The Licensing Sub-Committee of Havering Council met on Friday 05 June 2026 to consider an application for a premises licence for The Triangle, located at 290 North Street, Romford, RM5 3AB. After hearing representations from residents and considering the evidence presented, the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application.

Application for a Premises Licence - The Triangle, 290 North Street, Romford, RM5 3AB

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application for a premises licence for The Triangle, located at 290 North Street, Romford, RM5 3AB. The application was made by Mr Anam Hussain and sought to permit the provision of live music, recorded music, late night refreshment, and the supply of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises. The proposed hours for these activities extended into the late evening, with variations for weekends, December, and bank holidays.

During the consultation period, the application was modified. It was noted that the venue had previously held a premises licence which was revoked in March 2026 following a review by the Home Office's Immigration Enforcement Team. The previous licence holder had indicated that he remained the leaseholder and was sub-letting the property.

The Sub-Committee received thirty-two representations against the application from local residents and two ward councillors, Councillor Christine Vickery and Councillor Kevin Ayres. There were two representations in support from named individuals who did not provide their home addresses. No representations were received from responsible authorities.

The residents' objections detailed a range of concerns, including:

• Prevention of Crime and Disorder: Reports of fighting, disorder, aggressive and abusive behaviour, patrons congregating outside the venue, and concerns about inadequate supervision and dispersal management. Some residents also cited instances of high-value vehicles arriving late at night, engine revving, flares, and fireworks. There were also concerns about drug-related activity and suspected drug exchanges.
• Public Safety: Issues related to patrons congregating outside, blocking residential drives, and concerns about insufficient parking provision, especially during large events such as weddings. Residents highlighted the potential for emergency service access to be compromised.
• Prevention of Public Nuisance: Complaints of loud amplified music escaping the premises, noise breakout due to inadequate sound insulation, and persistent shouting and disorder from customers congregating outside. Vehicle noise, including engine revving, slamming doors, and loud music from parked vehicles, was also cited. Smoke and fumes from the premises' flue were also a concern for some residents.
• Protection of Children from Harm: Residents reported that their children were being exposed to aggressive and anti-social behaviour, loud shouting and disorder late at night, fireworks, and cannabis smoking. Significant sleep disturbance caused by noise associated with the venue was also a major concern, impacting children's wellbeing and ability to concentrate at school.

The residents' oral representations during the hearing included the presentation of picture and video evidence demonstrating issues such as patrons fighting under the influence of alcohol, fireworks being let off, and noise escaping the premises to the extent that it vibrated within residents' homes. Residents also stated that when they raised issues with the management, they were met with hostility and no action was taken.

The applicant, Mr Anam Hussain, was questioned by the Sub-Committee. It became apparent that he had little understanding of the licensing regime, the application, or the operating schedule. He could not provide basic details about the premises, such as its capacity or the construction of elements on site.

The Sub-Committee deliberated and found the residents' evidence to be clear, consistent, and overwhelming. They concluded that the premises continued to undermine the licensing objectives, exacerbated by its location in a heavily residential area and its operation as a destination venue. The Sub-Committee also found it likely that the previous licence holder remained involved in the operation of the premises, operating at arm's length. The applicant's lack of understanding of the licensing regime further contributed to the decision.

Despite noting that no responsible authorities had made representations against the application, the Sub-Committee found that the residents' evidence, including reports of police attendance and complaints to the licensing authority, substantiated their concerns.

Decision: The Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application for a premises licence. They concluded that granting the licence would undermine all four licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee stated that the only step necessary to promote the licensing objectives was to refuse the application.

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