Agenda item

In the matter of the application for a full variation of a Premises Licence, the Committee has considered the relevant representations made.

The Committee has made the following determination:

With a view to ensuring the promotion of the licensing objectives, in accordance with the provisions of the statutory guidance and the principles of our licensing policy, the application for a full variation of a premises licence was REFUSED.

In coming to a determination, the following factors were taken into account; 

1.            Members of the Committee considered the written representations made by the applicant. It states that when Police visited the premises on 5 March 2018, they did not have any objection to this application. The objection made by the Crime, Enforcement and Regulation Officer with regard to operating beyond licensing hours, referred to information received from Just Eat which related to a previous premises at 252 Hither Green Lane. The applicant has registered with Lewisham Council and the website shows the correct hours of trading hours for the premises.

2.            The written representation also states that Brownhill Road, is very busy and a long way from the premises. Not many orders are taken after midnight, most are on line orders and delivery motorbikes do not make noise or hoot their horns. The premises is not responsible for noise in the area, there are other takeaway shops in the area which are open until 4am. In addition, the applicant would be willing to turn off the illuminated sign over the shop after midnight.

3.            Members of the Committee considered the written representations made by local residents. They objected to the noise created by customers eating food outside the premises. Although Brownhill Road is busy, it reduces after midnight and an extension of the licensing hours would have a significant impact on their lives. No other shops in the parade or the vicinity are open after midnight.

4.            Members considered representations made by local residents at the meeting. They had not objected to the previous application to extend the hours because they want to support local businesses but to trade into the early hours is not acceptable for local residents. The pavement outside is not wide enough to cope with large numbers of people who gather outside the premises and patrons park vehicles opposite the shop outside residents’ homes until early in the morning. The opening times of the shop are not in the window and recent flyers advertised closing times beyond licenced hours.

5.            Members considered the representation of the applicant at the meeting. He said that prices continue to rise and he needs to extend his licensing hours in an effort to make money. When 23 orders for food were accepted after licensing hours, he said that it had been a misunderstanding on his part.

6.            Members of the Committee considered the representation made by P.C Nick Gerry, and the Crime, Enforcement and Regulation Officer. These officers attended the premises following complaints of trading beyond licensing hours. It was disappointing to note that the premises continued to trade after their trading hours the day after this visit.

7.            It was agreed that there had been overwhelming evidence of wanton disregard of the licensing objectives and this decision would ensure that the licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, were upheld.

4.1      The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and introductions were made. She then invited Ms Spall to introduce the application.

Licensing Officer

4.2      Ms Spall said that members were being asked to consider objections to an application for a full variation of a premises licence made by Mr Haidari who is the premises licence holder for Top Hut Pizza and Chicken 403 Hither Green Lane SE13 6TR.  Representations had been received from the Metropolitan Police, Planning Service, the CER service and local residents, in relation to the licensing objectives of the prevention of Crime and Disorder and of Public Nuisance. She outlined the details of the application and introduced officers and residents who would be making representations.

            Representations

4.3      Ms Hickmott said that the CER service objected to the full variation of the premises licence because, in the opinion of the licensing authority, the premises licence holder has failed to safeguard key licensing objectives. In particular the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance.

4.4      On 11 January 2018, CER Officers visited Top Hut Pizza and Chicken.  A complaint had been received because the food registration notice was not displayed and the opening hours advertised on their website were outside their licensable hours. Advice was given about correct times being advertised and how the premises licence should be displayed.

4.5      On 5 March 2018, a data protection request form was submitted by the CER service to one of the several delivery services ‘Just Eat’. It was confirmed that persistent licensable activity after permitted licensable hours had taken place between 3.3.18 and 6.3.18. On 3.3.18 there were 7 orders, the last was received at 2.11am. The premises should have closed at 1.30am. On 4.3.18 19 orders were received with the last one at 2.26am. They should have closed at midnight. On 6.3.18 there were 2 orders with the last one received at 12.56am. The premises should have closed at midnight.

4.6      Ms Hickmott said that the premises licence holder has persistently failed to uphold key licensing objectives. There were 28 offences within a 4 day period, which amounts to an offence via section 136 of the Licensing Act in relation to unauthorised activity. She recommended that the application be rejected in its entirety.

4.7      P.C. Gerry said that he attended the premises with Ms Hickmott on 5 March 2018 and they met the applicant. One of the matters discussed was that there is a planning condition on the premises that prevents trading after 11pm. Trading has taken place beyond this time, it is a breach of their licence and they have applied to extend their hours further. He told the applicant that his advice would be to withdraw the application and address this planning issue and then make a new application for a variation of the licence.

4.8      The CER service then advised P.C Gerry that there had been breaches of the current trading hours. He considered this to be unacceptable because the premises licence holder was aware of his licenced hours when he applied for an extension. In fact, the only day that trading did not take place beyond licenced hours, was the day that he visited the premises with Ms Hickmott.

4.9      P.C Gerry said that he did consider suggesting a reduction in licensed hours for the premises. This was not accepted by the applicant’s Solicitor and he said that there has been a complete lack of respect of the licensing objectives. If this application is accepted, it would be putting the licensing objectives at risk.

4.10    The Chair said that the premises is trading until 1.30am on Friday and yet planning regulations do not permit trading beyond 11pm. Ms Der Man said that statutory planning regulations do not have any bearing on Licensing Act provisions. There are two separate statutory provisions.

            Applicant

4.11    Mr Abdul Haidari said that he is the premises licence holder and he outlined the extended hours for which he was applying. He said that he manages a small business and overheads are very expensive. He needs to extend his trading hours so that he can make money; he is new to the business. The local Domino’s Pizza trades for longer than his takeaway business.

4.12    Councillor Michael said that Mr Haidari had been given guidance from the CER officers and the Police but he continued to trade outside of his licensed hours. Mr Haidari said that the information provided by ‘Just Eat’ referred to their previous premises at 252 Hither Green Lane. He called this company and asked them to change the address and the times. Ms Spall said that the information received from ‘Just Eat’ is that the orders were accepted by Top Hut Pizza regardless of the address.

4.13    Councillor Elliott said that residents have concerns about noise generated at the premises by mopeds going to and from the premises. He asked whether he had any plans to address this issue if the application is granted. Mr Haidari said that Brownhill Road is busy, with cars passing up and down 24 hours a day. There is a pizza shop that is open until 4am and there are also chicken shops. The mopeds at the premises are not noisy, they do not sound their horns and he had not received any complaints about noise from their neighbours.

            Objectors

4.14    Mr Hawkes said that he lives in Hither Green Lane. He made the following points:

• There are no shops near the premises in Brownhill Road.
• There are no shops in the vicinity of the premises open after 11pm.
• Domino’s Pizza is located in Brownhill Road but is the far end in Catford.
• Residents did not object to the original application for an extension until 1.30am but they would have objected if they had known that the applicant would then apply for a licence until 3am.
• Previous businesses at the premises have been a bakery and a restaurant and were closed before 11pm. There had never been any noise nuisance associated with either businesses and residents want to support their local businesses.
• Top Hut Pizza have consistently traded beyond their licenced hours.
• There is an illuminated sign above the premises that is too bright for residents. It was installed at 252 Hither Green Lane, their previous premises, where the pavement is wider. The pavement is narrower now and the light is more of a nuisance for residents.
• Vehicles park on the pavement across the road from residents. The engines start and stop all day. This creates noise.
• Opening hours are not displayed at the premises so customers arrive at the premises at all hours. Vehicles pull up outside residents’ houses late at night which increases footfall and traffic. It causes noise and inconvenience.
• If this noise nuisance continues, it will be difficult for residents to open their windows at night during Summer months.

4.15    Mr Hawkes said that Top Hut Pizza advertise orders up to 5 minutes before closing. He asked for a definition of closing time. Ms Spall said that closing time is when the shop shuts. If alcohol is served, half an hour drinking up time is usually allowed. Most takeaway premises accept the last order between 10-15 minutes before closing. Ms Der Man said that an online customer or a customer on the premises may make an order for food up until the time of closing but not beyond that time.

4.16    Mr Hawkes said that last Thursday a leaflet was delivered through residents’ doors. It states that the premises are open from 11pm until 3am Friday and Saturday and between 11pm and 2am Sunday to Thursday. These opening times are also displayed on their website. He said that the applicant’s actions have shown a complete disregard to residents.

4.17    Mr Maitland said that he lives in Brownhill Road and from his garden can see the light above the shop which has been installed without planning permission. The sign is very bright and shines like a spotlight into his bedroom. Brownhill Road is busy but the volume of traffic reduces between 11pm and midnight. The sound of mopeds after this time becomes very noisy.

            Conclusion

4.18    Mr Haidari said that he did have the opening times of the shop on the wall and he had shown it to the Police officer. Ms Hickmott said that she had told him at the time that the 3 pages must be displayed. Mr Haidari said this had been done and he offered to show a photograph in evidence. When the flyers were sent out, it had times associated with the old premises because they forgot to update it.

4.19    The Chair asked why, on 23 occasions, food was sold well after opening hours. Mr Hairdari said that was a misunderstanding with the Police officer who did not tell him that he had to pull the shutters down to customers after licensing hours. He thought he could accept orders because he had applied for the extended hours. When he received the objection from the Police they did not take any orders after their licencing hours.

4.20    Members of the Committee then withdrew to make their decision. When they returned it was:-

RESOLVED that the application for the full variation of the premises   licence be refused.

4.21    Ms Spall said that any registered party and the applicant may appeal against this decision to the Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of the decision letter which would be sent out within 5 days of the meeting