Agenda item - Jade Chinese Restaurant, 29 Western Road : Application to Vary Existing Premises Licence

Report of the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing (copy attached)

94.1    The Panel considered a report of the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing relating to the application received to vary a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for Jade Restaurant at 29 Western Road, Hove.

94.2    Mr Cowell was in attendance to make representations against the application on behalf of the East Brunswick Residents Association. Mr Bodroghy was present to make representations against the application as a local resident and Councillor Elgood was present to make representations against the application on behalf of both Local Ward Councillors. Mr Wong was in attendance and spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application.

94.3    Mr Savage-Brookes, Licensing Officer detailed the application  stating the application sought  to extend the hours of licensable activities and opening hours from 2.00am to 5.00am every day. He explained that the premises was located within the Special Stress Area(SSA), an area deemed as of special concern in terms of levels of crime, disorder and public nuisance experienced within them. He reported that twenty one representations had been received from local residents, residents associations, both local ward councillors and the Police. It was noted that the Police had no objections to the application provided the premises was to continue to operate primarily as a restaurant  subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to actively promote the four licensing objectives subject to additional new conditions being added to the licence as out in their letter included with the agenda papers. As these had been forwarded to the applicants but no formal response  had been received either agreeing to them or commenting upon them by the deadline date for representations a formal representation had been submitted.

94.4    Mr Savage-Brookes also referred to a late submission received from Mrs Juliet Hunting who had made representations but had been unable to attend due to the timing of the meeting being re-scheduled. The Panel considered that in fairness to all parties it would be inappropriate to consider this late information.

94.5    Mr Savage-Brookes stated that the ground floor of the premises operated as a dedicated restaurant and it was understood that the extension of hours and the supply of alcohol was aimed mainly at the downstairs licensed area which operated principally as a karaoke bar. It was understood that the current hours of operation were at variance with those permitted by the extant planning permission, irrespective of whether or not a variation was granted. However, this matter was captured by separate legislation and would need to be dealt with separately from the licence application.

94.6         Mr Cowell made representations on behalf of the East Brunswick Residents Association stating that their main concerns related not to noise emanating from the premises itself but from noise disturbance very late at night as patrons left the premises and walked through the neighbouring residential streets. There were a number of licensed premises in the area which already gave rise to nuisance and disturbance for residents, any intensification of the current use would be likely to exacerbate these existing problems.

94.7    Mr Bodroghy stated that an increased availability of alcohol in extent or time would encourage drunkenness which would lead to increased anti-social and rowdy behaviour that affects public safety and could also expose vulnerable children to binge drinking.

94.8    The Chairman, Councillor Lepper, asked whether given that Mr Bodroghy lived some distance from the application site, he actually experienced disturbance as a direct result of the operation of this premises. Mr Bodroghy stated that he had not but that his concerns in relation to noise and other nuisance in relation to any premises closing at such a late hour remained.

94.9    Councillor Elgood spoke on behalf of both local ward councillors objecting to the proposal stating that if the premises were to remain open until such a late hour this would result in an unacceptable negative impact in a residential area. If live music was to be performed  it would have an adverse impact on neighbouring homes, especially to the rear which were situated very close to the venue. There were also concerns that if approval was given it would result in a proliferation of similar requests from other premises in the vicinity.

94.10    Mr Wong gave a submission on behalf of the applicant stating that the extension was requested in order to enable customers to use the karaoke facility in the basement after they had had a meal in the restaurant above. In answer to questions by the Chairman Councillor Lepper which sought to establish which elements of the premises the request for a variation related to, Mr Wong confirmed that it was sought for the premises in its entirety. It was also explained that access/egress would be through the restaurant above. The restaurant could cater for up to 70 covers and that 15 customers could use the basement for Karaoke at any one time. The basement area would not be open until 5.00am every evening and this facility would be available for customers to stay on after they had finished a meal. The karaoke facility needed to booked prior to midnight and alcohol would not be available to anyone who had not purchased a meal. Further clarification was sought and it emerged that the facilities available at the premises were licensed until 11.30pm and that the premises were operating in infringement of their existing conditions at present. Also, that what was being requested did not relate to what was envisaged in terms of the manner in which the premises would operate.

94.11    In the light of this information a short adjournment of the meeting took place in order for legal advice to be sought. Following the brief adjournment the Chairman stated that the application would be determined that afternoon and all parties had the opportunity to ask questions prior to closing submissions being made.

94.12  Mr Cowell asked regarding facilities available for smokers and it was explained that they would need to use the pavement outside the premises at Western Road. The doors would be locked at midnight  and customers were let in and out of the premises by a member of staff.

94.13  Councillor Simson asked what time the premises were open until now and it was confirmed that they were open until 200am. The licensing officer stated that this was in contravention of the current licence although it was clear that the applicants had been unaware that was the case.

94.14  Mr Savage-Brookes the Licensing Officer gave closing submissions on behalf of the Licensing Authority stating that as the current licensing conditions, in relation to hours of operation had not been complied with albeit unwittingly granting of a variation would undermine the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder.

94.15  Mr Cowell gave his closing submission stating that the potential nuisance to residents arising from additional noise nuisance as a result of patrons smoking outside the premises or leaving late at night should be borne in mind. Mr Bodroghy made no further comments.

94.16  Councillor Elgood reiterated his earlier comments stressing that he considered that if open until such a late hour this use could be detrimental to local residents in terms of late night noise and other nuisance.

94.17  Mr Wong stated that there was nothing further which the applicant wished to add in support of their application.

94.18  The Chairman stated that having given careful consideration to the application the Panel did not feel they could grant the application for a variation to the existing licence. They had heard from the applicants that they intended to permit karaoke in the basement of the premises without the provision of a late night refreshment licence. The Panel considered that extending the hours of licensable activities to 5.00am could lead to compromising the licensing objectives in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and had therefore decided  to refuse this application.

94.19  RESOLVED – (1) That the application to vary the licence in respect of  Jade Restaurant, 29 Western Road, Hove be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 94.18 above.

            (2) Additionally, the Panel recommended that the applicant sought lrgal advice in relation to conditions on the current licence and premises licence conditions before making any further applications.

            Note : The Legal Adviser to the Panel reminded the applicants of their appeal rights to the Magistrates Court under the Licensing Act and that appeals must be made within 21 days of written notification of the decision given at the hearing.