Presentation by the Licensing Officer
The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a variation of the premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to Chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Chapter 5, Policies 1, 3, 4, 8 and 16, Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraphs 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 of the report on pages 37-38 of the agenda papers.
The Licensing Officer confirmed:
A map and photographs of the premises was circulated to Members.
Presentation by the Applicant
Mr Iqbal Rana, applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:
In response to questions from Members, Mr Rana confirmed:
In response to a further question regarding the extractor fan, the Licensing Officer confirmed that he believed a visit by an officer from the Noise Team might had been carried out.
Presentation by Interested Parties
Mr John Chilton, resident, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· He resided above the premises and the area consisted of eight maisonettes and shops
· He had an altercation with the applicant regarding building work being done outside of the specified hours. However, Mr Rana became very rude and called the police.
· He contacted the Licensing team and spoke to Miss Patel and informed her about the premises. However, a few months later, he contacted Licensing by telephone but was advised that an application for a licence was in progress.
· The applicant had an extractor fan that was switched on from 11:00 until 02:00 which made a lot of noise.
· His main bedroom was situated directly above the fan which affected his sleep.
· A Public Protection Officer had visited his property but he was advised that because of the pandemic, he could not go inside his premises.
Miss Bina Patel, Licensing Manger, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· During the consultation process, emails that correlated with the application in relation to the hours and conditions had been sent to Mr Rana, who replied that he fully understood them. Therefore, she was confused why he did not understand the hours applied for on this licence.
· Since the licence had been granted on 4 June 2021, the applicant breached four conditions of his licence, that had been agreed by the Licensing Authority.
· Mr Chilton made contact with the Licensing service regarding a noisy extractor fan that was currently being investigated by Public Protection.
· The hours applied for was in excess of the Licensing Policy hours.
· There was no window at the premises that could offer the service described by Mr Rana. As there was only a plain window and door at the premises, planning permission would be required.
· The applicant would have to keep the doors open, which would result in people congregating on the street.
· The applicant had not said anything to alleviate her concerns and therefore, she requested that the application should be refused.
Mr Oladayo Bello, Public Protection Officer, informed the Sub-Committee that:
· Extending the opening hours for customers to buy food until 04:00 would lead to additional noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, as a result of late-night revellers from nightclubs wanting food.
· Public Protection had been involved in the investigation pertaining to the noisy extractor fan and he was not aware that the issue had been rectified. However, he endeavoured to make enquiries.
· If the hours were extended this would have a negative impact on residents.
· An extension of the hours would also stretch the resources on Public Protection and Police as a result of anti-social behaviour issues.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Chilton confirmed that:
The applicant was recalled to address matters arising. In response to questions from Members, Mr Rana informed the Sub-Committee that:
· He just wanted to run a successful business and would be willing to open until 02:00.
· He did not have enough money to hire a delivery driver at the moment.
Adjournment and Decision
At 4.55 pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the legal advisor and clerk to deliberate in private.
The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from Mr Rana, Miss Patel and Mr Bello.
Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be appropriate and proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application for the following reasons:
RESOLVED: To refuse the application.
Announcement of Decision
Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to refuse the application and provided reasons for the decision as outlined above. The Chair confirmed that written notification of the decision would be sent in due course.