Skip to main content

Agenda item

Palm Palace Restaurant, 84 Edgware Road, London, W2 2EA

App

No

Ward /

Cumulative Impact Area

Site Name and Address

App

Type

Licensing Ref No.

3.

Bryanston and Dorset Square Ward/Edgware Road Cumulative Impact Area

Palm Palace Restaurant 84 Edgware Road London W2 2EA

Premises

Licence

Variation

19/15290/LIPV

 

Minutes:

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 2

Thursday 30th January 2020

 

Membership:           Councillor Tim Mitchell (Chairman), Councillor Louise Hyams and Councillor Aziz Toki

 

Legal Adviser:         Barry Panto

Policy Adviser:         Kerry Simpkin

Committee Officer:  Tristan Fieldsend

Presenting Officer:  Michelle Steward

                               

 

Relevant Representations:    The Metropolitan Police, Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, The Marylebone Association, Connaught Court Tenants Association and one local resident (objecting)

 

Present: Mr Nigel Carter (Agent, representing the Applicant), Mr Nadir Ali (Director of Applicant Company), PC Adam Deweltz (Metropolitan Police), Mr Dave Nevitt (Environmental Health), Ms Karyn Abbot (Licensing Authority), Ms Maria Johnson (Senior City Inspector) and Mr Richard Brown (Solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau Licensing Advice Project, representing The Marylebone Association)

 

Palm Palace Restaurant, 84 Edgware Road, London, W2 2EA (“The Premises”)

19/15290/LIPV

 

1.

Conditions being Varied, Added or Removed

 

Current Condition 13:

 

“All tables and chairs in the outside area shall be removed or rendered unusable by 23:00 each day”

Proposed Condition 13:

 

“All tables and chairs in the outside area shall be removed or rendered unusable by 01:00 each day”

 

 

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

 

None.

 

 

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

 

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Palm Palace Restaurant Ltd for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Palm Palace Restaurant, 84 Edgware Road, London, W2 2EA.

 

The Licensing Officer introduced the application.

 

Mr Carter, representing the applicant, explained that the Premises had been issued its current licence in May 2019 which had a condition attached to it requiring all external tables and chairs to be removed or rendered unusable by 23:00 each day. The addition of this condition was viewed at the time by the Sub-Committee as being a positive step in ensuring the licensing objectives were promoted. The Sub-Committee was informed that the area where the tables and chairs were located was a private forecourt. The application was seeking to amend condition 13 in order to permit the use of external tables and chairs located on the forecourt until 01:00.

 

Before the current licence was issued the Premises did not benefit from a licence and, as such, tables and chairs were placed in the forecourt area until 01:00. Mr Carter advised that this had led to no detrimental effects on the local area. It was acknowledged that objections had been received to the application, but the Sub-Committee’s attention was brought to the fact that no representations had been received from residents living directly above the Premises. The residents had actually actively supported the application resulting in seventeen letters of support having been received. The residents located in the vicinity which had objected were considered to live closer to other premises which opened later than 23:00 and permitted the smoking of shisha outside.

 

Mr Carter described the busy nature of Edgware Road which attracted large numbers of middle-eastern customers who tended to dine out at later hours. This was one of the reasons why many restaurants in the area traded to 01:00 or later. Mr Carter was not aware of any complaints having been made about the Premises or it giving rise to any issues regarding crime and disorder, therefore the extension in hours for the tables and chairs would have no negative impact on the licensing objectives. Since 2011 the number of licensed premises in the Edgware Road Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) had decreased therefore it could be expected that there would be a reduction in crime and disorder in the local area. Any concerns over dispersal at later hours had been alleviated through the introduction of the 24-hour tube service, plus the area was heavily serviced through night buses.

 

It was acknowledged by Mr Carter that there was evidence that the applicant had not been applying with the conditions on the current licence. The applicant had placed tables and chairs on the forecourt for use by customers after 23:00 hours and was aware that this was not acceptable. If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application assurances were provided that external tables and chairs would be removed after 01:00 otherwise review proceedings could be brought against the Premises.

 

Mr Carter expressed the view that the application should be granted as it had not been demonstrated that permitting external tables and chairs to be used until 01:00 would adversely impact on the licensing objectives. Due to the limited number of tables and chairs it would not create any additional noise in what was already a noisy area. Other premises located in close proximity opened until 01:00 or later and provided shisha. Prior to 2019 the Premises had successfully provided external tables and chairs on the forecourt to later hours without any issues being reported. No residents located above the Premises had objected to the application and had indeed actively supported it. Finally, the Sub-Committee was advised that granting the application would actually allow more control to be exerted over the licence. In addition, the extended hours would help support the Premises financially in what were challenging times for licensed premises.

 

PC Deweltz, representing the Metropolitan Police, confirmed that their representation was maintained on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder. The Premises was located within a CIA and as it provided late night refreshment until 01:00 it had the potential to be an attractive destination for people who had been consuming alcohol. If the application was granted the Sub-Committee was advised that it could lead to intoxicated persons congregating outside therefore leading to increased levels of crime and disorder. It was recognised that the Premises had not been a source of crime however it was located in close proximity to an area which did experience high crime levels.

 

Mr Nevitt, representing Environmental Health, confirmed that he had no specific concerns with regards to the Premises which he advised was a small, well run operation. The issues concerning the application was that it was situated within a CIA and that concerns had been raised about extending the hours of use for the outside area. It was considered that prohibiting the use of external tables and chairs for premises after 23:00 was usual because after this time they had the potential to become a nuisance for local residents. It was acknowledged that Edgware Road was a busy area and this application was unlikely to add to already high noise levels but the issues around being located within a CIA were wider than that. Increased levels of cumulative impact generally happened later in the evening and this application was seeking to extend the hours permitting the use of the external tables and chairs. The Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy highlighted that CIAs could not sustain any further increase in late night activities. By extending the hours of use for the external tables and chairs it would attract additional people into the vicinity later at night which would then have the potential risk of increasing cumulative impact. Mr Nevitt also brought to the Sub-Committees attention that a common source of disturbance to residents originated from premises removing external tables and chairs later in the evening.

 

Ms Abbot, representing the Licensing Authority, stated that the Premises was located within a CIA with the application proposing to permit the use of the external tables and chairs for two hours longer than was currently allowed. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee which granted the original licence on 30 May 2019 welcomed that the outside seating area would be rendered unusable at 23:00 everyday and considered this to be an improvement to the CIA. The previous Sub-Committee had also welcomed that the Premises was moving away from providing shisha but, based on the current operation, this did not appear to be the case.

 

Ms Johnson, a Senior City Inspector, was invited by Ms Abbot to address the Sub-Committee. The City Inspectors had submitted five witness statements with regards to the Premises which confirmed that hot food and drink had been offered to customers seated in the outside area after 23:00. In addition, the smoking of shisha by customers seated in the outside area after 23:00 had also been witnessed taking place (though it was acknowledged by the Sub-Committee that the smoking of shisha was not a licensable activity and this did not constitute a breach of the licence). The City Inspectors had spoken to the applicant about the breaches of the licence and were advised that these had potentially occurred due to the financial challenges the Premises was facing. Bearing in mind these breaches, Ms Johnson expressed no confidence that the applicant would abide by the conditions on the licence if the hours permitting the use of the external seating area were extended. The Sub-Committee was also informed that the Council’s Planning department was currently taking enforcement action against the applicant for breaches of the Premises planning conditions.

 

The Sub-Committee was interested to learn from the applicant what assurances could be provided that the conditions on the licence would be observed if the application was granted? Mr Carter acknowledged that breaches of the current licence had occurred due to the financial difficulties the Premises was facing, which the granting of the two additional hours would help alleviate. Shisha was still being smoked in external areas as this helped attract customers to the establishment. The applicant was aware that breaches of the conditions could lead to review proceedings being brought against the Premises, but assurances were provided that from hence forth all conditions would be abided by. Removing external tables and chairs later in the evening would not be an issue as the applicant owned the next-door premises where they would be stored. In terms of crime and disorder, the Premises had previously operated to later hours with no reports of any issues arising. Finally, with the reduction in licensed premises in the Edgware Road area and the introduction of the 24-hour tube service the dispersal of customers to a later hour was unlikely to add to cumulative impact.

 

Mr Brown, representing The Marylebone Association, expressed concerns that the extended hours would create dispersal issues in the Marylebone area. In addition, breaches of the current licence had been evidenced which was not encouraging. The applicant had suggested that granting the licence would allow more control to be exerted over the Premises, however this would only be the case if the conditions were complied with.

 

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee regarding the use of shisha, Mr Carter explained that the applicant owned the next-door premises. It was envisaged in the future that the two premises would be amalgamated into one establishment which would operate as a restaurant without the need to supply shisha. The Sub-Committee asked Mr Carter if the applicant would be content for a condition to be added to the licence to prevent smoking (including shisha) from taking place in the external area after 11 pm. Mr Carter stressed that currently shisha was a significant part of the business. Nearby premises provided it and their customers would expect it to also be provided, so it was requested no condition restricting its use be placed on the licence.

 

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and the evidence provided by all parties. The Sub-Committee gave particular weight to the evidence provided by the City Inspectors which detailed the applicant’s lack of compliance with the conditions on the existing licence. The fact that, despite a warning having been issued to the applicant regarding breaches of the conditions observed in November 2019, four further breaches were evidenced in January 2020 was of great concern. These breaches took the form of allowing the external tables and chairs to be used by customers after 23:00 for the consumption of hot food and drink, contrary to condition 13.

 

The Sub-Committee took these breaches very seriously and considered that this lack of compliance with the conditions on the current licence provided no confidence that the amended hours requested in respect of the external tables and chairs would be observed. It was also noted that the Premises was located within a CIA, an area where it was considered that any further late night-time activity levels had the potential to accentuate the risk of a variety of harmful outcomes in the vicinity. Therefore, the fact that the Premises had been using the external tables and chairs to later hours than permitted was considered a significant breach of the conditions. The Sub-Committee therefore refused the application accordingly.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee did also want to record its disappointment that the applicant had not acted in accordance with the submissions that it had made to the Licensing Sub-Committee on 30th May 2019, which had led to the current licence being granted until 1 am. The applicant had indicated that it would operate solely as a restaurant. Although the smoking of shisha was not a licensable activity, it could give rise to anti-social behaviour, and the applicant had indicated that the shisha products would be removed if they were granted a licence to provide light night refreshment inside the premises. It was partly for that reason that they had agreed to a condition being imposed to the effect that the tables and chairs would be removed or rendered unusable by 23.00 hours each day. The licensee needed to understand that the relationship between licensees and the licensing authority had to be based on mutual trust and confidence. If further breaches of the licence took place, it was highly likely that prosecution proceedings would be initiated and there was also a strong possibility that the existing licence would be reviewed, possibly resulting in the licence being revoked.           

 

 

Supporting documents: