Greenwich Council

Decision details.

Taksim Bistro, 7 Blackheath Hill, London, SE10 8PB

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee B

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decision:

In reaching its decision the Sub Committee considered the Council’s statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its functions the Sub Committee did so with a view to promoting the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

Having considered all the evidence put before it the Sub-Committee decided to reject the whole of the application  to vary the Premises Licence (including the variation of the plans showing a proposed new layout of the premises) under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the

 

Taksim Bistro, 7 Blackheath Hill, London, SE10 8PB

 

The Sub Committee’s decision was based on issues raised concerning the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

In reaching their decision the Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant’s representative who offered an apology for the nuisance caused by the applicant’s use of the rear of the licensed premises. She confirmed that a notice would be placed outside the rear of the premises which would prohibit its use for a takeaway service and commercial use and that noise was to be kept to a minimum. She said that the Applicant had complied with the licensing conditions particularly those relating to sound proofing, deliveries and rubbish collection. The Applicant’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that there had been no incidents since the grant of the licence and that the applicant was prepared to comply with any conditions that were imposed if the increased hours were granted. The Sub-Committee was told that a Door Supervisor would be appointed to ensure that no nuisance was caused and a member of staff would clear any rubbish within 50 metres of the premises every 2 hours. Additionally, the variation in hours at the licensed premises would improve employment opportunities and enable the applicant afford increased business rates.

 

The Sub-Committee was told by the applicant’s representative that the licensed premises had a new layout which separated the takeaway section from the restaurant and moved the kitchen to the front of the licensed premises. She stated that there would be mopeds parked in front of the licensed premises to make deliveries.

 

The Sub-Committee heard oral representations from one of the local residents who lived above the restaurant and was objecting to the application. She stated that when she purchased her flat, it was a news agent and now it was a restaurant. She said that she had had a constructive relationship with the applicant but had been disappointed that she had not been told of the proposed changes to the licensed premises which now felt like a takeaway establishment. She agreed that there was no issue of noise emanating from the roof of the licensed premises, however, since the licensed premises had been operating the takeaway service the windows to the front had been kept open regularly and that was causing unpleasant smells and noise. The resident also stated that there were more footfalls under her flat. She was concerned about the noise arising from customers using the parking bay in front of the restaurant as they pulled up to collect their orders. She was also worried of the noise associated with the take away such as, smoking from customers whilst they waited for their orders and chatting whilst eating outside. The resident was of the view that the extension of licensing hours would impact on her night-time sleep as her flat was directly over the licensed premises.

 

The Applicant’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that the resident had not been informed of the proposed changes to the licensed premises because he had been advised that the proposed changes were minor and the relevant council departments and residents did not have to be notified. The Sub-Committee accepted that the Applicant had been ill-advised about his application by his previous Agent.

 

The Sub-Committee considered all written and oral representations.

 

The Sub-Committee observed that the applicant’s representative’s arguments centred around how the service provided by the restaurant would not cause a nuisance, however, it was noted that the proposed takeaway trade involved changes to the layout of the licensed premises and the variation of the licensing hours would be significant and impact on the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm licensing objectives. In response to the observation, the applicant’s representative stated that the restaurant needed to generate income and it was for this reason that they sought to develop the takeaway business. The applicant offered to discontinue a delivery service so that no mopeds were in use and to appoint a door supervisor from 10pm to 3am to keep nuisance to a minimum.

 

The Sub Committee considered the Applicant’s representations and were not persuaded that that the Applicant had shown (at all) that an increase in hours would not have a detrimental effect on the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm licensing objectives. 

 

In reaching its decision, the Sub Committee considered all the written and oral representations and was mindful to consider the application on its own merits. The Sub-Committee did not accept that the offer to discontinue the delivery service would appropriately deal with the concerns of noise arising from customers picking up their take away during the extended licensing period. They were also of the view that the Door Supervisor may become part of the problem in trying to provide adequate control.

 

The Sub-Committee was of the view that the arguments put forward on behalf of the applicant was unconvincing and felt that the proposed new layout and increased licensing hours was bound to add to the cumulative impact and the conditions offered would not appropriately uphold the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm licensing objectives.

 

The Sub Committee determined to reject the whole of the application (including the updated plans) as it was felt that the extended hours would add to the cumulative impact and would not promote the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm licensing objectives. 

 

If the applicant or those making representations are aggrieved by the Council’s decision, they have the right to appeal to the Magistrates Court.  Such an appeal must be submitted to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date from when the appeal period is deemed to have started, which will be stated in the cover email or letter to the Notice of Decision.

 

Report author: Christopher Devine

Publication date: 11/07/2017

Date of decision: 04/07/2017

Decided at meeting: 04/07/2017 - Licensing Sub-Committee B

Accompanying Documents: