Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: September 1, 2025

Purpose:

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.