The meeting was scheduled to consider three licensing applications, for the Great Nepalese Tandoori Restaurant, SMSH Burgers, and Taco Bell. All three applications were opposed by local people.

Great Nepalese Tandoori Restaurant, 48 Eversholt Street, London NW1 1DA

The restaurant's owners requested permission to vary its license to allow use of their rear garden by customers.

Four representations were received in opposition to the application. ¹ The application was opposed by Camden Council’s Environmental Health team, who stated they had received complaints from residents about noise from the garden. They highlighted that there was video evidence of up to 23 customers in the garden at once, and that the rear area is extremely quiet so that customer noise would be more likely to be noticed. Three residents, living in the Edith Neville Cottages that back onto the garden, also opposed the application. ² They provided video and photographic evidence that the restaurant had already been using the garden despite not having a license to do so, which had caused a huge amount of difficulty, including one occasion when noise from around 30 customers in the garden had caused one resident to have a mental health crisis, and forced her and her infant grandson to leave their home until the noise had subsided.

The application was supported by the Metropolitan Police, who did not submit a representation after the applicant agreed to a condition that the garden can only be used up to 10pm every day.

The applicant, Mr Gopal Prasad Manandhar, agreed to a number of conditions on how the garden will be managed to prevent noise nuisance, including that staff will regularly supervise the garden, that no amplified music will be played in the garden, and that alcohol may only be consumed by customers sat at tables. They stated that they had not received any noise complaints from neighbours in the 43 years that the restaurant has been open.

SMSH Burgers, 126 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0LA

The owners requested permission for a new license to allow late night refreshment until 1am, Monday to Saturday. The application also included a request for the premises to open until 5am on New Year's Day, but the applicant later agreed to drop this request. ³

Four representations were received, all of them opposing the application. ⁴ The application was opposed by the Covent Garden Community Association, a residents association. The CGCA stated that the restaurant is in the Seven Dials Cumulative Impact Zone, and that the application should therefore be refused unless the applicant can show that it will not add to the problems in the area. ⁵ They noted that the premises does not have planning permission to operate as a hot food takeaway, meaning that its likely impact, particularly on noise and the operation of extraction equipment, has not yet been considered. They stated that the applicant’s proposed conditions to mitigate noise would not be sufficient to protect residents from noise nuisance from customers queuing outside the premises or congregating outside to eat their food, and that the application should therefore be refused.

The CGCA proposed a number of additional conditions, should the panel be minded to grant the application. These included requirements that the restaurant should not emit any smells or fumes that cause a nuisance to neighbours; should ensure that the extraction and odour abatement equipment is operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and the requirements of the relevant legislation; should ensure that any queues are orderly and supervised; and that a Security Industry Authority registered door supervisor is employed from 11pm to monitor customers and ensure that they do not obstruct the highway or consume food in Denmark Street.

Taco Bell, 75 Southampton Row, London WC1B 4ET

The owners requested permission for a new license to allow late night refreshment until 1am, Sunday to Wednesday, and until 4am, Thursday to Saturday. ⁶

Two representations were received, both of them opposing the application. The application was opposed by Camden Council’s Environmental Health team, who stated that the later opening hours would be likely to lead to public nuisance, as 95% of the premises on the street are residential. They noted that there had been a number of complaints about noise and smells from the premises, particularly from a commercial fan and from customers congregating outside. They requested conditions to limit public nuisance, including that deliveries by non-electric vehicles should be prohibited after 11pm; that all couriers not engaged in a delivery should wait inside the premises; that vehicles should be parked legally; that street furniture should be moved inside by 10pm; that no street promoters should be employed; that customer access should cease at midnight; that commercial deliveries should only take place between 7am and 8pm; and that all refuse and deliveries should be managed in a way that does not cause a nuisance. They also requested that the panel clarify how the applicant would ensure that couriers would not park illegally and would manage delivery vehicles in a way that does not cause a nuisance.

Mr Michael Eden, a local resident, also opposed the application on the grounds that it would be likely to lead to crime, disorder and public nuisance. He noted that there are no other businesses on the street that open beyond 1am and argued that allowing the premises to open later would cause disturbance to residents living in the flats above the restaurant. He referred to previous problems from another restaurant on the street which illegally broke their license by staying open beyond 1am, which he said had led to issues with crime, disorder and public safety.

The applicant agreed with the Metropolitan Police that customer access to the restaurant would cease at 1am, with sales after 1am being restricted to delivery only. They provided a number of assurances about how the premises would be managed, including that they would use electric mopeds for deliveries wherever possible; would only deliver to a verified address; would provide an internal waiting area for couriers, with access to toilet facilities; would require delivery drivers to undertake training on mitigating the risk of nuisance; and would employ an SIA registered door supervisor if a risk assessment deemed it necessary.