Agenda item
Application for a new Premise Licence for Hamlet Pizza, 479 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 9BU
Licensing Objectives:
· The prevention of Public Nuisance
· The prevention of Crime and Disorder
Representations:
· Licensing Authority
· Environmental Protection
· Metropolitan Police
Bethnal Green West Ward
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence to be held by Hamlet Pizza Ltd. in respect of Hamlet Pizza, 479 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 9BU (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the provision of late night refreshment from 23:00 hours to 04:00 hours seven days per week. A number of conditions were offered by the Applicant on the operating schedule.
Representations objecting to the application were made by the Licensing Authority, the Police, Environmental Health, and a local resident. These were based on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.
Applicant
The Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant’s agent, Mr. Mangrio. He said that the director of the company, Mr. Hamidi, had been in business for five years with no complaints or issues. The agent asserted that the concerns raised by the responsible authorities were historic and associated with previous operators. The Applicant assured the Sub-Committee that he would comply with any conditions imposed. The Applicant proposed to have SIA-staff on duty to assist with any problems.
Mr. Mangrio confirmed that Mr. Hamidi was the brother of the previous owner. He addressed the residential objection briefly by asserting that no objections had been raised previously and that as the extractor fan in question was by the resident’s kitchen window it should not be an issue.
Licensing Authority/objectors
Kathy Driver, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, outlined her objections. In short, there was a long history of the Premises providing late night refreshment outside of the permitted hours when the Premises had been licensed. This included a time when Mr. Hamidi’s brother was the licence holder. Various other individuals had been linked to the Premises. Numerous complaints had been made to the Licensing Authority suggesting that the Premises operated almost 24 hours per day. Test purchases and visits in 2021 and 2022 demonstrated this.
The previous licence had been revoked in October 2022 following a review. Mr. Hamidi had applied for a new licence in November 2022. That application had been invalid. Two applications were made in December 2022, neither of which were valid. Mr. Hamidi had been warned of the issues at the Premises on 1st September 2022, when he had taken over the business. In spite of that, a test purchase on 18th December 2022 showed the Premises operating without a licence, Complaints from residents, which went up to January 2023, also indicated that this was not a one-off incident. Mr. Hamidi had been present on 18th December 2022, when the last test purchase had been carried out. On that occasion, staff became aggressive and confrontational. The Premises’ website shows them being open for the supply of hot food until 04:30 hours. Ms. Driver had no confidence in the licence holder complying with any conditions, if the licence were to be granted.
PC Perry echoed Ms. Driver’s concerns and commented that the Premises caused noise nuisance as a result of its patrons. He too was of the view that if a licence was to be granted, the Applicant would not comply with it given that he had shown he would not comply with the basic requirements of the law.
Ibraheem Elias of the Noise Service spoke briefly to his service’s representation, which opposed the application.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr. Tian, a resident, who’s concern was about the noise from a ventilation pipe. It initially appeared that this was more of a private nuisance rather than public, and more properly dealt with under other legislation. However, Mr. Tian indicated that the noise caused rumbling in the structure. The Sub-Committee was given advice that this could constitute a public nuisance and heard from him about the effects of the fan.
During questions from members, the Applicant stated that he was operating to 23:00 hours and there had been no issues since the December 2022 test purchase. In respect of that it was asserted that the test purchaser had been persuasive and complaining about the late hour and that she had a child who was still awake. The pizza was for a member of staff to take home but they had made the supply in the interests of good community relations. No charge had been made. This account was maintained, despite being clearly at odds with the officer’s account. Ms. Driver provided additional detail, which included delivery drivers entering and exiting the Premises and the shutters being partially down.
The Applicant confirmed that he was aware that he did not have a licence to provide late night refreshment. He denied that he had operated past 23:00 hours. He alleged that the complaints were being instigated by other rival businesses. He confirmed, however, on questions from the Legal Adviser, that there was no evidence of that. The Legal Adviser also confirmed that the provision of late-night refreshment involves the supply rather than sale so that even if the Applicant’s account of no payment having been taken on 18th December 2022 was true, it still constituted the provision of late night refreshment.
The Sub-Committee had considered all the representations made. In terms of Mr. Tian’s representation, it did not consider that the noise from the ventilation pipe was likely to be a public nuisance but, even if it was, it was better controlled by other legislation.
The Sub-Committee noted the previous history and the fact that it appeared that the Premises operated without any regard to the law, regardless of whoever had been operating it. The Sub-Committee had concerns about the fact that one of the previous operators had been Mr. Hamidi’s brother; whilst his brother’s actions are not his, there was clearly a long history of non-compliance by various different operators and Mr. Hamidi put forward nothing to suggest that things would be different if he were to be granted a licence.
Of particular concern was the fact that the Premises appeared to have been carrying on the provision of late night refreshment not only after Mr. Hamidi’s company allegedly took over, but also after warnings had been given. The Sub-Committee did not consider the Applicant’s version of events on 18th December 2022 to be at all credible. The Sub-Committee, based on all the evidence before it, drew the inference that unauthorised licensable activity had not been carried on simply on a handful of occasions but, as officers and the residents had suggested (albeit that the Sub-Committee notes that the residential complaints were anonymous), on an almost daily basis.
Decision
Whilst the Sub-Committee took account of the fact that this was a new application and therefore looked to the future rather than the past, the fact remains that the past was highly relevant to the conduct of those managing the Premises in the future. The long history of failing to comply with the licence or the law, when the Premises were unlicensed, gave the Sub-Committee no confidence at all that this would change in the future. The association between Mr. Hamidi and the operator meant that this was not a situation where the applicant could be said to be a “new broom.”
Moreover, Mr. Hamidi himself had demonstrated that he would not uphold the licensing objectives or comply with the licence because he had simply ignored the law after he took over the Premises. This meant that the Sub-Committee could place no weight on his assertions as to future compliance. In this instance, there were really only two options open to the Sub-Committee. Those were to grant the licence, subject to conditions that were appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives, or to refuse the application. The Sub-Committee had no confidence that Mr. Hamidi would comply with any conditions imposed nor that the Premises would operate in a way so as to not undermine the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. The application is therefore refused.
Supporting documents: