Agenda item
Application for a New Premise Licence for Taste of Jaipur, 74 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL
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 Jaipur, 74 Brick Lane London E1 6RL. It was noted that objections had been received from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, Health & Safety, the Police and residents.
The Sub-Committee noted the sale of alcohol was for ‘on sales’ only and not has stated in the report on page 60 of the agenda.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr David Dadds, legal representative for the applicant Mr Shams Uddin. Mr Dadds explained his client wanted to amend his application and reduce the hours for sale of alcohol on Thursday, Friday, Saturday to 1:00 hours. He said members were aware of the historical and cultural importance of Brick Lane and said it was important to keep its identity. He said over the last fifteen years there had been a decline in the number of curry restaurants, with only 23 restaurants in operation.
He said whilst the new premises was in the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and the onus was on the applicant to rebut the presumption that the restaurant would not add to the saturation of the area and would uphold the licensing objectives, it was equally essential for the objectors to produce evidence of how the new premises would contribute to the saturation. Mr Dadds said his client operated another restaurant two-doors down, Monsoon 78 Brick Lane and this had operated since 2004. He said there were no complaints about drunkenness or disturbance and as such it was clear that restaurants, being a food-led business did not give rise to anti-social behaviour or crime and disorder.
Mr Dadds said the proposed conditions that had been tabled along with the dispersal policy would ensure the premises did not add to the CIZ. He said although the business did not meet the criteria of being an exceptional circumstance usually there would be fewer than fifty patrons after midnight and they’d be dispersed gradually so not to case a nuisance.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the objectors. Ms Kathy Driver, Senior Licensing Officer stated the Licensing Authority had objected to the application on the basis the premises was in the CIZ and the hours of operation were beyond the legal framework hours. She said the initial concern was the use of the rooftop terrace but noted this had not been removed from the plan. She referred members to her representation on page 121 of the agenda and said there were concerns about touting. There had been a complaint as recent as March 2022. She said the applicant had previously been prosecuted for touting in 2013. Ms Driver added that the dispersal policy had not been shared with the Licensing Authority.
PC Mark Perry from Metropolitan Police, Licensing Unit said the proposed conditions did address some of the concerns however anti-social behaviour was a problem in the area. He said it would be beneficial for the new premises to operate to the framework hours and prove it could safely operate before applying for extended hours.
Mr Onuoha Olere, for the Environmental Health Team added Environmental Protection were concerned about noise breakout and possible disturbance to neighbours in the vicinity. He said they had concerns about patrons entering and leaving the premises especially if they were in high spirits. He asked the Sub-Committee not to grant the licence.
The Sub-Committee also read and took into consideration the written representation from Mr Williams, local resident and Mr Theil of SIPRE.
In response to questions, the following was noted;
– Public notices would be displayed asking patrons to leaving the premises quietly. Usually there would be no more than 15 patrons at the premises after midnight.
– Mr Dadds objected to the assertion that applicant had to prove they could operate safely to framework hours. He cited the business at 78 Brick Lane and said this was proof enough that the applicant is compliant, as there had been no complaints about this business.
– The Police confirmed that the area had suffered from the Covid pandemic with a lower footfall and consequently less crime and disorder, in the CIZ.
– The touting prosecution was historical and referred to an incident from 9 years ago. No evidence of touting had been provided in relation to the current business. Assurances were given touting would not be practiced. The proposed conditions made this a priority.
Concluding remarks were made by all 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 for a new premises licence to be held by Shams Uddin in respect of Taste of Jaipur, 74 Brick Lane, London, E1 (“the Premises”). The application sought the sale by retail of alcohol (on-sales only) from 12:00 hours to 00:00 Monday to Wednesday, from 11:00 hours to 02:00 hours Thursday to Saturday, and from 12:00 hours to 23:00 hours on Sunday. Authorisation for the provision of late-night refreshment was also sought from Monday to Saturday, with the terminal hour being the same as that proposed for the sale of alcohol. Non-standard timings were sought in respect of New Year’s Eve.
The application attracted representations from the Licensing Authority, the police, Environmental Health, Health and Safety, SPIRE, and one resident. The representations were concerned with the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance, and public safety. The objections were primarily concerned with the Premises being located in the Brick Lane CIZ, that the application proposed the use of a roof terrace which could pose a safety risk to patrons, and that the Premises would add to the cumulative impact of licensed premises upon the local area.
Mr. Dadds, on behalf of the licence holder, informed the Sub-Committee that his client was content to reduce the terminal hour sought from Thursday to Saturday to 01:00 hours, closing thirty minutes later to allow for dispersal. He had also proposed additional conditions to address the concerns of those making representations, which included conditions prohibiting touting and prohibiting the use of or access to the roof space by patrons.
Mr. Dadds told the Sub-Committee that Mr. Uddin operated Monsoon, 78 Brick Lane, to the same hours. There had been no problems that he was aware of in the preceding five years, such as reports of noise and drunkenness. As regards to dispersal, there were never problems and after midnight there would usually be fewer than fifty patrons. He also addressed the Sub-Committee on the statutory guidance and the approach to be taken, and that the onus remained on the objectors to provide evidence that the operation of the Premises would add to the impact of licensed premises in the area.
Ms. Driver, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, confirmed that the proposed conditions and amendment went some way to assuaging the Authority’s concerns although the hours were still of some concern. She also referred to a previous prosecution for touting.
PC Perry also confirmed that the amendment and proposed conditions addressed some of the police concerns. The terminal hour remained the main concern, given the Premises’ location within the CIZ. The area still suffered a high level of ASB and the framework hours were there for applicants to demonstrate that they had earned the right to operate to later hours.
Mr. Olere addressed the representation made on behalf of the Environmental Health Service. He too confirmed that the amendments and proposed conditions were welcomed but remained of the view that there was still insufficient information to set out how the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance would be promoted. He did not, however, suggest what, if anything, might do so.
The Sub-Committee discussed dispersal issues with the applicant. Mr. Dadds explained that his client anticipated there would only be around fifteen patrons present after midnight and that they tended to leave gradually. He asserted that his client had already proved that he could operate in the area without adding to the cumulative impact.
PC Perry confirmed that there were no reports of restaurants on Brick Lane adding to the impact. He noted, however, that the impact of Covid meant that venues on Brick Lane had suffered and so there were not the levels of crime and ASB that there were pre-pandemic. However, the concern remained regarding the issue of patrons leaving in the early hours.
The Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee suggested some amendments to the proposed conditions put forward by Mr. Dadds and sought the views of the parties, in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application. He suggested that condition 1 simply read “within 500 metres of the premises” rather than within a 500 metre radius, so that it applied from any point on the boundary rather than from the centre point of the Premises.
Condition 6 would be clearer if the words “at all times that the premises are open to the public” were added. In relation to the dispersal policy, it was suggested that it include “This shall be submitted to the Licensing Authority and the Police within seven days of the grant of this licence and, in the event of any updates, within seven days thereof.” These were generally acceptable to the parties although Mr. Dadds suggested a time period of twenty-one days in respect of condition 7 and Ms. Driver suggested that it require agreement from the police and Licensing Authority and that the licence should not be permitted to take effect until that time. Mr. Dadds objected to that latter point.
The Legal Adviser also suggested a condition that alcohol sales be ancillary to a table meal, which ensured that the Premises could not become a bar or a venue where alcohol could be purchased without anything else. This was welcomed by the responsible authorities. Mr. Dadds did express some reservation as to the precise wording but did not object in principle.
This application engaged the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder. The concerns of public safety had fallen away as a result of the condition prohibiting the use of the roof terrace. The Sub-Committee had read and taken account of the representations made by those who were not present. It noted that these were generally about the CIZ policy and expressed concern at the risk of revellers migrating to the Premises as a late-night venue.
The Sub-Committee had carefully considered the application. It did not accept that Mr. Uddin’s operation of a premises two doors away rebutted the presumption of cumulative impact; the CIZ policy specifically states that the fact that a premises will be well-run or managed or that the operator operates similar premises elsewhere is not exceptional. Moreover, the point remains that the policy is concerned with the additional impact of another licensed premises on an already stressed area.
However, the policy does allow for exceptions. These include small capacity premises and premises that are not alcohol-led. Although this application does not strictly fall within the first suggested exception to the policy, those exceptions are not exhaustive. The Premises did nonetheless meet some of those criteria, such as on-sales of alcohol only. As the Premises are a restaurant, they are not alcohol-led. Similarly, there was nothing before the Sub-Committee to suggest that people would be likely to gravitate to the Premises for drinking. The conditions proposed, with the Legal Adviser’s suggested amendments, would help to ensure that this would not happen and that the Premises could not change from a restaurant to a bar or other drinking-led venue.
The Sub-Committee also accepted that restaurants did not generally cause the same problems that other venues such as bars and clubs did. The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied that granting this application with the amendments, conditions suggested in the operating schedule, and the conditions as below will not add to the cumulative impact in the area.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Taste of Jaipur, 74 Brick Lane, London E1 6RL be GRANTED with conditions.
Sale of alcohol
Monday to Wednesday 12:00 hours to 00:00 hours
Thursday to Saturday 11:00 hours to 01:00 hours
Sunday 12:00 hours to 23:00 hours
Provision of late-night refreshment
Monday to Wednesday 23:00 hours to 00:00 hours
Thursday to Saturday 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours
Non-standard timings
On New Year’s Eve from the end of permitted hours to the start of permitted hours on the following day (or, if there are no permitted hours on the following day, midnight on 31st December)
Conditions
- No person shall be employed to solicit for custom or be permitted to solicit for custom for business for the premises in any public space within 500 metres of the premises as shown edged in red on the attached plan.
- Clear signage is to be placed in the restaurant windows stating that the premises support the Council’s “No Touting” policy.
- The roof area will not be accessible to members of the public nor will it be used for licensable activities or other outside use.
- Vertical drinking shall not be permitted on the premises.
- The maximum capacity shall be 80 patrons.
- After 23:00 hours there shall be a personal licence holder present at all times that the premises are open to the public.
- The premises shall have a dispersal policy. This shall be submitted to the Licensing Authority and the Police within 14 days of the grant of this licence and, in the event of updates, within 14 days thereof.
- The premises shall operate as a restaurant where the sale of alcohol is by waiter or waitress to customers seated at a table and ancillary to a table meal.
Supporting documents:
- Taste of Jaipur cover report - 27 Sept 22, item 3.2 PDF 358 KB
- Taste of Jaipur Appendices Only - 27 Sept 22, item 3.2 PDF 17 MB