The Licensing Sub-Committee granted a new premises licence to Dessertz Ltd for their premises, Dessertz, at 344C Romford Road, Forest Gate, London E7 8BS. The licence permits the sale of late night refreshments between 11pm and 2am, Monday to Thursday, 11pm to 4am on Friday and Saturday, and 11pm to 3am on Sunday. The Sub-Committee also added a number of conditions to the licence relating to CCTV, courier deliveries, a final entry time for customers and the prominent display of a contact telephone number. The decision was made after the Sub-Committee considered written and oral representations from the applicant, residents, the Council's Licensing Enforcement Team and the Commercial Environmental Health Team.

Granting of a new premises licence to Dessertz

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for a dessert shop in Forest Gate. The shop had been operating without a licence since July 2024, when the current owner, Mr Abdul Rahman, took over the business. The shop sells a variety of desserts, including waffles, crepes and milkshakes, for consumption off the premises. Prior to the meeting the Council's Licensing Enforcement team had issued Mr Rahman with a warning letter after discovering the business was operating without a licence. Mr Rahman had also applied for and been granted a number of Temporary Events Notices to cover the period before the application was considered by the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee heard representations from the Council's Licensing Officer, Mr Colin Hunt, who said that he had received a number of complaints from residents about noise and anti-social behaviour associated with the shop. He was concerned that granting a licence to the shop would lead to an increase in crime and disorder in the area. In their written representation, the Licensing Enforcement Team argued that the shop is located within the Green Street West Cumulative Impact Zone, which is an area where the Council seeks to limit the number of licensed premises because of concerns about the cumulative impact of licensed premises on the licensing objectives. In particular, the Licensing Enforcement Team said that selling late night and early into the morning at times other businesses are closed is also likely to attract anti-social behaviour and lead to an increase in littering, noise and noise issues for local residents. The Council's Statement of Licensing Policy says that the presumption is that applications for new premises licences or club premises certificates will normally be refused in these areas.

Mr Ian McConnell, a Public Protection Officer from the Commercial Environmental Health Team, also made a representation to the Sub-Committee. He said that his team had received two complaints about noise from the premises. One of the complainants, a Mr Patel, said that he had been unable to sleep because of the noise coming from the shop, and that this had been happening for more than three years. In his written representation, Mr McConnell said he was concerned that the operation of this premises has resulted in complaints from local residents even before an application has been made and that he was concerned that, should a licence be granted, they will continue to cause a nuisance to local residents. Mr McConnell's team had also made a referral to the Council's food safety team to investigate allegations that staff were sleeping on the premises. These allegations proved to be unfounded, but the food safety team did advise that cleaning standards in the shop needed to improve. Mr McConnell said that the applicant's operating schedule did not address the residents' concerns about litter and delivery drivers.

Mr Rahman presented his case to the Sub-Committee, and said that he had taken steps to address the residents' concerns, including installing a commercial waste bin outside the shop and asking delivery drivers to park their vehicles at the nearby petrol station. He also said that he had met with residents to discuss their concerns and had agreed to dim the lights in the shop and lower the shutters after 11pm. He provided a copy of a text message from a resident that appeared to confirm this. He argued that his business provides a valuable service to the local community and that granting him a licence would not have a negative impact on the licensing objectives.

Mr Rahman was accompanied at the meeting by Mr Adnan Ahmed, his brother, and Mr Sayeed Ahmed, who was there to provide moral support.

The Sub-Committee decided to grant the application, but with reduced hours and a number of additional conditions, including a requirement to install and maintain CCTV, a requirement that couriers should wait outside the premises until their order is ready and that the final order of the day be taken no later than 15 minutes before closing.

Noise and anti-social behaviour

The Sub-Committee heard a great deal of evidence about noise and anti-social behaviour in the area around the shop. The majority of this came from residents, who were concerned about the impact of the shop's late opening hours on their quality of life. Residents had complained about noise from delivery drivers, customers hanging around outside the shop, cars blocking the road and littering. They also made allegations about drug use, including cannabis and laughing gas,¹ taking place outside the shop. Mr Hunt, the Licensing Officer, said that the residents' observations would be slightly heightened, but that they are always there and they're going to see a lot more than he had during his visit to the shop. However, he added that residents in Newham are not great for reporting every issue.

Mr Rahman argued that much of the anti-social behaviour complained about by residents was nothing to do with his business. He said that there is a vape shop next door to his premises which is always busy and attracts a lot of boys and groups who come there for their own enjoyment and refreshment. He said that residents may be confusing this with his shop because his lights are on.

The Sub-Committee concluded that there was a risk that granting the application would lead to an increase in noise and anti-social behaviour in the area, but that this could be mitigated by imposing conditions on the licence.

Waste

Residents complained that customers of the shop were littering and that the dessert shop as well as the many shops nearby dump their rubbish on the road.

Mr Rahman argued that he had addressed the problem of waste by installing a commercial waste bin. He said that even sometimes we see that the people, the residential areas, they put their bin in front of our shop. He claimed not to know why they do this, but that he has asked them to stop.

The Sub-Committee did not appear to be overly concerned about the issue of waste, and made no specific recommendations on it.

Parking

Residents complained about cars blocking the road and taking residential parking spaces. They said that some customers drive down the road the wrong way to access the shop, and park inconsiderately.

Mr Rahman admitted that delivery drivers can't park on the main road and that they sometimes park on Westbury Road, but he said that he has told our drivers to pick up the Uber drivers and Just Eat to park the... scooters away from there and that now a lot of motorbikes park on the petrol pump because on the Uber we just mentioned a note... that park your bike whatever you are doing on the petrol pump. He said that he tells delivery drivers not to park outside his shop, but that some of the drivers are permanent... like we collect our shop orders so they are like a friend and that he has told them to look after residents.

The Sub-Committee made no specific recommendations on the issue of parking.

Delivery drivers

There was much discussion about delivery drivers during the meeting, and a great deal of confusion about the numbers and types of delivery driver that serve the business. Mr Rahman initially claimed that the shop makes 80 sales a day to walk-in customers, but later admitted that 90% of his business comes from online orders via Uber Eats and Just Eat. He produced evidence to show that he had taken £1,400 in sales via Uber Eats over the course of a month, and £69 via Just Eat over the course of a week.

When questioned by the Sub-Committee about the numbers of delivery drivers serving his business, Mr Rahman said that after 20 minutes one driver's coming, picking up the order. It's not randomly... We have no such busy time. He later contradicted this, claiming that on Fridays and Saturdays the shop can be very busy and that a lot of drivers use bicycles because nowadays in delivery they don't make much. He claimed that from 100 you can say 50 or 60 came on bicycle, but that some drivers use electric bikes and scooters.

The Sub-Committee seemed unconvinced by Mr Rahman's evidence, and concluded that there was a risk that delivery drivers would cause noise and nuisance to residents, particularly late at night. The Committee imposed a condition on the licence requiring drivers to wait outside the shop until their order is ready to collect, and asked the applicant to stress to his drivers that they should park in the petrol station forecourt and not on Westbury Road.

Internal layout of the shop

Mr Rahman had provided a floor plan of the shop as part of his application, but the Sub-Committee asked a number of questions about the layout of the shop. They were particularly interested in the location of the toilet. The floor plan showed a toilet at the rear of the shop, but the licensing officer and the environmental health officer had both visited the shop and had not seen a toilet. Mr Rahman explained that the toilet has two doors, one leading from the shop and one leading from the rear yard which is shared with the adjacent petrol station. He said that the door from the shop is locked and that the toilet is accessed via the rear door. The Sub-Committee accepted this explanation. They were also concerned about a white speck visible in a photograph of the shop, but this turned out to be the handle of the toilet door.