The Licensing Sub-Committee of Redbridge Council was scheduled to consider an application for a new premises licence for Rio's Piri Piri, located at 171 Ilford Lane, Ilford. The meeting's agenda also included a review of the procedure for licensing hearings.

Procedure for Licensing Hearings

The committee was scheduled to discuss the established procedure for conducting licensing hearings. This procedure outlines the steps to be followed, including the presentation of factual summaries by licensing authority officers, the order in which the applicant, responsible authorities, and interested parties present their cases, and the process for questioning witnesses. The procedure also details how summing up will occur and the subsequent private decision-making process, with official notice of decisions to be communicated within five working days.

Application for a New Premises Licence: Rio's Piri Piri, 171 Ilford Lane, Ilford, IG1 2RT

The primary focus of the meeting was the application for a new premises licence for Rio's Piri Piri, a grilled chicken restaurant located at 171 Ilford Lane, Ilford. The applicant, Nayyer Sheikh on behalf of Sheikh Restaurants Limited, sought to offer late-night refreshment from 11:00 PM to 3:00 AM daily, with the premises open to the public from 12:00 PM to 3:00 AM.

The application was accompanied by a proposed schedule of conditions aimed at promoting the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.

However, the application had attracted significant opposition. Five representations were received from other persons, and four objections were lodged by responsible authorities, including the Metropolitan Police Licensing Team, the Council's Licensing Enforcement Team, and the Community Protection Task Force (Environmental Health and Public Health). These objections were based on concerns that granting the licence would undermine all four licensing objectives.

A key factor in the objections was the premises' location within the Ilford Town Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ). The Council's Statement of Licensing Policy¹ outlines a rebuttable presumption to refuse applications within a CIZ, unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated to show that granting the application would not add to the cumulative impact. The policy notes that areas designated as CIZs often experience issues such as street drinking, public nuisance, prostitution, litter, and crime and disorder due to a concentration of licensed premises.

The report pack included detailed information on the licensing objectives, the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy, and legal and equality implications. It also detailed the application itself, including the proposed hours and activities, and the representations received.

Representations from Responsible Authorities and Other Persons:

• Metropolitan Police Service: PC Dean Birch, Police Licensing Officer, objected on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. Concerns were raised about increased footfall from intoxicated patrons, leading to potential noise, anti-social behaviour, littering, and an increase in crime. The police noted that the premises had previously received a warning notice for operating beyond permitted hours, indicating a lack of faith in the operator's ability to comply with licensing conditions. The objection highlighted the premises' location within the Ilford Town CIZ and stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented to justify departing from the policy of refusal.

• Council's Licensing Enforcement Team: Priya Cheema, Licensing Enforcement Officer, also objected, citing concerns that the extended hours would undermine the licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance. The team noted the premises' location in a mixed retail and residential area and within the CIZ and a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) area. They highlighted ongoing issues with street drinking, begging, prostitution, and littering in the area, particularly after 11:00 PM. The team also pointed out that the Redbridge Planning Department had refused a planning application for extended opening hours to 3:00 AM, and that the applicant had previously applied for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) to operate until 3:00 AM, which was also refused.

• Community Protection Taskforce Team: Ravinder Sappal, Team Leader, objected on similar grounds, emphasizing the potential increase in crime and disorder, public nuisance (including urination and littering), and the negative impact on residents. The team highlighted the ongoing enforcement efforts related to the PSPO and the cumulative impact of late-night premises within the CIZ. They also noted the refusal of the planning application for extended hours.

• Public Health: Sultana Choudhury, Public Health Principal, raised concerns related to public nuisance, public safety, and the protection of children from harm, focusing on the health implications of late-night fast food consumption. The representation detailed high rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease in the Loxford Primary Care Network area, where the premises is located. It was argued that extending fast food availability into the early hours would exacerbate these public health issues, particularly for children and young people, and contradict the council's healthy eating strategies. The representation suggested that the application should be refused for late-night refreshment and that the premises should not operate between 11:00 PM and 3:00 AM.

• Other Persons: Representations were also received from local residents, including Councillor Muhammed Javed, Hameeda Saeed, Linda Speedwell, and Sahdia Warraich. These individuals expressed concerns about increased crime and disorder, public nuisance (noise, littering, anti-social behaviour), public safety (harassment of vulnerable individuals), and the protection of children from harm due to late-night activities and the potential impact on sleep and well-being. Many of these representations specifically referenced the council's Statement of Licensing Policy and the importance of adhering to framework hours.

Supplementary Information from the Applicant:

In response to the objections, the applicant submitted supplementary information proposing revised licensed and opening hours. For Monday to Thursday, the proposed licensed hours were 11:00 PM to 1:30 AM, with the premises open to the public during the same hours. For Friday to Sunday, the proposed licensed hours remained 11:00 PM to 3:00 AM, with the premises open to the public during the same hours.

Additionally, the applicant proposed a comprehensive set of conditions aimed at promoting the licensing objectives and preventing an increase in negative cumulative impact. These included:

• General Conditions: Acknowledging the CIZ and committing to not adding to negative cumulative impact.
• Prevention of Crime & Disorder: Requirements for a robust CCTV system, staff training, an incident log, clear signage, a minimum of three trained staff on duty after 11:00 PM, and specific last order times for dine-in and takeaway services. The applicant also proposed ceasing dine-in service at midnight daily and requested delivery drivers to wait inside.
• Public Safety: A requirement for a Fire Risk Assessment and Emergency Plan, with staff receiving fire safety training.
• Prevention of Public Nuisance: Signage regarding noise and litter, restrictions on deliveries and rubbish removal between 11:00 PM and 5:00 AM, a dedicated phone number for resident concerns, regular shop front tidiness, litter patrols, a dispersal policy, and a limit of three smokers outside the premises at any time.
• Protection of Children from Harm: Signage regarding unaccompanied children and young persons under 18 being prohibited after 11:00 PM, except in emergencies.

The supplementary information also included a dispersal policy detailing how the premises would manage customer departures and prevent loitering.