The Licensing Sub-Committee of Redbridge Council met on Tuesday 18 August 2026 and refused an application for a new premises licence for Fireaway Pizza. The application sought permission to serve late-night refreshment between 11:00 PM and 3:00 AM seven days a week.

Fireaway Pizza Premises Licence Application Refused

The Licensing Sub-Committee refused an application for a new premises licence for Fireaway Pizza, located at 331 Ley Street, Ilford, IG1 4AA. The applicant, Qasim Parvez, director of Fry Away Chicken Ltd, sought permission to operate as a late-night refreshment venue from 11:00 PM to 3:00 AM daily.

The premises, described as a takeaway and delivery service with limited seating, is situated within the Ilford Town Centre cumulative impact zone (CIZ). This zone has a rebuttable presumption against the granting of new premises licences unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

Representations against the application were made by the Metropolitan Police, the Council's Licensing Enforcement Team, and Public Health. The primary concerns raised by the police and licensing enforcement related to the potential for increased crime and disorder, and public nuisance, particularly due to the proposed late operating hours and the premises' location within the CIZ. They argued that the application did not present exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the council's Statement of Licensing Policy.

Public Health also raised concerns, focusing on the health implications of late-night fast food consumption, especially in an area with high levels of deprivation and childhood obesity. They highlighted the risks associated with regular consumption of calorie-dense, nutritionally poor food, particularly during late hours, and its potential contribution to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases.

During the hearing, the applicant presented arguments that other premises in the area operated until similar late hours without issue and that the business would primarily operate as a delivery service to minimise public impact. However, the Sub-Committee noted inconsistencies in the applicant's presentation and a perceived lack of understanding of the licensing objectives and the implications of operating within a CIZ.

Ultimately, the Sub-Committee found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption against granting licences in the CIZ. They also expressed concerns about the applicant's preparedness and understanding of the licensing objectives. Consequently, the application for the new premises licence was refused.