Agenda item
Application for a Variation of a premises licence for (Pasha's Peri Peri) 637 Commercial Road, London E14 7NT
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a variation of the premises licence for Pasha’s Peri Peri, 637 Commercial Road, London E14 7NT. It was noted that objections had been received by Officers on behalf of the Licensing Authority and the Police.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Graham Hopkins, Licensing Agent, on behalf of the Applicant, explained that the application was for a variation and the premises was not in the cumulative impact zone. He explained that the premises had been operating for 20 years, 15 of which had been managed by the applicant, who had considerable experience of operating a late-night premises.
It was highlighted that complaints were made during May - June 2020 and prior to that there had been no problems or complaints. He said the complaints raised were not substantiated as there was no evidence provided. Mr Hopkins said that he had spoken to the Applicant and he had denied that the alleged incidents took place with the Police.
Mr Hopkins explained that staff would clean the street up to 25 metres either side of the premises at the start and end of each day.
He said that deliveries would be made by Just Eat and UberEats and that the applicant had contacted the different websites and the hours of operation had been amended. It was noted that the police were of the view the premises had been operating beyond trading hours on Thursdays as advertised as it was incorrectly advertised on the online delivery platform but Mr Hopkins pointed out that there was no evidence that the premises had been operating beyond its operating hours. In addition, the police had not formally interviewed the licence holder about the alleged breach, there were no details as to which member of staff the police had spoken to, , no request for CCTV images were made and therefore there was no evidence to support the allegations.
Mr. Chaudry, applicant, stated that he had spoken to Just Eats to correct the website but that this was over the telephone. He had no record of it. He told members that if an order came in after 02:00, it would not be delivered until the next day. He told the Sub-Committee that they would limit the number of drivers in the Premises to two at any one time and that the Premises did not have its own drivers.
Members then heard from Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer. She explained that in May 2020, a resident made a complaint that the premises was trading beyond licensable hours and reported issues of noise nuisance and litter on streets. She said that operating hours advertised on-line were for later hours than on the premises licence. She believed that the hours applied for the variation were far too excessive and would not be acceptable for residents to endure public nuisance at such late hours. She also raised concerns as to why staff working at the premises were not informed of conditions or trading hours or whether they had simply disregardedit. Ms Miller-Johnson said she had the name of the member of staff that was spoken to on the visit made by the Police and highlighted that during the visit there was a group of males seen congregating outside the premises being loud and throwing litter and this was witnessed by officers. She said if Members were minded to grant the application a condition should be imposed for no collection or takeaway but only online delivery for the additional hours applied for.
PC Mark Perry, Police Officer, explained that a complaint was received and as part of the late night levy initiative, officers were diverted to patrol the premises and to substantiate the allegation and report what they had seen. He said that any responsible premise licence holder would check websites to see if the hours were correctly advertised. PC Perry said the premises was on a busy road with residential properties and a late night venue on the balance of probability would cause noise nuisance especially with access and egress to the premises and people congregating outside the premises at such noise sensitive hours.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That orders from online delivery companies are paused when the premises is closed and no further orders are taken until the next day.
Orders can be placed by 1.55am at the latest for collection only.
- The applicant was unaware why Thursday had been advertised to close at 4am.
- That staff did not recall speaking to officers about closing times and confirmed that shutters were down by 2am and cleaning takes place until 3am.
- There was a waste collection contract with the Council.
- Notices would be displayed asking customers to leave quietly and respect the needs of local residents, don’t serve underage children and CCTV images are available on request.
- That the premises did not have its own delivery drivers, the company Just Eat operated till midnight and UberEats was used for the remainder hours, delivery drivers were trained by their companies and staff would only allow one driver into the premises at a time.
- That staff would be retrained by Mr Hopkins
- Delivery drivers used bikes and bicycles only.
Concluding remarks were made by both parties.
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
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Kasim Chaudry to vary the premises licence held in respect of Pasha’s Peri Peri, 637 Commercial Road, London, E14 7NT (“the Premises”). The current licence authorises the provision of late night refreshment to 01:00 hours on Sunday, 02:00 hours Monday to Thursday, and to 04:00 hours on Friday and Saturday. The variation sought to permit the provision of late night refreshment to 04:00 hours seven days per week. The application attracted objections from the police and from the Licensing Authority. The objections alleged that the Premises had been operating outside of its hours and that complaints had been received about noise and litter from customers.
Mr. Hopkins told the Sub-Committee that the Premises had operated for about twenty years. He asserted that the allegations were unsubstantiated and were over a year old. Some of the matters referred to by the responsible authorities were hearsay. He accepted that the online platforms showed the Premises appearing to take orders beyond the permitted hours but told the Sub-Committee that these platforms were operated by third parties such as Uber Eats and Just Eat. His client had tried to contact them to get these hours corrected. He denied that the operator had provided late night refreshment in breach of its licence. The applicant denied that the Premises generated noise or litter but conditions had been offered up to address that, including sweeping the road to 25 metres of either side of the Premises.
Ms. Miller-Johnson, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, told the Sub-Committee that there had been complaints about noise and litter. Residents already endured late hours from the Premises and permitting the Premises to operate until 04:00 hours every day would not be acceptable. She referred to the fact that staff had, when asked, said that the Premises were open until 03:00 hours on 21st May 2020. On 3rd June 2020 staff had told officers that they had witnessed anti-social behaviour outside the Premises. She suggested that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, consideration should be given to ensuring that it was for delivery only and not for takeaway or collection.
PC Mark Perry echoed Ms. Miller-Johnson’s concerns. He considered it unlikely that the website operators got it wrong, especially as the staff appeared to corroborate this. He reiterated that there had been complaints from residents. Further, the Premises were located on a busy road and that people purchasing food at those late hours were more likely than not to be intoxicated. That there were not more complaints was not the point; on the balance of probabilities, later hours were likely to lead to further problems.
During questions Mr. Chaudry stated that he had spoken to Just Eats to correct the website but that this was over the telephone. He had no record of it. He told members that if an order came in after 02:00, it would not be delivered until the next day. He told the Sub-Committee that they would limit the number of drivers in the Premises to two at any one time; the Premises did not have its own drivers.
The Sub-Committee understands that its role is not to determine guilt or innocence. It accepted, as did PC Perry, that there was no actual evidence of sales outside of permitted hours. As to the assertion that some of the evidence was hearsay, the Sub-Committee is entitled to receive hearsay evidence and the issue is simply as to the weight to be attached to it. Mr. Hopkins suggested that staff, when asked about closing time, might have simply meant to when they would be closing up after cleaning and did not meant that they would be trading until that time. It was just as likely that staff did in fact mean they were open to the public. Similarly, whilst it was possible that Just Eat and Uber Eats had posted incorrect information, it was also possible that they had been given this information by the operators. The Sub-Committee considered that this painted a rather confused picture and indicated that staff were not fully aware of the licence and the obligations it imposed regardless of whether or not actual breaches of the licence could be proved.
The Sub-Committee was concerned by the extension in hours sought which, if granted, would permit an additional nine hours per week. Whilst it understood that the pandemic had affected this business as it had many others, the Sub-Committee needed to make its decision with a view to the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was aware that although the Premises were located on a busy road, there were many residential properties nearby. It considered that a proportion of potential patrons would be those who have been out in the night-time economy and intoxicated. The Premises being open to 04:00 hours all week was also likely to attract passing vehicles which would not have stopped otherwise. There would also be more delivery drivers in the area as a result. All of this would, in the Sub-Committee’s view, inevitably lead to an increase in public nuisance in the form of noise and litter. The Sub-Committee also noted that as ambient noise levels tend to be lower at night, noise that might arise from patrons, vehicles and delivery drivers would sound louder.
Section 14 of the Council’s Licensing Policy sets out the framework hours. Whilst these provide guidance, each application is decided on its own merits. However, the longer and later the hours sought, particularly having regard to the nature of the premises and the area, the greater the likely impact on the licensing objectives. In particular, paragraph 14.9 makes clear that greater attention will be paid to those types of premises that are more likely to contribute to late-night anti-social behaviour.
The Sub-Committee, whilst welcoming the conditions proposed, did not consider that these would suffice to overcome the likely impact of the variation upon the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee therefore decided to refuse the application.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a Variation of the Premises Licence for Pasha’s Peri Peri, 637 Commercial Road, London E14 7NT be REFUSED.
Supporting documents:
- Pasha Peri Peri cover report, item 3.1 PDF 499 KB
- Pasha Peri Peri Appendices Only, item 3.1 PDF 11 MB
- Pasha's Peri Peri Supporting Doc, item 3.1 PDF 12 KB