Agenda item

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:

• This was an application to vary the premises licence for Charcoal Express, 266 Wandsworth Road.
• The premises currently operated as a restaurant and take-away until 00:00 and as a delivery service from 00:00 to 01:00 Monday to Thursday and 02:00 Friday and Saturday.
• The application was seeking to provide late night refreshment until 04:00 allowing both deliveries and for customers to order take-aways at the premises.
• The application was also seeking to extend the opening hours of the premises until 04:00 Monday to Sunday. 
• Representations had been received from the Licensing Authority, Public Protection Team, one resident and one local councillor based on all four licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm).  Copies of the representations could be found on pages 103-109 of the main agenda papers.
• The Licensing Authority conducted a visit to the premises on 12 June 2021 and identified four conditions that had not been adhered to by the applicant.  Details of the breaches were listed on page 80 of the main agenda papers.
• Mr Iqbal Rana, applicant, Ms Bina Patel, Mr Oladayo Bello and Mr Chilton, resident, were in attendance.
• A copy of the current premises licence could be found on pages 111-118 of the main agenda papers.
• No issues had been received since the previous enforcement which identified breaches on 12 June 2021.

A map and photographs of the premises was circulated to Members.

Presentation by the Applicant

Mr Iqbal Rana, applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that:

• He did not understand the original terms of his licence that had been granted, in relation to the opening hours.
• He commenced his business in February 2021 but could not open properly as a result of the pandemic.  However, Government restrictions had now provided him with an opportunity to work with residents.
• He had previously applied for a terminal hour of 02:00 to provide good customer service to the community and was willing to review how his new business operated.  However, he had been granted a terminal hour until 00:00 and after that time believed he could open the shop for delivery only but not take-away.  
• On being questioned further regarding his licence, the applicant clarified that he believed his business could only operate as a take-away service but did not realise he must operate as a delivery service after 00:00. 
• As a new business, he did not have a delivery driver at the premises to undertake deliveries.
• After being advised by the Licensing Officer, that the business must operate as a take-away service followed by a delivery service after 00:00, he had applied for an extension to his licence until 04:00.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Rana confirmed:

• The business would only operate as a take-away service.
• There was a 24-hour licenced premises plus another take-away shop in the area that opened until 02:00.
• Although residential properties were situated on top of the shop, many people purchased food from his venue and were happy with the service he provided.  However, an altercation had ensued with one resident regarding building works emanating from the premises but a Lambeth officer investigated and found no fault.
• He was willing to close the premises at 00:00 and then undertake deliveries to attract more customers but wished customers could collect their food from the premises and order food after 00:00.
• Only one person would be in the shop.
• Despite only one person being in the shop, he did not believe any noise issues would result, as customers would be collecting their food from a window outside the shop and then go home.  
• No delivery drivers had presently been employed at the premises.
• The area was very peaceful, despite having a 24-hour licenced premises in the area.  

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:

• When motorcycle drivers made deliveries to Costcutter that held a 24-hour licence, they revved their engines which caused a nuisance.
• If the licence was granted until 04:00, this would cause more people to congregate outside Costcutter to drink.
• His sleep pattern had already been affected as a result of noise in the area

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:

• The Sub-Committee were not satisfied that the operating schedule and conditions contained in the operating schedule were sufficient to address the increased risk of public nuisance that would stem from the operation of this premises in line with the variation application.
• The Sub-Committee as a consequence, had no option but to refuse this application.

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.