Elite Dinning, 3 Western Gateway, E16 1BD
Applicant / Director
Applicant Legal Representative
Senior Licensing Officer, LBN
Senior Environmental Health Officer, Noise and Nuisance Team, LBN
Planning Enforcement Officer, LBN
Legal Representative, LBN
ExCel London Ltd
Representation against the application
Representation for the application
The Licensing (2003 Act) Sub-Committee was asked to hear and determine an application for a new premises licence for Elite Dining, 3 Western Gateway, E16 1BD and any valid representations that had been made.
A new application was received by the Licensing Authority on 18 July 2011, which was advertised at the premises and in the local newspaper. A copy of the application was attached as Appendix A to the report. The application was for:
Live Music, Recorded Music, Performance of Dance, Provision of facilities for making music, Provision of facilities for dancing
· Sunday to Thursday 10:00 till 23:00 hours and Friday and Saturday 10:00 till 24:00 midnight
Late night refreshment
· 23:00 to 24:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday
There was no alcohol applied for on this application
Opening hours are:
· Sunday to Thursday 10:00 till 23:00 hours and Friday and Saturday 10:00 till 24:00 midnight
Representations were received from:
i) The Council’s Noise and Nuisance team on the licensing objective of Prevention of Public Nuisance attached as Appendix B to the report.
ii) The Police Licensing Unit on the licensing objectives of Prevention of Public Nuisance and Prevention of Crime and Disorder and a copy of their letter is attached as Appendix C to the report.
iii) The Council’s Planning Team on the licensing objective of Prevention of Public Nuisance Appendix D to the report.
iv) ExCel London Ltd on the licensing objectives of Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, Prevention of Public Nuisance and Protection of Children from Harm, attached as Appendix E to the report.
v) Five letters of representation have been received from local residents by the Licensing Team on the licensing objectives of Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety, attached as Appendix F to the report.
vi) Local residents in the form of a 28 signed petition on the licensing objectives of The Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety, attached as Appendix G to the report.
Also the Licensing Team have received six letters of support in favour of the application from local residents and a local business. These letters are attached as Appendix H to the report.
No further representations were received.
This premises does not have the benefit of a Licence. This premises opened last year and was formally known as ExCel Banqueting; the name was changed to Elite Banqueting then to the current name of Elite Dining, although the owners remained the same.
The Noise and Nuisance Team have received a number of complaints regarding loud noise and loud music from August 2010 up to July 2011; a complete log of the calls and nature of the calls are listed in Appendix I.
Due to the amount of calls to the Noise and Nuisance Team, the noise Team alerted the Licensing Enforcement Team where advice was given to Mr Haque regarding Licensable activities. On 27 July 2011, the Licensing Team, accompanied by the Police Licensing Unit, attended the premises to collect CCTV after a large fight took place the previous weekend; the CCTV was supplied immediately by Mr Haque.
There were no questions for Mark Orton, Senior Licensing Officer, LBN. However, Lana Tricker (Applicants’ Legal Representative) asked for it to be noted that the Acoustic Report was not included in the report papers and that this report had already been commented on by Environmental Health.
Neo Georghiou, Planning Enforcement Officer, LBN, presented the representation attached to the report as Appendix D, on behalf of Planning Services on the grounds of the licensing objective of Prevention of Public Nuisance.
There were no questions for Mr Georghiou.
Noise and Nuisance
Muhammad Islam, Senior Environmental Health Officer, LBN, presented the representation attached to the report as Appendix B, on behalf of Noise and Nuisance Services on the grounds of the licensing objective of Prevention of Public Nuisance.
Councillor Baikie asked for clarification of the term “Burn outs” (report page 61). Muhammad Islam stated that the word was taken out of the noise officers’ notes and that he did not know what it meant. Councillor Corbett clarified that the term related to vehicle wheel spins.
Councillor Corbett asked if the list of complaints was in the officer’s view a significant amount of complaints. Mr Islam confirmed that it was a significant amount of complaints.
Councillor Corbett asked what type of area the ExCel will become over the next ten years and whether it will develop in a different way to an area such as Canary Wharf, which has no residential areas but with large bars. Mr Islam confirmed that it is challenging to have residential and retail in the same area but it is possible with careful regulations.
Lana Tricker asked if the “burn-out” incident had been witnessed by the Environmental Health Team. Mr Islam stated that in this instance it had not been witnessed.
Lana Tricker asked what process would be taken for anonymous telephone complaints. Mr Islam responded by stating that the anonymous complaints are logged but they are not followed up with a visit.
Lana Tricker questioned an instance of loud music being noted in person by an Environmental Health officer and whether the officer stayed to note if a statutory noise offence would take place. Mr Islam confirmed that the officer in this instance stayed for a short time but no further noise was reported.
Lana Tricker asked for clarification over the date of an incident on 22 August that was recorded by Environmental Health. Ms Tricker stated that clarification was needed because no function took place at the premises on that date. Mr Islam clarified that there was an error in the representation and the date that the incident did take place was on Saturday, 20 August at 18:20.
ExCel London Ltd
Abu Abdullah, Security Manager, ExCel, presented the representation attached to the report as Appendix E in objection to the application.
Councillor Baikie asked if the incidences described in the representation correlate together and therefore whether they were caused by those connected with the Applicants premises. Mr Abdullah confirmed that there was a correlation between the complaints received and the premises. Mr Abdullah added that due to not having law enforcement powers, ExCel has a policy of advising residents to contact the Council when there are disturbances. Mr Abdullah also stated that high performance vehicles were present at the premises, which caused noise.
Councillor Corbett asked who the landlord is for the buildings in the ExCel complex. Mr Abdullah stated that there are several landlords and each building has a landlord. Councillor Corbett followed up by stating that ExCel must have some responsibility for the buildings. Mr Abdullah advised that where ExCel can influence it will.
Councillor Corbett raised a question over the high powered vehicles on the main road and whether they were connected with the premises. Mr Abdullah stated that the vehicles were connected to the premises.
Lana Tricker enquired what the maximum capacity of the ExCel is. Mr Abdullah stated that the maximum capacity is 70,000 people.
Lana Tricker asked if there is a venue in the ExCel complex where high performance bespoke vehicles can be hired. Mr Abdullah was not able to confirm if there was such a venue. Councillor Murphy stated that it was only circumstantial whether such a place to hire out vehicles is near the premises or not because Mr Abdullah stated that it is guests of the premises in question who were causing the disturbances. Lana Tricker responded by stating that it was logical if a high performance bespoke vehicle venue was on site that there would be vehicle traffic from it.
PC Karl Turton, Pro Active Licensing Unit, Metropolitan Police, presented the representation attached to the report as Appendix C, on behalf of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, on the grounds of Prevention of Crime and Disorder.
PC Turton added to his written representation that it was a difficult balancing act to consider the needs of residents and businesses. PC Turton also added that at a site visit, the Police witnessed a lack of security and notably door staff. PC Turton stated that the extra conditions proposed by the Applicants were reassuring particularly the inclusion of an increased security presence.
PC Turton stated that two options were available in this situation; the first was not granting the license or the second option was the granting of a license but with stringent conditions. In closing, PC Turton explained that the Police are mainly involved in the licensing of premises which are either applying for alcohol licenses or already have one and in other cases the Local Authority generally takes the lead on premises that do not have alcohol licenses.
Lana Tricker asked what the response was of the Applicants after the incident on 26 July and particularly the response to asking for the CCTV footage. PC Turton, responded that the response from the Applicants was very forthcoming and there was positive interaction with the Police. PC Turton added that the video tape showed a minor disturbance outside the premises but no arrests were made. Lana Tricker asked if there were any other assaults in or outside the premises when the Police attended in July. PC Turton stated that he was not aware of any other assaults.
Resident Representation in Objection of the Application
Kieran Mitchell, local resident provided a representation in objection to the application. Mr Mitchell stated that he was opposed on the grounds to Public Nuisance. Mr Mitchell explained that on 20 August, the Environmental Health Team was present at his property and that in this instance noise ended after one minute. Thirty six instances have been logged but Mr Mitchell stated that there have been many more than this number. Mr Mitchell added that live music and notably drum sounds travel through the building causing a disturbance.
Councillor Corbett enquired about the number of commercial tenants in the area and how the noise can be separated. Mr Mitchell responded that the amount of catering trucks to the venue set it apart from other restaurants and commercial tenants.
Councillor Corbett asked when the noise occurs. Mr Mitchell replied that the noise occurred on evenings from Friday to Monday, adding that it was most inconvenient on Sundays and Mondays due to having to go to work the following morning.
Councillor Baikie asked what acoustics in the Victorian property were like in general. Mr Mitchell stated that he uses a high velocity fan to decrease the noise and added that his property is on the third floor. Councillor Baikie asked about the levels of bass in the music played and whether it was particularly heavy bass. Mr Mitchell responded by stating that the music was mixed.
Lana Tricker stated that the Applicant met with Mr Mitchell on 3 September and that Mr Mitchell was satisfied with the noise limiter in place and made a statement to that effect. Mr Mitchell responded by disputing these events.
Lana Tricker asked if Mr Mitchell could view the front door of the Applicants’ premises from inside his property. Mr Mitchell clarified that he could see the decking area and not the front door.
Lana Tricker made reference to the various proposed amendments and conditions to be added to the licence if granted. The amendments are attached as a supplementary document to the report. Lana Tricker referenced the support of residents for the licence and that the Applicants were experienced in the catering industry. Mr Hanan has operated an Indian restaurant since 2007 and Mr Haque since 2000. Both Applicants are directors in the company.
Ms Tricker clarified that the smoking area has been moved and this was in response to residents’ comments. Ms Tricker explained that during events at the premises, people generally start to leave at 9 pm and this is similar when the restaurant is in open. Ms Tricker also stated that rubber stops were now fitted to the furniture to minimise noise.
Regarding the issue of the noise limiter, it was confirmed that this has been set on the premises and Ms Tricker hoped that access would be granted to the residents’ properties to maintain checks on noise. Clarification was given regarding a resident at Flat 9 that has now moved out of the property that is included in the objection petition. Ms Tricker stated that this resident had been satisfied with the measures taken to reduce noise and had sent the Applicants a written thank you for investigating the problem. Ms Tricker also stated that there were other inaccuracies with the petition and letters including duplicate submissions. There are also twenty eight residents included but only nineteen flats represented. Also some of the flats were on the upper floors.
Ms Tricker stated that four residents and two businesses supported the application and that Mr Mitchell was not a fair representative of a cross-section of residents. Ms Tricker stated that many of the individuals that signed the petition may not have understood what they were signing.
Ms Tricker explained whether or not the license is granted the Applicants will still be trading at the premises and the Applicants currently pay £95,000 per annum in business rates.
In regards to the ExCel’s comments around a lack of communication of when events will take place, Ms Tricker asked that ExCel gives the name of a designated contact to communicate with. Ms Tricker also questioned ExCel’s comments relating to ambulances being called and clarified that an ambulance had only been called on one occasion.
In summing-up, Ms Tricker stated that the Applicants were looking for greater flexibility that increased opening hours would bring. Ms Tricker added that of the thirty six complaints received they related to only sixteen occasions. No action had been taken by Environmental Health on these instances and the Applicants had gone beyond what was required by putting up temporary event notices.
Resident Representation in Support of the Application
Tejaswee Premahand, local resident, provided a representation in support of the application. In addition to the representation, Mr Premahand stated that the Applicants’ business had made a great deal of progress in listening to the residents. Mr Premahand explained that he is often at home at the time of the events at the Applicants’ premises and that he could not hear noise from them.
Questions (for the Applicant)
Councillor Corbett asked what the general state of the business is currently like. The Applicants answered that business revolved around weddings. Councillor Corbett asked if the premises were let out to others. Lana Tricker clarified that it was but only to carefully vetted tenants and a dance ‘rave’ type event would not be permitted. Ms Tricker added that the Applicants are nearly always present at events. Councillor Corbett asked for further clarification of the state of the business. The Applicants clarified that it could be better but in general the business was doing well. The Applicants added that local Newham residents are employed and there are currently six or seven full time employees.
Councillor Murphy noted that there has been more than one complaint from residents and asked how the issues would be addressed. Ms Tricker explained that the issues are addressed in the additional proposed conditions.
Councillor Corbett asked for clarification about the usage of drums and asked if they are used. The Applicants explained that especially at Sikh weddings drums are used but the noise can be limited and put through the noise limiter. Councillor Murphy added that limiting this noise could be difficult. Ms Tricker advised as directed by her client that an additional condition would be that drums will not be used outside.
Councillor Baikie sought clarification about how much bass is found in the music played. The Applicants stated that Indian music did not have a large amount of bass. The Applicants added that extra sound insulation had been installed and said that music could not be heard on the third floor. Councillor Baikie asked a follow-up question on whether the sound could be lateral in nature and had this been tested. The Applicants confirmed that the noise had been tested. Muhammad Islam stated that the test undertaken was of a subjective nature.
Kieran Mitchell asked why the noise reports state that the noise was inaudible but there are a number of complaints about noise. Lana Tricker responded by offering a further condition that the front doors of the premises will be closed. Ms Tricker added that a number of the complaints were anonymous in nature.
Muhammad Islam referred to the noise report and highlighted the lobby doors and secondary glazing. Mr Islam asked if secondary glazing and improved lobby doors were going to be installed. Lorna Tricker explained that her client was looking into secondary glazing and had received a quote of £40,000, which was described as a significant sum of money.
Muhammad Islam stated that cleaning should be done the day after the event. Ms Tricker indicated that all cleaning is now done the day after the event.
PC Karl Turton asked why the proposed licensing conditions include reference to a DPS, when no alcohol license was requested. Lana Tricker clarified that the term DPS would be changed to a designated named duty manager that would be accessible from reception. Councillor Corbett added that the telephone details of the duty manager would need to be well circulated including on the outside of the premises. Ms Tricker added that quarterly resident meetings could be established.
With no further questions, Councillor Corbett summed up the proceedings by stating that the Sub-Committee would be likely to grant a license because the premises can operate regardless. However Councillor Corbett emphasised that it was likely that a set of conditions would be attached.
There being no further representations or questions, the Licensing (2003 Act) Sub-Committee resolved to deliberate excluding all parties at 8:44 pm. The Clerk and the Council’s Legal Representative remained in the room. All parties returned at 8:59 for the decision.
The Sub-Committee grants Elite Dining’s application for a premises licence with the following conditions:
1. Licensable activities shall only be provided to those people attending the premises for private pre-booked events, details of which would be kept at reception for inspection by police, authorised council officers, and a designated person within Excel (such person to be notified to the venue by Excel) upon request.
2. CCTV conditions:
(a) The duty manager shall ensure that CCTV cameras and recorders are installed at the premises of a standard acceptable to the police. The system shall be maintained in good working order and fully operational covering both internal and external areas of the premises to which the public have access.
(b) All CCTV cameras on the entrances must capture full frame shots of the heads and shoulders of ALL people entering the premises so that they are capable of identification.
(c) The CCTV camera views are not to be obstructed.
(d) The medium on which CCTV images are recorded shall be of evidential quality, stored securely and shall be retained for a period of 31 days and shall be available for inspection by the police or an authorised officer upon request. At all times when the premises are open for the purposes of licensable activities, a suitably trained member of staff shall be present to assist the Police Officers or an authorised officer in obtaining the CCTV footage.
(e) The CCTV system shall, except for maintenance by a contractor between 07.00 hours and 19.00 hours be operational and operating 24 hours of the day.
(f) If the CCTV system is broken, the premises license holder, duty manager or a member of staff shall contact the Police Licensing Team immediately and the fault shall be rectified as soon as practicable. The premises shall remain closed until such time as it has been fixed. A record of downloads, maintenance or viewing of the CCTV system is to be maintained by the premises licence holder.
(g) The CCTV system installed shall have the facility to transfer CCTV stored to a medium supported by the Police and / or the council such as CD / DVD / USB facility so that the police can make evidential copies of the data when required. The data should be in the native file format to ensure that no image quality is lost when making the copy. If this format is non standard, i.e. manufacturers proprietary, then the manufacturer should supply the replay software to ensure that the video on the CD can be replayed by the Police and the Licensing Authority on a standard computer. Copies MUST be made available to the Police and officers of the council upon request. The facility to transfer the images shall be held on the premises.
(h) Staff working at the premises shall be trained in the use of the CCTV equipment and a log will be kept to verify this.
(i) Signs must be displayed in the customer areas to advise that CCTV is in operation.
3. Substantial food and non-intoxicating beverages, including drinking water, shall be available in all parts of the premises whenever licensable activities are being provided.
4. There shall be no consumption of alcohol outside the premises during private pre-booked events.
5. Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and leave the area quietly.
6. There shall be no amplified music played in the entrance reception area of the premises.
7. Management will use their best endeavours to ensure that patrons smoke in the designated smoking area as shown on the plans of the premises attached at Annex 4.
8. The premises licence holder shall provide to the residents of Warehouse W and maintain, a dedicated telephone number of the duty manager for use by any person who may wish to make a complaint during the operation of the licence.
9. No music, live or otherwise, will be played outside the premises.
10. Music generated on the premises must be relayed through a sound limiting device, which must be linked to a graphic equaliser and set at a level which will not give rise to nuisance to neighbouring residents in agreement with the noise and nuisance team. The limiter unit shall not be overridden or interfered with at any time.
11. There shall be a minimum of 3 SIA security on duty when any private pre-booked events are in operation. The SIA security will remain on duty for a further 15 minutes after the private pre-booked events finish to aid in dispersal of patrons.
12. A Customer Management Plan will be in operation and strictly enforced whenever pre-booked events are taking place and licensable activities are being provided.
13. A personal licence holder will be on duty whenever alcohol is being served at a private pre-booked event.
14. The means of escape provided for the premises shall be maintained unobstructed, free of trip hazards, and immediately available and clearly identified.
15. A minimum of 6 Wardens shall be on duty during all pre-booked events to assists with the entrance and dispersal of patrons, to supervise car parking and to enforce the Customer Management Plan.
The licence as granted will not come into force until further acoustic testing has been undertaken and further noise-reduction measures have been agreed to the satisfaction of the noise and nuisance team.
Councillor Corbett advised all parties of their right to appeal at the Magistrate’s Court within 21 days, and the hearing concluded at 9:02 pm.
- Report (new), item 2. PDF 60 KB
- Appendix A - New Premises Application Form, item 2. PDF 7 MB
- Appendix B - Noise and Nuisance Representation, item 2. PDF 151 KB
- Appendix C - Police Representation, item 2. PDF 93 KB
- Appendix D - Planning Representation, item 2. PDF 68 KB
- Appendix E - Representation from EXCEL London, item 2. PDF 139 KB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 2./7 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 2./8 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 2./9 is restricted
- Appendix I - Log of Complaints, item 2. PDF 76 KB
- Supplementary Information 1, item 2. PDF 140 KB
- Supplementary Information 2, item 2. PDF 1 MB
- Supplementary Information 3, item 2. PDF 57 KB