Content

Notification of
decision following a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing to
determine an application
for a premises licence under section 17 of the
Licensing Act 2003 
 
PREMISES:
95 Chiswick High Road,
Chiswick, W4 2EF(“the Premises”) 
 
APPLICANT:               
Delmon Pizza ltd t/a Domino's
Pizza (company No. 02652768) 
?? 
TAKE NOTICE
THATfollowing a hearing
before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub-Committee (the “Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”),  

 

ON
1 September
2025, the London Borough of Hounslow as the relevant Licensing
Authority
 
RESOLVED that: 
 
The
application for a premises licence for
Domino’s Pizza, 95 Chiswick High Road,
Chiswick, W4 2EFbe REFUSED 
 
 
REASONS: 
 
1)    
The Licensing Panel convenedin person on 1 September 2025 to determine an application
for a premises licence
for the provision of
late night
refreshment at95 Chiswick High
Road, Chiswick, W4 2EF(“the
“Premises”) under the Licensing Act
2003.  The
“Premises”,
which was a Domino’s pizza business,was currently unlicensed and was in an
area of residential and
commercial
properties. 
 
2)    
This was a fresh
re-hearing of the Applicant’s application, which was initially held on 15 July 2025 and had to
be reheard as a member of theSub-Committee at
that previous hearinghad been nominated to sit on the
Licensing Committee, but the appointment had not been confirmed at
the date of the hearing. Therefore, it was decided to rescind
the initial decision
and rehear the Application. While the Sub-Committee would have been
quorate with two members, there was a public interest that
decisions were made by a properly constituted
body. 
 
3)    
The application, which was shown as Appendix A
to the Agenda papers,sought
to licence the Premisesfor
late night refreshment from 23:00 to 01:00 every day, and sought
an extension to the opening hours by
extending the closing time from 23:00
to 01:00 every
day.   
 
4)    
During the consultation process,
23 representations were
received from local
residents, objecting to the
application. The objectors’ representations
explained that the Premises was causing a noise
nuisance as a result
of the delivery
vehicles, late night stock delivery to
the Premises, and the
customers loitering outside the
Premises late into the
evening. In addition, the
representations expressed concern about the behaviour of the
delivery drivers who were alleged to drive the wrong way on a one-way street. The
representations also raised concerns about a public nuisance caused
by customers littering outside the
Premises and the delivery
drivers urinating in the alley behind the
Premises. 
A full copy of the representationswas attached at Appendix B to the
Agenda. 
 
5)    
The Police did
not submit a
representation but Appendix C to the Agendacontained a letter from the Police which
suggested times and conditions which should, in their
view, be incorporated
into the license if granted, which were
agreed by the Applicant. The conditions
relate to
the installation and maintenance of CCTV
cameras and the requirement to report any
serious assault to the Police.It
was not clear whether
the Police saw the representations from the
objectors. In any event,the Police focus on prevention of crime and disorder,
which was one factor the
Sub-Committee must consider when
making a
determination. The
Sub-Committee was also required to
give consideration to
the prevention of a public
nuisance. 
 
6)    
The Applicant failed to attend the hearing,
with one of the objectors in attendance, and
so the
Sub-Committee first considered whether the hearing should be adjourned or whether it
should continue in the absence of the Applicant.  The
Sub-Committee was informed by the Licensing Officer that the
Applicant was given notice of the hearing and was contacted
a number of
times by the Licensing Officer, but there
was no substantial
response and no confirmation of whether they
would attend. Additionally, this was a
re-hearing, the Applicant had been afforded additional time to prepare and appoint a
representative to attend, and this was their
application to pursue.  
 
7)    
The Sub-Committee was
satisfied that that the Applicant had been given notice of the
hearing and reasonable attempts had been made to encourage their
attendance. While there was a public
interest in ensuring parties are present to
make an application, ultimately, it is
the Applicant’s application to pursue.The Sub-Committee decided to
continue.  
 
8)    
The Licensing Sub-Committee
carefully considered all the relevant information
including: 
 
9)    
Written
application and oral
representations made
by all
parties
 

·       
The Licensing
Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to
promotetheLicensing Objectives  
·       
The guidance issued
under section 182 of the Licensing Act
2003 
·       
Hounslow Council’s
licensing policy 
·       
The Human Rights Act
1998 
 
10)The application
stated that the Applicant would respect their
neighbours and keep noise to a minimum.
However, the Sub-Committee heard from the Objector present at
the hearing that this is not the current
practice. The Sub-Committee heard that the
Applicant had not been a good neighbour and
that the noise emanating from the Premises during their current
operating hours caused a nuisance to the local residents, and they were concerned that allowing the Application would
result in the noise nuisance continuing into the night.
They were also concerned that later operating hours
would result in the Applicant’s customers remaining in the area into the
night and delivery drivers
waiting outside the Premises into the night, which
would contribute to the nuisance experienced by the
residents. Further, the
Sub-Committee heard that the delivery drivers would drive the wrong
way on a one-way street to shorten their travel time, but
this was causing a hazard to other users of
the road.  
 
11)The
Objectormade further representations
about the behaviour of the drivers
who were smoking
outside and urinating behind the alley of the
Premises.The Sub-Committee heard about the effect
this was having on the local residents.
They also heard that the
Objector’s concernswere
raised with
a manager at the Premises;
however, the Applicant did not appear to take these concerns seriously, indicating a lack of control over the Premises
and/or their
drivers. 
 
12)The
Licensing Authority’s own Statement of
Licensing Policy also states how it considers the issue of
public nuisance at section 9 of the Policy, stating that: 
 
“9.1Licensed premises have a significant potential to
adversely impact upon
communities through public nuisances that arise from their
operation. This Authority wishes to maintain and protect the amenity of
residents and businesses from the potential consequence of the
operation of a licensed premise whilst balancing this with the
recognition of the valuable cultural, social, and economic importance that such
premises provide. 
 

9.2   It is the
intention of this Authority to interpret ‘public
nuisance’ in its widest sense, taking into account such issues as noise, light, odour, litter and anti-social
behaviour, where these matters impact upon those living, working or
otherwise engaged in normal activity in a particular
area. 

 

9.5   Applicants will be
expected to demonstrate in their operating schedule that suitable
and sufficient measures have been identified and will be
implemented and maintained to prevent public nuisance, relevant to
the individual style and characteristics of their premises and
events. 

 

9.6   When addressing
the issue of the prevention of public nuisance, the applicant must
demonstrate to the licensing authority that those factors, which
impact upon the likelihood of public nuisance, have been
considered.” 

 

13)The Applicant did not respond
to the written representations, nor were they present to respond to the oral
representations or allay the
Sub-Committee’s concerns. 

 

14)Whilst the Police
had proposed conditions, ultimately it was for the Sub-Committee to
decide whether to grant a premises licence
and, if so, with what activities, hours and conditions. Furthermore, the focus of the Police’s representation was on the prevention of
crime and disorder, which is just
one factor the Sub-Committee must
consider, whereas the
representations expressed concern over the
prevention of public nuisance as well as
aspects such as the conduct of the Applicant’s delivery
riders, which included crime and disorder
issues not covered by the Police’s
proposals. 
 

Decision 

 

 
15)The Sub-Committee was concerned
about the conduct of the Applicant
and the assertions of the Objectors that a public nuisance
existed within
the current operating
hours, as well as the extended impact
this would have on the residents
if the Application were
granted. The Applicant was not present to address the
concerns raised by the Objector or to assure
the Sub-Committee that measures would be implemented
to change their current practices and
eliminate the nuisance
experienced by the local residents. 
 
16)Taking all matters into account,the
Sub-Committeehas
therefore decided to REFUSEthe application. 

 

 

Right to Appeal 
 
17)Any party aggrieved with the decision of the
Licensing Sub-Committee on one or more grounds set
out
in Schedule
5 of the Licensing Act
2003 may appeal to the local
Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of
notification of this
decision.