Agenda item
Application for a New Premises Licence for INS (formerly Shaad/Sheraz Restaurant), 13 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report, which detailed the application for a new premises licence for INS, 13 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU. It was noted that objections had been received from local residents and on behalf of the Local Authority.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Anthony Edwards, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicants explained that the Applicants had good knowledge and experience of trading in the Brick Lane area. It was noted that the Applicant also had another premise in the local area, The Verge, which was fully compliant and had not had any complaints since it’s been operating. Mr Edwards further explained that this premise would be much more of a food led venue envisaging food to be 40% of the turnover. He then referred to a supporting letter from East End Tours, which highlighted the benefits of this premises if a licence was to be granted.
Mr Edwards asked Members to note the conditions proposed on the operating schedule which had been updated to include the proposed conditions from the Environmental Health Noise Team. Mr Edwards stated that the concerns raised by residents were speculative and not specific to the premises. He explained that there would be no regulated entertainment, they would be selling premium food, there would be no off sales, and sanitation facilities available for customers and did not anticipate any queuing outside the premise as bookings would be made in advance. It was also noted that there would be a dedicated taxi service and a condition to limit the number of smokers. Mr Edwards stated that there were hotel rooms directly above the premises and therefore it would not be in their interest to cause any nuisance inside or outside the premises.
The implications of the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) was noted and it was explained why they did not feel that by granting this application there would be a negative impact on the area. Mr Edwards referred to the CIZ map which detailed the crime hotspot areas and explained that the premises was not placed in the area of concern.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer representing the Licensing Authority explained that this premises was within the CIZ, she explained that although the premises were proposing to offer food at all times there is no volunteered condition offering alcohol only ancillary to food and hence the premises is more likely to turn into a drinking establishment.
It was noted that the premises was previously a restaurant and previously not had a condition that alcohol was ancillary to food, however there were concerns what would happens after 11pm as there was a chance this could operate as a bar. Ms Driver welcomed the conditions offered by the Applicants but concerns above remained and therefore the Applicant had not been able to meet the rebuttable presumption.
Members then heard from local residents Mr Ali Azad and Mr Hussain Ahmed who both expressed similar concerns of anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder and public nuisance in the area, with particular regard to the ASB that can be fuelled by alcohol consumption. There was also reference to the likelihood of an increase in public urination, defecation and vomiting if a licence was to be granted.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That the premise would be a gastropub, food led and after 11pm there would be a bar menu.
- That alcohol would be an integral part of the business.
- There were 10 rooms directly above the premises which operated as a hotel so it would be in the Applicants interest to limit any public nuisance.
- There would be 50 covers at the premises
- There would be a dedicated taxi service available for customers, cars would park right outside the premises to collect customers.
- That the operating schedule consisted of conditions that addressed the concerns raised by residents.
- There were adequate toilet facilities within the premises and therefore there wouldn’t be a need for the customers of INS to urinate outside.
- That large groups of men wouldn’t be allowed on the premises and they would not sell to intoxicated persons.
- That the role of SIA staff would be to help customers leave the area safely and quietly.
- That there were no objections from the Police or Environmental Health.
In summation Ms Kathy driver highlighted the fact that the premises was within the CIZ, and there were serious concerns from residents in terms of public nuisance and crime and disorder.
Mr Edwards concluded by stating that the Police have a responsibility to object and they hadn’t as all concerns had been addressed. He explained that the premises would enhance the area by bringing in tourists into the area to experience the real East End of London.
Members adjourned the meeting at 7.45pm for deliberations and reconvened at 8.25pm.
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 licencing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merit. The Sub Committee has carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representation from both the applicant and his representative and the Licensing Authority and resident objectors with particular regard to all four licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm and public safety.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises in question are situated in the cumulative impact zone and when a representation is received, the licence will be refused. However the effect of this special cumulative impact policy is to create a rebuttable presumption.
The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant can rebut the presumption if they can demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee considered that the onus lay upon the applicant to show this through the 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 that the cumulative impact of the number, type and the density of licensed premises in the area may lead to serious problems of nuisance and disorder; and that the cumulative impact zone did not act as an absolute prohibition on granting or varying new licences within that zone.
The Sub-Committee noted the written representations made by objectors and also heard oral representations from the Licensing Authority and resident objectors regarding the impact of the premises on the Cumulative Impact Zone. The Sub-Committee noted objectors’ concerns relating to the existing levels of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour; and noted objectors’ concerns about increased noise nuisance, impact upon family environment, and the likely increased numbers of clientele in the area if the application were to be granted, and thereby the likely impact on the cumulative impact zone.
The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s representation that the impact of the premises licence if granted, would be mitigated by the proposed conditions agreed with responsible authorities and the conditions offered in the operating schedule. However, the Sub Committee heard no evidence that rebutted the presumption of the CIZ. Members acknowledged that the applicant had explained how they would manage the noise from the music etc. but unable to demonstrate how they would manage the noise from crowds leaving the premises.
The Sub-Committee was concerned about the close proximity of the venue to residential properties and the impact this would have on residents when potentially groups of people would be attending and leaving the venue at one time and noted that although the dispersal policy covered the people leaving the premises there was not sufficient measures in place for when they are out of the venue and spilling into residential streets who would then be leaving to go into the area which already experiences a high volume of crime and disorder, public nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
The potential increased footfall arising from any grant of the application in this instance requires a particularly robust operating schedule, which should demonstrate particular measures at the premises to address the likely impact of increased clientele and potential alcohol fuelled disorder arising there from. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the operating schedule as presented at the Sub-Committee meeting met that requirement.
Members were not satisfied that an establishment of this type notwithstanding the conditions offered would not have a negative impact on the Cumulative Impact Zone. Therefore the Sub Committee were of the view that the applicant had failed to successfully demonstrate that they had rebutted the presumption against granting a premises licence for a premises situated in a cumulative impact zone, in that it was considered the applicant failed to demonstrate that their application for a premises licence would not undermine any of the four licensing objectives.
Accordingly, the Sub Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application for a New Premises Licence for INS, 13 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU be REFUSED
Supporting documents:
- Ins cover report, item 3.1 PDF 128 KB
- INS Appendices Only, item 3.1 PDF 4 MB
- Supplemental Agenda for agenda item 3, item 3.1 PDF 17 KB
- Supplemental Agenda for agenda item 3.1 a, item 3.1 PDF 39 KB
- Supplemental Agenda for agenda item 3.1 b, item 3.1 PDF 781 KB
- Supplemental Agenda for agenda item 3.1 c, item 3.1 PDF 29 KB