Decision

Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

PREMISES

The Triangle

290 North Street

Romford

RM5 3AB

APPLICANT

Mr Anam Hussain

Details of the application

This application for a premises licence is made by Mr Anam Hussain under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.  The application was received by Havering’s Licensing Authority on 11th April 2026.

Details of the application

The application seeks to permit the provision of the following licensable activities:

Live music

Monday to Sunday – 12:30 to 23:00*

(* live music would not require licensing during these hours due to deregulation)

Recorded music

Sunday to Thursday – 12:30 to 23:00*

Friday & Saturday and throughout December – 12:30 to 00:00

Bank holidays – 12:30 to 01:00

(* recorded music would not require licensing during these hours due to deregulation)

Late night refreshment

Friday & Saturday and throughout December – 23:00 to 00:00

Bank holidays – 23:00 to 01:00

?

Supply of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises

Sunday to Thursday – 12:30 to 23:00

Friday & Saturday and throughout December – 12:30 to 00:00

Bank holidays – 12:30 to 01:00

Hours premises open to the public

Sunday to Thursday – 12:30 to 23:00

Friday & Saturday and throughout December – 12:30 to 00:00

Bank holidays – 12:30 to 01:00

Comments and observations on the application

The applicant complied with the regulatory requirements further to advertising the application.  During the application’s consultation period, and in response to contact from the licensing team, the application was modified to its current version.

Until March 2026 this venue benefitted from a premises licence.  The licensing authority revoked this licence in response to a review application made by the Home Office’s Immigration Enforcement Team.  The premises licence holder of the revoked licence previously confirmed to the licensing authority he remains the premises’ leaseholder and sub-lets the property to tenants.  The previous licence holder also confirmed via email on 15th April 2026, four days after this application’s submission, the following matters:

•           “I have instructed the company currently running the premises to remove all alcohol from the bar and to cease any activities requiring a premises licence. They are currently complying with this request. All alcohol stock has been removed, and no licensable activities are taking place on site.”

Based upon this we might reasonably conclude the former premises licence holder retains a measure of control over the premises’ operation as a restaurant.

During the application’s consultation period the applicant responded to the individuals who submitted representations via the licensing authority.  This contact is provided separately.

Summary

There were thirty-two representations against this application from residents and ward councillors.  There were two representations in support of this application from named individuals who declined to provide their home addresses.  There were no representations against this application from responsible authorities.

Determination of application for a new premises licence

1. The Sub-Committee had considered an application for a premises licence for The Triangle, situated at 290 North Street, Romford, RM5 3AB and representations against the application had been received from thirty-two local residents, including two ward councillors.
2. There were two representations in support of this application from named individuals who declined to provide their home addresses.
3. There were no representations against this application from any responsible authorities.
4. The Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have regard to the Secretary of State’s National Guidance created under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 when determining an application for a new premises licence. Where relevant representations are made, the authority must hold a hearing and then take such steps, as it considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. These steps may include rejecting the application or modifying the conditions to the extent that the authority considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives or granting the application.

Decision: refused

1. Having read all written representations and heard oral representations the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application on the basis that granting the licence will undermine all four licencing objectives. 
2. In arriving at their decision, the Sub-Committee was mindful of the Secretary of States’ guidance which states;

a.         Responsible authorities under the 2003 Act are automatically notified of all new applications. While all responsible authorities may make representations regarding applications for licences, it is the responsibility of each responsible authority to determine when they have appropriate grounds to do so.

b.         Licensing authorities are best placed to determine what actions are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives in their areas. All licensing determinations should be considered on a case-by-case basis. They should take into account any representations or objections that have been received from responsible authorities or other persons, and representations made by the applicant or premises user as the case may be.

c.         The authority’s determination should be evidence-based, justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate to what it is intended to achieve.

d.         The conditions that are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives should emerge initially from the risk assessment carried out by a prospective licence.

e.         The licensing authority may not impose any conditions unless its discretion has been exercised following receipt of relevant representations and it is satisfied as a result of a hearing that it is appropriate to impose conditions to promote one or more of the four licensing objectives

1. Having read and heard all representations, the Sub-Committee found the following;

Residents

a.         The residents’ evidence was clear, consistent with one another and overwhelming which evidenced that the premises, which recently lost its premises licence in March 2026, continues to undermine the licensing objectives.

b.         The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence presented by the residents as detailed in the agenda pack. The written evidence can be summarised as; issues of fighting and disorder involving patrons from the venue, patrons congregating outside the venue and causing disturbance to residents, patrons behaving in an aggressive, abusive and intimidating behaviour, patrons causing anti-social by blocking residential drives, loud amplified music escaping from the premises, children being exposed to aggressive and anti-social behaviour and children suffering significant sleep disturbance caused by noise associated with the venue. The residents also were consistent with one another to say that the restaurant does not operate a restaurant but rather as a destination and function venue. Significantly, the residents also stated that the previous licence holder is still part and parcel of the operation of the premises.

c.         The Sub-Committee further accepted the oral representations of the residents made during the hearing. The residents presented picture and video evidence to demonstrate the issues they have been facing. The video evidence demonstrated patrons fighting under the influence of alcohol, fireworks being let off by patrons, and other footage included noise escaping from the premises which could be heard in a resident’s home to the extent that the noise was vibrating a resident’s living room. The residents explained that when speaking to the management of the premises about these issues, they were met with hostility and no action has ever been taken to address the issues. The residents were visibly upset when describing the issue and spoke about the daily negative impact they had incurred due to the premises, irrespective of who managed the premises and up until to now and toll it has taken on their families.

d.         The Sub-Committee also noted that one of the footages showed the previous licence holder intervening to break up a fight outside the premises involving patrons. The residents stated that they have witness the previous licence holder at the premises and state he is very much still involved in the operation of the premises to date. The residents explained that the issues they present continue even after the revocation of the premises licence.  The committee was conscious the licensing officer’s report also included an email from the previous licence holder dated 15th April 2026 where he said “I have instructed the company currently running the premises to remove all alcohol from the bar and to cease any activities requiring a premises licence. They are currently complying with this request. All alcohol stock has been removed, and no licensable activities are taking place on site.”  This email was sent after this application was made and although this email wasn’t presented as representations by the licensing authority, it did carry some weight that it substantiated the residents’ evidence.

Applicant

e.         The Sub Committee noted that prior to the hearing, the applicant wrote to the residents seeking to address the issues stated by the residents by reducing licensable hours applied for and offering additional conditions to those found the operating schedule.

f.          The Sub Committee noted that during the hearing the applicant did not challenge any of the representations made by the residents and chose not to make representations.

g.         The Sub Committee sought clarification from the applicant by putting questions to him in respect of his application however it became very apparent to the subcommittee that the applicant had no understanding of the licensing regime. The applicant explained that he had been working at the premises as a waiter for over a year, that he has never been a DPS but now is the manager of the premises. The members asked basic questions in respect of licensing and the management of the premises and the applicant could not provide any response. For example, the applicant could not tell the subcommittee what the premises was constructing with the large construction timber placed at the curtilage of the premises, the capacity of the premises, or even what was the set-up of rooms above the premises. Although the applicant stated that he had completed the application and operating schedule himself, the applicant was unable to talk through the application or the rationale behind the conditions offered. When asked about the relationship between the previous licence holder and himself, the applicant stated that he had worked under him previously and since the revocation of the licence, he now is the manager of the premises. When asked who the owner of the premises is, the applicant stated that the owner is a Mr Alam who is away on holiday and the previous licence holder is the leaseholder.

Deliberations

1. The Sub Committee deliberated and found that the resident’s evidence was undisputable which was further evidenced by the applicant not challenging or even providing an explanation in response. Therefore, the Sub Committee found the premises continues to undermine the four licensing objectives and the issue are exacerbated as the premises is a destination venue situated in a heavy residential area.
2. The Sub Committee found that the that it is more likely than not that the previous premise licence holder is still part and parcel of the operation of the premises. The residents were firm that the issues had not ceased following the revocation of the previous licence and the members found a genuine nexus of issues and management at the premises between the previous premises licence holder and the new applicant. It appeared that the previous licence holder is operating at arm’s length.
3. The Sub Committee found the applicant failed to demonstrate any understanding of the licensing regime and any real understanding of his application form and operating schedule. Even if it were the case that the previous licence holder is not involved in operation of the premises, the application would still fail due to the lack of understanding demonstrated by the applicant. As such, the only step to promote the licensing objectives is to refuse the application.
4. The Sub Committee did also consider that no responsible authority made representations against the application but could not depart from the fact that 5 residents positively stated that they had reported the issues to the police, with 3 residents providing CAD numbers, and numerous residents stating police had been called out. Also, residents had stated that that they had made complaints to the licensing authority and licensing noise team and can provide evidence. This again substantiated the residents’ evidence.
5. Finally, the Sub Committee considered the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits but found again the only step to promote the licensing objectives is to refuse the application.

Right of Appeal

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

1. Dismiss the appeal; or
2. Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or
3. Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and
4. Make an order for costs as it sees fit.