impact zone (CIZ) with high levels of anti-social behaviour in the area. He said there was very little detail explaining how the premises would not add to the cumulative impact in the cumulative impact zone (CIZ). PC Perry was therefore concerned about the lack of knowledge in his opinion shown by the applicant in relation to the licensing objectives and their interaction with the CIZ. PC Perry questioned why they wanted regulated entertainment until 2am, and expressed that these premises could potentially turn into a bar if the hours sought were granted. PC Perry highlighted that there were many late night venues in the area, and another set of late night premises would increase public nuisance and ASB already experienced in the area.
Members then heard from Ms Corrine Holland, Licensing Officer and Nicola Cadzow, Environmental Health Officer. Both expressed similar concerns regarding the lack of detail in the application as to how the application, if granted, would not add to the cumulative impact in the CIZ. Concerns were expressed over the excessive hours applied for. There were also concerns that delivery drivers will be talking outside, and idling their engines causing noise nuisance during the earlier hours of the morning. Ms Holland and Ms Cadzow also highlighted the impact another late night premises would have on public nuisance and ASB in the area.
It was also noted that the premises had been reported for trading beyond licensable hours in June 2020 and a warning letter was sent to the business about that before this variation application was received.
The Planning Authority’s written objection as a responsible authority contained in the agenda was also noted and considered.
In response to questions, the following were noted:-
- That the applicant would remove regulated entertainment from the application, as all they wanted was background music which did not require a licence, as it does not constitute regulated entertainment.
- In order to address and manage crowds, the applicant would operate a booking only system after midnight.
- The applicant would have a maximum of 30 customers at any one time after midnight.
- The applicant would have experienced staff on duty, and a personal licence holder would be on the premises at all times.
- There would be no limitation on the number of alcoholic drinks per order, but delivery drivers would be experienced and will ask to check the relevant identification upon delivery.
- The premises had a big reception area and would have customers waiting there to avoid anyone spilling onto the streets.
- After 2am, no customers would be allowed in and the business would operate for delivery only.
- The applicant would operate a Challenge 25 policy and would not allow children under 18 years in after 10pm.
- Concerns were raised from officers as to how it was possible to book a table between 12 midnight and 2am now, even though there is no licence in place for these hours – the applicant confirmed that they would amend their website.
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:
- 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 Applicants and the Officers representing the Responsible Authorities objecting to the application, with particular regard to the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance.
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 all four Responsible Authorities, the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, Environmental Health and Planning regarding the impact of the premises on the Brick Lane Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), the length of the hours applied for and concerns relating to the previous breach of trading beyond licensing hours.
The Sub-Committee therefore considered that it had not heard enough evidence that rebutted the presumption against granting the further variation on the premises licence in relation to these premises which are within the Brick Lane 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 premises situated in a cumulative impact zone, in that the applicant lacked understanding of the CIZ and 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 Variation of the Premises Licence for Enso Restaurant, 94 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL be REFUSED.
Supporting documents: