Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

The applicant and their addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the applicant and their representative.

The licensing responsible authority officer addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the officer.

The environmental protection officer addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the officer.

All parties were given up to five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 11.41am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 12.11pm and the chair advised everyone present of the sub-committee’s decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made Lebanese Mix Grill Ltd to vary the premises licence under S17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asLebanese Mix Grill, 204 Old Kent Road, London, SE1 5TY is refused.

Reasons

The licensing sub-committee convened to determine an application for a new premises licence in respect of the premises, Lebanese Mixed Grill, 204 Old Kent Road, London SE1 5TY.

The application related to the provision of late night refreshment only. The licensing officer introduced the report and confirmed that no amendments had been made other than receipt of an additional bundle from the applicant. The licensing officer explained that the premises is situated within a residential area and that objections from licensing and environmental protection, in their capacity as responsible authorities, remained outstanding.  The officer clarified that the late night takeaways were not considered to be appropriate for that type of area and restaurants have a recommended closing time of 23:00.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the parties. 

The applicant explained that the premises is a food led takeaway with no alcohol or regulated entertainment. The applicant stated that the application was before the sub-committee primarily due to the hours sought being outside the council’s statement of licensing policy rather than due to operational concerns. It was confirmed that the police had withdrawn their objection following agreement of conditions and that there were no objections from local residents.

The applicant further stated that the premises had operated under approximately twenty temporary event notices over the preceding months, trading until early morning hours without complaints or enforcement action. The hours sought had been reduced following consultation with the police. 

The applicant stated that after approximately 11pm the premises would operate as takeaway and delivery only, with minimal seating and active management of customers to prevent loitering. It was submitted that the application should be considered on its own merits, with particular reliance placed on the evidence of previous compliant operation. The applicant also emphasised the importance of the extended hours for the viability of the business. 

The licensing responsible authority objected on the basis that the hours sought exceeded the framework hours contained within the statement of licensing policy. It was submitted that the area is not considered suitable for late night takeaway use at those hours as it exceeded the recommended hours in the statement of licensing policy.  The officer went on to referred to a previous incident in which the premises had been found to be carrying out licensable activity without authorisation, which ceased once the matter was brought to the operator’s attention. 

The environmental protection authority objected on policy grounds, stating that the premises is located within a mixed residential area with residential properties in close proximity. It was submitted that late night takeaway use carries an increased risk of public nuisance and that the council’s policy indicates that such uses are inappropriate in that location. The authority acknowledged that the applicant had operated temporary event notices without complaint but stated that it was for the sub-committee to determine whether that evidence justified a departure from policy. 

During questioning, members asked about seating arrangements and the use of tables and chairs. The applicant confirmed that tables and chairs would be removed at approximately 10:30pm and would not be available for use after 11pm. It was also confirmed that the premises does not provide cutlery and operates primarily as a takeaway. 

Members asked about delivery practices and whether delivery vehicle types could be restricted. The applicant stated that this had not been implemented but could be explored with delivery platforms, and noted that most deliveries in the area are undertaken by bicycles or similar vehicles. Without further investigation, the applicant could  not provide a firm undertaking that restrictions could be imposed. 

Members also asked about waste management and litter. The applicant stated that while they could not control customer behaviour once they had left the premises, they could display signage requesting that customers dispose of waste responsibly and would ensure that their own waste was managed through an appropriate contract. 

Members further asked about packaging materials. The applicant confirmed that food is currently served in foil containers and plastic bags but indicated a willingness to consider the use of alternative materials such as paper or biodegradable packaging. 

After each party was invited to sum up their submissions, the sub-committee retired to determine the application. In its deliberation, the sub-committee considered the applicant’s oral submissions, the licensing officer’s report, the representations made by the responsible authorities, and all written material before it. 

The sub-committee recognised that the hours sought fell outside the recommended hours in the statement of licensing policy and that the premises is located in a mixed residential area.

It also noted that there were residential premises directly above the premises.  It was concerned that the grant of the licence could give rise to an increased risk of public nuisance, particularly given the proximity of residential properties. 

Whilst the sub-committee had regard to the applicant’s evidence of operation under temporary event notices without complaint, it considered that a permanent grant of the hours sought would represent a departure from policy that was not justified on the evidence before it. 

In reaching its decision, the licensing sub-committee had regard to all relevant considerations including the Licensing Act 2003, the section 182 Guidance, the statement of licensing policy, its equality duties and the four licensing objectives, and considered that refusal of the application was appropriate and proportionate in order to promote the prevention of public nuisance.

Appeal rights

The applicant may appeal against any decision: 

a.  To impose conditions on the licence

b.  To exclude a licensable activity or refuse to specify a person as premises supervisor.

Any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application who desire to contend that:

a.  The  licence ought not to be been granted; or

b.  That on granting the licence, the licensing authority ought to have imposed different or additional conditions to the licence, or ought to have modified them in a different way

may appeal against the decision.

Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates’ Court for the area in which the premises are situated. Any appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.