The Licensing (2003 Act) Sub-Committee of Newham Council met on Tuesday 10 February 2026 to consider a new premises licence application for Greengate Kebabish. The committee granted the application with amended conditions.

New Premises Licence Application for Greengate Kebabish

The Sub-Committee considered a new premises licence application for Greengate Kebabish, located at 545 Barking Road, E13 9EZ, which sought to provide late-night refreshment from 11:00 to 05:00, seven days a week. The application was heard by Councillor Tonii Wilson (Chair of Licensing Committee), Councillor Jane Lofthouse, and Councillor Shaban Mohammed.

The application received six written representations from local residents and businesses, with two businesses and two residents attending to amplify their objections. The grounds for objection were primarily related to the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. Concerns were raised about increased footfall, potential for anti-social behaviour, and the impact on existing businesses. One objector, Tahir Munir of Papa's Chicken at 554 Barking Road, expressed concern that the extended hours would negatively affect his business and the local area, stating there were already sufficient late-night establishments. Another objector, Robin Singh, also cited concerns about unnecessary footfall, anti-social behaviour, and the potential severe impact on his own business.

The applicant, Zaheer Nayyer, director of Greengate Kebabish Limited, responded to these concerns. He highlighted that his business is an independent, family-run Pakistani restaurant offering a different cuisine (South Asian curries, biryani, tandoori items) compared to fast-food outlets like Papa's Chicken. He argued that this difference would attract a distinct customer base and would not contribute to the same type of late-night crowd. Mr. Nayyer also provided assurances regarding waste management, stating the business has a contract with Newham Council for waste disposal and maintains cleanliness. He emphasised that the premises had no history of noise complaints or criminal incidents.

To address the concerns and promote the licensing objectives, the applicant proposed several conditions, which were further amended and agreed upon by the Sub-Committee. These included:

• Dine-in and takeaway services from 11:00 to 02:00, with takeaway only from 02:00 to 05:00.
• Contracting with delivery services such as Uber, Deliveroo, and Just Eat, with strict rules against engine idling, honking, or waiting outside the premises to minimise disturbance.
• Implementation of a Challenge 25 policy from 23:00 hours, requiring staff to ask for proof of age from customers who appear under 25. Accepted forms of ID included Pass hologram cards, UK Photo Driving Licences, Passports, Military ID.
• A prohibition on alcohol consumption on the premises.
• Mandatory refresher licensing training for staff every 12 months.

The Sub-Committee noted that the premises is located within a Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ)^¹. Under the CIZ policy, there is a rebuttable presumption to refuse applications if representations are received, unless the applicant can demonstrate that granting the licence will not exacerbate existing problems. The Sub-Committee concluded that the conditions offered by the applicant, along with those imposed by the committee, were sufficiently robust to uphold the licensing objectives. They were satisfied that the applicant's response to the representations allayed fears regarding the undermining of these objectives.

Concerns about cooking smells were raised by one objector, but the panel noted the lack of evidence and the applicant's statement that new extractor equipment had been fitted in September 2025. The panel also considered the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (respect for private and family life), and Article 1 of the First Protocol (peaceful enjoyment of possessions).

Ultimately, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that granting the application with the amended conditions would not undermine the licensing objectives of prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, protection of children from harm, and public safety. The decision was made on the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence presented, and without making assumptions about potential future impacts.