Content

Notification of
decision following a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing to determine a
review application for a premises licence submitted under s51 of
the Licensing Act 2003
 
Premises:
    
Farfresh, 1 Spur Road, Isleworth TW7 5BD (“the
Premises”)
 
Premises
License Holder:  Mr
MJD Alkazzaz
 
Applicant:     Licensing Authority, The
London Borough of Hounslow
 
TAKE NOTICE THAT ON Monday
8th April 2024 following a hearing before the Licensing
and General Purposes Sub-Committee (the “Licensing
Panel” or “Panel”),
 
HOUNSLOW COUNCIL, as the Licensing
Authority for the Premises RESOLVED that:
 
the licence for the Premises is
REVOKED
 
REASONS:
 

1)        
The Licensing Panel convened in person on 8 April 2024 to determine
an application for a review of the premises licence for
Farfresh, 1 Spur Road, Isleworth TW7 5BD
(“the Premises”) made under
section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the
Act”). 
 

2)        
The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant
information including:

·      
Written and oral representations made by all the parties

·      
The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to promote the
Licensing Objectives

·      
The guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003
(“the Statutory Guidance”)

·      
Hounslow Council’s Statement Licensing Policy 2020-2025
(“the Council’s Policy”)

·      
The Human Rights Act 1998
 

3)        
At the hearing, Mr Hennessy was in attendance on
behalf of the Applicant, along with Mr Blackford of the
Environmental Protection Team, and Councillor Bowring. 
 
Determination of whether to proceed with the hearing

 

4)        
Mr Alkazzaz was not in attendance and therefore the
first consideration for the Panel was to decide whether to adjourn
the hearing to provide a further opportunity for Mr Alkazzaz to
attend.  The Panel sought confirmation
from Ms Pankhania, the Licensing Officer presenting the Agenda to
the Panel, that Mr Alkazzaz had been informed of the hearing, to
which she informed the Panel that he had been emailed the review
application on 14 February 2024 and he had been sent a further
email on 28 February 2024.  The
Authority also sent Mr Alkazzaz an invite to the hearing on 19
March 2024 and emailed him again on 27 March 2024 with the further
supporting evidence.  The Licensing
Authority had not received any response from him to its emails,
aside from those emails contained in Appendices C and D dated 3
March 2024 and 26 February 2024, respectively.

 

5)        
The Panel is mindful that human rights law applies
to the conduct of licensing committee hearings, in particular
article 1 regarding the protection of property, and article 6
regarding the right to a fair hearing.   Whilst all but one of the other parties were
in attendance, the Panel would want to give Mr Alkazzaz his right
to a fair hearing, especially where the outcome of the same could
result in action being taken against his premises licence that
could include amendment of the same, suspension or even
revocation.  The Panel strongly
considered adjourning the hearing to provide Mr Alkazzaz with a
further and final opportunity to attend a hearing to determine the
application, but the Panel also considered Mr Alkazzaz’s
emails to the Licensing Authority dated 3 March 2024 and to Mr
Hennessy directly on 26 February 2024, shown at Appendices C and D
of the Agenda respectively, in which Mr Alkazzaz makes various
submissions and concludes his email by saying:
 

“I hope the panel would be
fair and just and review our licence with prudence and without
prejudice . Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any
additional information or clarification.

 

Can you please use the above as my
representation.”
 

6)        
The application was submitted on 13 February 2024
and Mr Hennessy’s email reply to Mr Alkazzaz’s email to
him of the same date stated his email would be forwarded for
consideration by the Licensing Panel. 
The email from Mr Alkazzaz also indicated to the Panel that Mr
Alkazzaz was aware of the application, that he had submitted a
representation and wanted the Panel to consider this application
with prudence and without prejudice. 
Upon considering this, the Panel was of the view that Mr Alkazzaz
was aware of this application, that he had been notified of the
hearing date and that he had sent in an email representation for
the Panel to consider.  Therefore, the
Panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr
Alkazzaz.
 
Consideration of the application

 

7)        
As to the application, shown as Appendix A to the Agenda,
this was submitted by the Licensing Authority for the London
Borough of Hounslow (“theApplicant”), being a
responsible authority under section 13(4) of the Act.  The basis of the application is on the
prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention
of public nuisance, namely that the Premises have failed to adhere
to the terms of the premises licence, including continuing
licensable activities (the playing of music) beyond licensed
hours.

 

8)        
The existing Licence is shown
at Appendix B and allows for the following Licensable
activities:
 
Live music:
Friday & Saturday
23:00 to 00:00
 
Recorded
music:
Monday to Thursday
09:00 to 23:00
Friday & Saturday
09:00 to 00:00
Sunday 10:00 to
22:30
 
Late-night
refreshment:
Friday & Saturday
23:00 to 01:00
 
The opening hours of
the premises
Monday to Thursday
09:00 to 23:00

Friday
& Saturday 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday
10:00 to 22:30
 

9)        
The essence of the review application is that since January 2023,
there have been a number of complaints about the Premises,
regarding the volume of music being played in the Premises causing
a nuisance, and also that the playing of music, be that live or
recorded music, has continued to be played beyond licenced
hours.  The supporting representations
shown in Appendices E and F, along with the supporting evidence in
Appendix G, refer to noise disturbance emanating from the Premises
which was causing a nuisance to nearby residents and that this had
been going on for over a year. 
Representations were also received from two Ward Councillors, and
the Panel notes these are marked up in the Agenda as being from a
responsible authority, which they are not.

 

10)     
At the hearing Mr Hennessy reiterated the issues made in his
statement, namely there has been various noise complaints and
allegations of music continuing to be played beyond licenced hours
at the Premises, some of which had been observed by Authority
Officers  He reiterated that following
his inspection on 18 January 2023, during which they noted other
breaches of the premises licence, a written and verbal warning was
issued to Mr Alkazzaz on 25 January 2023 and Mr Hennessy said that
he asked Mr Alkazzaz to sign his pocket book to
confirm he understood the warning.  A copy of his letter to Mr Alkazzaz
dated 25 January 2023 and the extract from Mr Hennessy’s
pocket book are shown in Appendix G.
 

11)     
During questioning Mr Hennessy confirmed that the breaches referred
to in his letter to Mr Alkazzaz of 25 January
2023 have been all been actioned although whilst he understood the
Premises now had an incident logbook he did not know if this was
actually being used.  With regard to the
noise limiter, he said this had been installed, but he was not sure
the noise breaker had been calibrated and properly set
up.  Mr Blackford explained that someone
would need to set up the noise limiter so that it would cut out at
a certain level, and they would also be involved in this process,
but that they had not been contacted to assist with this process,
or informed that this had been done. 

 

12)     
Mr Hennessy referred to a further visit to the Premises on 20 July
2023 to discuss 3 consecutive weekends of complaints to the
authorities out of hours noise team that allege music was
continuing to be played beyond the permitted hours. This was after
Mr Alkazzaz had been unsuccessful in his licence
variation application, which was heard by a Licensing Panel on 21
June 2023.  A copy of one such
report dated 15 July 2023 is in Appendix G and confirms music was
being played after midnight, when music should have ceased, and was
still playing at 00:52. It is stated a further verbal warning was
given to Mr Alkazzaz on that visit and that Mr Alkazzaz was also
informed that if any further complaints were received and witnessed
the licencing authority would have to apply for a review of his
licence with a view to revoke the same. 
Despite this Mr Hennessy says complaints continued to be
received.  Both he and Mr Blackford
informed the Panel that over the last 6 months Officers from the
Environmental Health out of hours team attended the Premises on 13
occasions, with these being a mix of pre-programmed visits and
responses to noise complaints.  The
Premises were observed to be continuing to play music beyond
licensed hours on 4 of those occasions. 
Appendix G includes reports from some of those visits, including 2
reports dated 10 September 2023 which relate to two separate calls
made by the same complainant that night.

 

13)     
Mr Blackford also reiterated the contents of his statement and
Councillor Bowring expanded on his statement, with residents
telling him they felt like prisoners in their own home, not feeling
able to go out and cars going up and down the road.
 

14)     
Noting the comments made by Mr Alkazzaz in his email
representation, the Panel asked if the complaints made to the
Authority were from one person.  Mr
Hennessy stated he had complaints from more than one person, with
Mr Blackford saying he had at least 10 complainants from residents
in different dwellings.   With
regard to the visits made  to the
Premises, Mr Hennessy stated these included visits where no noise
was audible from outside the Premises and other times no breaches
were observed.  On other occasions,
Officers might have attended after the music had been switched off,
or the noise nuisance may have come from other premises.
 

15)     
In response to Mr Alkazzaz’s complaint that
further guidance could have been provided by the Licensing
Authority Mr Hennessy informed the Panel that they had made
numerous visits to the Premises and sat down with him to explain
what he needed to do, including giving him verbal and written
warnings before making this review application, so they refuted his
complaint.   When Mr Hennessy was
asked if there was anything less than revocation that may satisfy
his concerns, he stated they had sat down with Mr Alkazzaz several
times to explain what he was required to do, and therefore had
tried to deal with this matter informally but the breaches
continued to occur and therefore he was not sure what more they
could do.  Mr Blackford also confirmed
he had attended the Premises, although not as much as Mr
Hennessy.  Some of his visits were part
of a joint visit with the Licensing Enforcement team.

 

16)     
With regard to Mr Alkazzaz’s complaint
about the “unrealistic licencing condition of noise not being
able to be heard outside of my premises”, Mr Hennessy stated
that this might not be a condition that he himself might have
suggested.
 

17)     
Regarding the issue of guidance and assistance from the Authority,
Mr Blackford also stated that there was an occasion when the
Premises had submitted a late temporary event notice
(“TEN”) application, which he objected to and was
therefore refused. However, he said he informed Mr
Alkazzaz that had a TEN been received in time, rather than be a
late TEN, they could have discussed this.
 
Decision
 

18)     
After considering all of the representations before it, the Panel
believes that since January 2023 Mr Alkazzaz has
been informed of, and is therefore aware, of breaches of his
licence, in particular continuing to play of music beyond licensed
hours. The Panel considers that Mr
Alkazzaz has been given verbal and written warnings about
the breaches and that members of the Licensing Enforcement Team and
Environmental Protection Team have visited Mr
Alkazzaz to explain the issues to him.

 

19)     
Insofar as Mr Alkazzaz’s representation
that the complaints against his business are caused by one person,
the Panel has heard evidence that more than one person has
complained to the Licensing Enforcement Team and around 10 people
have complained to the out of hours noise team.  It is noted that Mr Alkazzaz also
complains of feeling harassed by the Authority, but if complaints
are received about a premises, or there have been observed breaches
at a premises, then the Authority is entitled to investigate the
same.  Furthermore, even if, as
alleged, a particular person may have a grudge against the Premises
and/or against Mr Alkazzaz, the best
protection against that is to ensure the Premises are operated in
compliance with its licence and in compliance with the licencing
objectives.
 

20)     
The Panel considered the Statutory Guidance which states:

 

Powers of
a licensing authority on the determination of a review

 

11.16      The 2003 Act provides a
range of powers for the licensing authority which it may exercise
on determining a review where it considers them appropriate for the
promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

11.17      The licensing authority may
decide that the review does not require it to take any further
steps appropriate to promoting the licensing objectives. In
addition, there is nothing to prevent a licensing authority issuing
an informal warning to the licence holder and/or to recommend
improvement within a particular period of time. It is expected that
licensing authorities will regard such informal warnings as an
important mechanism for ensuring that the licensing objectives are
effectively promoted and that warnings should be issued in writing
to the licence holder.

 

11.18      However, where responsible
authorities such as the police or environmental health officers
have already issued warnings requiring improvement – either
orally or in writing – that have failed as part of their own
stepped approach to address concerns, licensing authorities should
not merely repeat that approach and should take this into account
when considering what further action is appropriate. Similarly,
licensing authorities may take into account any civil immigration
penalties which a licence holder has been required to pay for
employing an illegal worker.

 

11.19      Where the licensing
authority considers that action under its statutory powers is
appropriate, it may take any of the following steps:

•
modify the conditions of the premises licence (which includes
adding new conditions or any alteration or omission of an existing
condition), for example, by reducing the hours of opening or by
requiring door supervisors at particular times;

•
exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence, for
example, to exclude the performance of live music or playing of
recorded music (where it is not within the incidental live and
recorded music exemption);

•
remove the designated premises supervisor, for example, because
they consider that the problems are the result of poor
management;

•
suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three
months;

•
revoke the licence.

 

11.20      In deciding which of these
powers to invoke, it is expected that licensing authorities should
so far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of the
concerns that the representations identify. The remedial action
taken should generally be directed at these causes and should
always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response to
address the causes of concern that instigated the
review.

11.21      For example, licensing
authorities should be alive to the possibility that the removal and
replacement of the designated premises supervisor may be sufficient
to remedy a problem where the cause of the identified problem
directly relates to poor management decisions made by that
individual.

 

11.22      Equally, it may emerge that
poor management is a direct reflection of poor company practice or
policy and the mere removal of the designated premises supervisor
may be an inadequate response to the problems presented. Indeed,
where subsequent review hearings are generated, it should be rare
merely to remove a succession of designated premises supervisors as
this would be a clear indication of deeper problems that impact
upon the licensing objectives.

 

11.23      Licensing authorities should
also note that modifications of conditions and exclusions of
licensable activities may be imposed either permanently or for a
temporary period of up to three months. Temporary changes or
suspension of the licence for up to three months could impact on
the business holding the licence financially and would only be
expected to be pursued as an appropriate means of promoting the
licensing objectives or preventing illegal working. So, for
instance, a licence could be suspended for a weekend as a means of
deterring the holder from allowing the problems that gave rise to
the review to happen again. However, it will always be important
that any detrimental financial impact that may result from a
licensing authority’s decision is appropriate and
proportionate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and for
the prevention of illegal working in licensed premises. But where
premises are found to be trading irresponsibly, the licensing
authority should not hesitate, where appropriate to do so, to take
tough action to tackle the problems at the premises and, where
other measures are deemed insufficient, to revoke the
licence.
 

21)     
In this case, the Panel considered that with Mr
Alkazzaz breaching the premises licence, even after there had been
stepped involvement by the Licensing Enforcement Team and
Environmental Protection team, the addition of further conditions
on the licence would not be appropriate.  The Panel also considered that for the same reason
a suspension of the premises licence would not be successful nor
the removal of only the licensing conditions relating to the
playing of live and recorded music only.  Therefore, the Panel has decided to revoke the
premises licence.
 
 
Right to Appeal
 

22)     
Any party aggrieved with the
decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee on one or more grounds
set out in schedule 5
of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the local Magistrate’s
Court within 21 days of notification of this decision.