Decisions

 

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

PREMISES

David News Agent

65 Park Lane

Hornchurch

RM11 1BH

 

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

 

The application for a premises license was made under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act)

 

APPLICANT

Mrs Iwona Rahman

65 Park Lane

Hornchurch

RM11 1BH

 

1.     Details of requested licensable activities

 

The application is to permit:

 

Details of the application

 

 

Supply of Alcohol (off Supply only)
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	08:00	23:00

 

 

2.     Promotion of the Licensing Objectives

 

The applicant acted in accordance with regulations 25 and 26 of The Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005 relating to the advertisements of the application.  The required public notice was installed in the Romford Recorder on 16 June 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.     Details of Representations

 

There was a representation against the application from a responsible authority;

Havering’s Licensing Authority.

 

There were three representations against this application (relating to five people) from local residents.

 

4.     Determination of Application

 

Mr Paul Jones, Havering Licensing Officer, attended the hearing and outlined his representation to the application. The Sub-Committee was informed that the application for a premises licence was not unreasonable as far as alcohol supply hours were concerned; the hours sought were within those guideline hours as indicated by Licensing Policy 7.

 

The concern for Havering’s Licensing Authority was the steps the applicant intended to take in order to promote the licensing objectives as indicated in section M of the application. The Authority contended that the applicant had not given full and proper consideration to the promotion of the licensing objectives and that the proposals contained in section M were insufficient for this purpose.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that the premises is located in a parade of shops which has historically been subject to anti-social behaviour issues. The Licensing Authority had concern that should the sale of alcohol at the premises be permitted in line with the provisions contained in section M there was a likelihood that anti-social behaviour problems would result.

 

Mr Jones informed the Sub-Committee that the premises plans provided with the application suggested that one half of the premises would be given over to alcohol display and sales. The Authority could then conclude that approximately 50% of the premises’ future business would derive from alcohol sales and as such the Licensing Authority might reasonably expect an operating schedule to be submitted which was suitably robust and appropriate to such an operation at the location. Havering’s Licensing Authority was of the opinion that the application as submitted did not provide the necessary reassurance that alcohol supplies would be made without the likelihood of licensing objective failures resulting.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that the Licensing Authority recognised that the applicant had yet to sell any alcohol at the premises so any anti-social behaviour issues which may currently exist at the location and which directly resulted from the supply of alcohol cannot be attributed to the premises.

 

The Licensing Authority had reservations, based upon the submissions contained within the operating schedule, that the applicant appears to have an insufficient understanding of the responsibilities placed upon a premises licence holder further to the supply of alcohol.

 

Councillor Thompson attended the hearing and reiterated his representation that was based on the four licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee was informed that the applicant had not given much thought to the completion of the application, that it had been so casually completed that it gave little confidence that the applicant had an understanding of the conditions needed to promote the licensing objectives.

 

Councillor Thompson stated that the location of the premises was in an area known as a potential nuisance spot such as the steps up from the pavement to the shops which has attracted street drinkers in the past. He added that the local park also had a casual drinking problem made easier by the ready supply of alcoholic drinks.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that the premises did not indicate what level of ID would be needed such as Challenge 25 and how refusals to sell alcohol will be made to protect children from harm.

 

Councillor Thompson concluded that if a licence were to be granted it should be for the same hours as Hornchurch Food and Wines,  i.e. 08.00 to 20.00 hours, in order to lessen the impact of a third alcohol outlet on the parade.

 

Mrs Brooks attended the hearing to present her objection to the application for a premises licence.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that Mrs Brooks’ family have lived on Park Lane opposite the shops for over ten years and had first hand experience of the potential impact of a premises licence upon the local community.

 

Mrs Brooks stated that there were worries that more alcohol being available on the parade, particularly late into the evening until 11pm, would lead to further anti-social behaviour and crime in the area. This would also have an impact on the overall health, personal anxiety and Mrs Brooks’ family’s sleep patterns which would be disturbed due to an increase in noise levels and disruption from a late opening off-licence.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that in the past local residents, councillors and Police Licensing Officers had objected to previous applications for an extension of licensing hours by Hornchurch Food and Wines. As a result, Hornchurch Food and Wines had been granted a licence to sell alcohol until 8pm, the other off-licence on the parade Red Rose Wines, also closes early.

 

The area had an issue with 'poppers' along the side of the shop in Park Crescent and a strong smell of weed at times directly by this shop and  Hillcrest Road has had problems with drunks along the back parade/garages of the shops. There was the potential for a late-opening off-licence to lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour.

 

Mrs Brooks concluded that she was also concerned that Right Move Estate Agent was advertising the shop for sale as an off licence with a late licence.

 

Councillor Thompson read out the representation on behalf of Mrs Janet Haworth, the representation objected to a third off-licence on the small parade in a highly residential area stating the representation was based on the grounds of anti-social behaviour and crime in the area.

The representation also mentioned an allegedly misleading advertisement on “rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property” detailing “a well-established Newsagents/off licence” with “extended hours for off licence” and “stocked with alcohol”.

 

In response the applicant Mr Mahbub Rahman & Mrs Iwona Rahman attended the hearing. Mr Rahman addressed the Sub-Committee stating that the premises would adhere to all conditions that might be imposed on the licence. He confirmed that the premises had a CCTV system in place that was operational 24 hours a day and recorded for a month.

 

In response to the Sub-Committee’s questions, Mr Rahman stated that the premises was not currently trading in the sale of alcohol and that the premises was not up for sale.

 

 

Decision

 

The Sub-Committee was obliged to determine the application with a view to promoting the licensing objectives, which are:

·                     The prevention of crime and disorder

·                     Public safety

·                     The prevention of public nuisance

·                     The protection of children from harm

 

 

The Licencing Sub-Committee has considered the application for a premises licence for David Newsagent. 

 

Written and oral representations were received from one Responsible Authority, namely the Council’s licensing team. 

 

Written representations from three local residents, objecting to the grant of a licence on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance, and the prevention of crime and disorder were also received.  Oral representations were heard for two of these residents.

 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant and considered the submissions made by the applicant.

 

The Sub-Committee reminded itself that it must promote the licensing objectives and have regard to the Statutory Guidance issued under s.182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

Having considered all the evidence the Sub-Committee is of the view that the licence application should be refused. 

 

The Sub-Committee was of the view that the application failed to properly address the promotion of the licensing objectives in its operating schedule.

 

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had an insufficient understanding of the responsibilities placed upon a premises licence holder to such an extent that if a licence were granted, even subject to conditions, in all likelihood there would be a licensing objective failure.

 

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant had not robustly shown how he would address the licensing objective further to the prevention of public nuisance.  The Sub-Committee noted that the area has been beset with problems in the past with regards to public nuisance and whilst the Sub-Committee was conscious that it should not refuse a licence because there are other licensed premises in the area providing a similar service, the Sub-Committee was concerned that the applicant failed to address how he would ensure that he did not add to the problems of the area.

 

The Sub-Committee was concerned that in relation to the licensing objective relating to the protection of children, the applicant did not provide sufficient detail as to how he would prevent the potential sale of alcohol to under aged persons. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant failed to proffer an appropriate series of steps as to how he would address this objective e.g. via the adoption of a Challenge 25 scheme.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder, the applicant simply said that he would prevent drinking on the premises.  The Sub-Committee noted that as the application is for an off-licence, this in itself would not successfully address the promotion of this licensing objective. The Sub-Committee was of the view that the applicant failed to address how he would deal with drinking directly outside his shop once a sale has been made which appears to be a problem associated with this area.

 

The application was therefore refused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

 

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

1.         Dismiss the appeal; or

2.         Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or

3.         Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and

4.         Make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

Taiwo Adeoye

Clerk to the Licensing Sub-Committee

 

 

 

A.   HOUSING

 

Amendment by the Conservative Group CARRIED by 29 votes to 9; amendment by Conservative Group AGREED as substantive motion, without division.

 

B.   GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY

 

Amendment by Conservartive Group CARRIED by 29 votes to 10; amendment by Independent Residents’ Group NOT CARRIED by 27 votes to 8; amendment by Conservative Group AGREED as substantive motion without division.

None.

Received from Councillors John Mylod, Linda Trew, Julie Wilkes, Darren Wise and Michael White.

Procedural motion by the Conservative Group that agenda items 5 and 6 be dealt with via a single debate CARRIED by 38 votes to 10.

 

Amendment by the Independent Residents’ Group NOT CARRIED by 29 votes to 16; deemed motion by the Administration AGREED without division.

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

PREMISES

Nes Cafe

9 Billet Lane

Hornchurch

RM11 1TS

 

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

 

The application for a premises license was made under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act)

 

APPLICANT

Mr Oktay Senturk

9 Billet Lane

Hornchurch

RM11 1TS

 

1.     Details of requested licensable activities

 

The application is to permit:

 

 

On-supply of alcohol
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	11:00	22:30

 

 

The premises is located in St Andrews ward which was subject to a special policy further to cumulative impact.  Licensing Policy 2 states:

 

The Licensing Authority had adopted a special policy relating to cumulative impact in relation to:

 

·         Romford town centre within the ring road

·         St Andrews Ward

 

The policy creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences, club premises certificates, or variation applications that would to add to the existing cumulative impact, will normally be refused, unless the applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact and not impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives. The exception to this policy will be for applications for restaurants where alcohol is sold ancillary to a table meal and the terminal licensing hour is in line with the policy.

 

 

 

2.     Promotion of the Licensing Objectives

 

The applicant acted in accordance with regulations 25 and 26 of The Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005 relating to the advertisements of the application.  The required public notice was installed in the 9 June 2017 edition of the Romford Recorder.

 

At the suggestion of the Licensing Authority it was put forward  that Premises Licence Annex 2, Conditions 1,3,4,5,6 could be removed; this in line with the section 182 Licensing Act guidance issued by the Government.  The applicant had agreed to this suggestion.

 

3.     Details of Representations

 

There was one representation against the application from an interested person. The representation was based on the grounds of Public Safety and the Prevention of public nuisance.

 

There was a representation against the application from a responsible authority;

Havering’s Licensing Authority.

 

4.     Determination of Application

 

Mr Paul Campbell, Havering Licensing Officer attended the hearing and reiterated his representation to the application. The Sub-Committee was informed that the application for a Premises Licence by the applicant had made no reference as to what type of venue it was intended to be and had failed to address fully in the operating schedule what would be done to promote the four licensing objectives.

 

The Licensing Officer indicated that the applicant had also failed to acknowledge that the venue was in a communitive impact area outlined in Havering's Statement of Licensing Policy and what measures would be put into place to make the application an exception to the policy.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the representation as a Responsible Authority against the application under the licensing objectives were on the grounds of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, Prevention of Public Nuisance and the Protection of Children from Harm.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that the premises at 9 Billet Lane was at the moment an unlicensed Cafe currently with opening times of 08:00 to 17:00 hours.

 

Having an additional licensed premises in Hornchurch Town Centre without the correct conditions on their licence would add to the communitive impact area in a negative way.

 

If the licence was granted as applied for, customers would be able to use the premises as a bar to consuming alcohol, at the end of the licensed period move onto other premises with a later licensing hour to finish off their evening, possibly causing issues at those venues as they would be unaware of how much had been consumed, it would add to noise in the area when customers arrive, leave and use the outside area at the front of the premises especially on warm evenings. Once an alcohol licence was granted the venue would be permitted under the licensing deregulations to have live and recorded music to 23:00 hours and automatically be able to install two gaming machines.

 

There was no age verification mentioned in the application to protect children and the details regarding staff training was inadequate for making any assessment.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that if the venue was a restaurant and the licence granted without appropriate conditions (such as alcohol only being available as ancillary to a meal) it could be transferred at a later date to someone who turns the venue into a bar thus possibly causing problems at a later date.

 

There was no restriction in the application on bottles and glassware for inside or outside areas thus possibly supplying persons with weapons if a disturbance takes place.

 

The Licensing Officer was of the opinion that the premises licence application did not inform the public or responsible authorities what this venue would be operating as if the licence is granted.

 

It was mentioned that from the application it was not known if the premises would be a bar, cocktail lounge, restaurant or pub and as such was difficult to assess what additional nuisance the venue would cause to the area. The location would inevitably cause some impact if the licence was granted.

 

The Licensing Officer stated that there was a lot of information in the Havering's Licensing Policy which was available to assist applicants regarding children and training but the application under consideration had not taken on board the guidance.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that the application was inadequate for a premises licence located anywhere in Havering let alone one that was in the centre of an area of communitive impact (St Andrews Ward). It was the opinion of the Licensing Officer that the applicant had not demonstrated, in their operating schedule, that there would be no adverse cumulative impact on the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was also informed that the applicant’s agent was reminded in an email of these concerns and the fact that the application had not addressed the policy.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee was requested to follow Havering's Licensing Policy (5.0 Location and Special Policies e.g. Cumulative Impact) and refuse the application.

The Licensing Officer concluded that if the application was refused and the applicant so wished, a fresh application with full information that informs the public and responsible authorities exactly on what how it would operating; the operating schedule completed to a standard that would limit any negative impact on the vicinity and appropriate conditions offered would be considered on its own merit.

 

The Sub-Committee took in to consideration the written representation of an interested party who was not in attendance.

 

The representation informed the Sub-Committee that the objector resided directly above the premises. The objector indicated that the noise levels that would emanate from the business would be unacceptable. The written representation detailed that noise nuisance that already occurred when person intoxicated with alcohol depart from late night premises in Hornchurch.

 

The Sub-Committee noted from the representation that there was a decked area directly below the bedroom window of the objector and he was of the opinion that the area would be taken over by smokers late at night thus bringing more noise to the outside of the flat.

 

In response the applicant’s; Mr Oktay Senturk and his representative Ms Ezgi Yildrim from NARTS Food and Leisure addressed the Sub-Committee stating that the premises was granted an A3 licence and could operate until 23:00 hours.

 

The business was a family run premises and the intention was to include sale of alcohol in the licence in order to compete with other outlet in the area including one next door.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed in response to a question that the decked area was equipped with 12 seats and that premises was acceptable to an agreed restricted time for the use of the decked area by customers.

 

Decision

 

The Sub-Committee was obliged to determine the application with a view to promoting the licensing objectives, which are:

·                     The prevention of crime and disorder

·                     Public safety

·                     The prevention of public nuisance

·                     The protection of children from harm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Licencing Sub-Committee have considered the application for a premises licence for the Nes Cafe. 

 

Written and oral representations were received from one Responsible Authority namely the Council’s licensing team.  Written representations were also received from an interested person. 

 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant and considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant by his agent.

 

The Sub-Committee reminded itself that it must promote the Licensing objectives and have regard to the Statutory Guidance issued under s. 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

The Sub-Committee also reminded itself that as the premises under discussion lies within a Cumulative Impact Zone, there is a rebuttal presumption that applications for a new premises licence in respect of such premises would normally be refused unless the applicant is able to rebut this presumption.

 

Having considered all the evidence the Sub-Committee is of the view that the licence should be refused.  The Sub-Committee, with the information before it, was unable to conclude whether the premises would operate as a restaurant or not.  The Sub-Committee noted that the application form was silent in relation to this and the Sub-Committee was not convinced with the representations made that premises would in fact operate as a restaurant.

 

The Sub-Committee was of the view that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the operation of the premises would not add to the cumulative impact and not impact adversely on the promotion of the licencing objective, and had therefore failed to rebut the presumption against the grant of the licence.

 

The Sub-Committee found that the application was wanting in that it failed to properly address the licencing objectives, in particular the question of public nuisance.  The Sub-Committee was also concerned that there was confusion over the operational hours between what was stated in the application and in oral evidence given by the applicant.  This confusion further supported the concerns held by the Sub-Committee over the application form.

 

The application is therefore refused.

 

The applicant is reminded that the applicant must address the licensing objectives in any future application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

 

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

1.         Dismiss the appeal; or

2.         Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or

3.         Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and

4.         Make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

 

Taiwo Adeoye

Clerk to the Licensing Sub-Committee

 

 

On 19^th July, 2017 the Leader of the Council made the decision as set out in the report of Garry Green 17/50 attached.

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

 

 

PREMISES

The Manor Hotel & Restaurant

Berwick Pond Road

Rainham

Essex

RM13 9EL

 

 

APPLICANT

Mr Anoop Pandhi

111A George Lane

London

E18 1AN

 

1.    Details of Application

 

The Manor Hotel has a Premises Licence for the building only not the marquees

 

Films
Day	Start	Finish
Monday to Sunday	10:00	00:30

 

 

Live Music, Recorded Music, Supply of Alcohol also Late Night Refreshment
Day	Start	Finish
Sunday to Tuesday	10:00	00:30
Wednesday to Saturday	10:00	01:30

 

Details of the application

The application for a Temporary Event Notice was described as “Marquee – day time festival.

On 15 July 2017 into 16 July 2017

 

It was to cover the building marquee and grounds for the:

Sale of Alcohol by retail

The provision of regulated entertainment

The provision of Late Night Refreshment (Hot food and/or drink from 23:00hrs)

 

Between the hours of 13:00 and 01:00

 

For 499 people (including staff and entertainers)

 

 

 

2.    Grounds of Objection

 

Under the Licensing Act 2003 as amended, the police and Environmental Health had three working days to lodge an objection to a TEN on the grounds relating to one or more 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).

 

The application was made on line on Friday 16 June 2017.

 

Environmental Health’s (David Cant) representation was received by the licensing authority on Tuesday 20 June 2017

 

The Police did not make a representation against this application.

 

 

3.    Details of Representations

 

Mr Cant’s objection to the proposed TEN at Manor Hotel Rainham on 15^th-July -16^th July 2017 in the interest of the prevention of public nuisance. 

 

A TEN had been granted over the weekend of 29 & 30 October 2016 which drew five complaints of unreasonably loud music from different residents in Warwick Lane, Buckland Way, Lakeside and Lake Avenue.  A further two complaints were received from two other residents in Berwick Pond Road and Lakefields Close concerning an alleged unlicensed event of a similar nature at the premises on 25 February 2017.  On each occasion the use of the marquee in the garden and hired-in professional sound systems appeared to have been the main contributing factors to the complaints.  Whilst Mr Pandhi had not provided sufficient details of the event to allow for proper consideration, a search of the internet suggests that the event was a nightclub-type event as shown in the flyer attached in the agenda pack. Details could be found at the following location:

 

https://en-gb.facebook.com/events/992661157535580/ 

 

Mr Pandhi had not provided any evidence that the prevention of public nuisance had been considered or identified any appropriate control measures but had been provided with an opportunity to clarify the nature of the event and to discuss an approach which might allow it to go ahead. He had failed to reply to date. 

 

Mr Cant believed that the nature, location and proposed time/duration of the event was not in keeping with the quiet semi-rural location and if allowed to proceed as before was likely to cause public nuisance to a wide area and should not be allowed to go ahead.

 

At the hearing Chima Umunnakwe, representing the Council’s Environmental Health team, advised that discussions had taken place the previous day between the service and Mr Pandhi’s legal representatives and a number of conditions to place on the TEN had been agreed by the two parties.

 

In view of this the service had agreed to withdraw its representation.

 

4.    Applicant’s response.

 

The applicant, Mr Anoop Pandhi, addressed the Sub-Committee and commented that he had rescued the business from administration and that the business was now a money making concern that had secured the futures of thirty-eight members of staff.

 

Mr Pandhi also commented that the business was looking at creative ways of increasing turnover and events such as the one planned were helpful to that goal.

 

Mr Pandhi advised the Sub-Committee that he had taken on board lessons learnt from previous events and had employed the use of acoustic experts to minimise noise nuisance to neighbouring residential properties.

 

Mr Pandhi also advised that the proposed event would be aimed at people 45yrs+ and that a taxi rank would be established at the venue to assist in patrons leaving quietly.

 

Mr Pandhi concluded by advising that he would shortly be applying for a separate premises licence for the marquees.

 

 

5.    Determination of Application

 

Consequent upon the hearing held on 13 July 2017, the Sub-Committee’s decision regarding the application for a Temporary Event Notice for Manor Hotel & Restaurant was as set out below, for the reasons stated:

 

The Sub-Committee was obliged to determine the application with a view to promoting the licensing objectives.

 

In making its decision, the Sub-Committee also had regard to the Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Havering’s Licensing Policy.

 

In addition the Sub-Committee took account of its obligations under section 117 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and Articles 1 and 8 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

 

6.    Decision

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered a TEN for the proposed event to be held in a Marquee at the Manor Hotel Berwick Pond Road Rainham RM13 9EL on the 15 to 16 July 2017. 

 

Written representation from Mr Cant Environmental Health Officer and oral representations were received from Mr Umunnakwe Environmental Health Officer, who had had concerns in respect of the licensing objectives in particular prevention of public nuisance. Representations have also been received from Mr Pandhi.

As a result of contact between the parties prior to the hearing the objection was withdraw subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

 

1.    To move the speakers to face the direction of the open fields to the rear of the property to reduce noise nuisance to neighbouring properties.

2.    Use less powerful speakers.

3.    The speakers would be less powerful than those used previously and would be set off the ground which would reduce bass travel through the floor.

4.    Use of bass matts below speakers to absorb noise and reduce nuisance.

5.    A member of staff would regularly monitor noise levels outside the marquee whilst regulated entertainment took place after 11pm in order to reduce noise levels deemed to cause a nuisance.

6.    Reasonable steps would be taken to recognise the rights of local residents and notices would be displayed at the marquee exit requesting customers to leave quietly and reminding them that they were in a residential area. 

The Sub-Committee considered this new proposal and considered the Licensing objectives as set in the Councils statement of licensing Policy Document. It also considered the guidance set out under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

The conclusion that he Sub-Committee reached was that the TEN should be granted subject to the conditions being attached to the notice. 

 

 

Appeal

 

Any party to the decision may appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of notification of the decision. On appeal, the Magistrates Court may make an order for costs as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

Richard Cursons

Clerk to the Licensing Sub-Committee