Decision Maker: Licensing Panel

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: October 1, 2024

Purpose:

Content: Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to determine an application for a premises licence under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003   PREMISES:            Eat Lebo, 10A The Broadway, Gunnersbury Lane, Acton Town,  London W3 8HR   APPLICANT:          Eat Lebo Acton Ltd   TAKE NOTICE THAT ON 01 October 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 application for the grant of the Premises Licence for Eat Lebo, 10A The Broadway, Gunnersbury Lane, Acton Town, London W3 8HR was GRANTED, subject to the conditions and modifications stated below.   REASONS:   1.             The Panel convened to determine an application for a Premises Licence for Eat Lebo, 10A The Broadway, Gunnersbury Lane, Acton Town, London W3 8HR(“the Premises”) under the Licensing Act 2003.   2.             The application sought the following hours for licensable activities:   ·       Sale of alcohol: Sunday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:30 Friday and Saturday 10:00 to 00:30   ·       Recorded music (indoors) Sunday to Thursday 10:00 to 00:00 Friday and Saturday 10:00 to 01:00   ·       Late-night refreshment (indoors & outdoors): Sunday to Thursday 23:00 to 00:00 Friday and Saturday 23:00 to 01:00   ·       Hours premises are open to the public: Sunday to Thursday 10:00 to 00:00 Friday and Saturday 10:00 to 01:00   3.             The application included proposed conditions on the licence, which are set out in Section M of the application shown at Appendix A.   4.             The Premises were not currently licensed, and it are situated in an area of mixed commercial and residential properties.   5.             The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:   ·       Written 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 ·       Hounslow Council’s licensing policy ·       The Human Rights Act 1998   6.             As part of the consultation process the Authority received two representations against the application.  The representations raised concerns over possible increase in crime and disorder and public nuisance. Copies of the representations are attached as Appendix B.    7.             There was no representation from the Licensing Enforcement Team.   8.             The Police did not make representations but had been in contact with the Applicant and agreed conditions with the Applicant prior to the Panel hearing.  A copy of the agreed conditions and correspondence with the Police are attached as Appendix C.    9.             During the Licensing Panel hearing the facts giving rise to the application for the grant of a Premises Licence were set out by the Licensing Officer and were agreed by the Applicant.   10.          The Applicant attended and the Chair allowed a total of five minutes speaking time to the Applicant.  There were two objectors in attendance who were also given five minutes each of speaking time.   Submissions by the Applicant:   11.          The Applicant explained that he was the co-owner of Eat Lebo Action Limited and that the company had opened one premises in Ruislip which had been running successfully.  The company was now hoping to expand by opening the premises in question.  The premises would specialise in selling Lebanese street food which customers could buy to eat with a glass of wine/or beer.   12.          The Applicant explained that the premises would not do any events or parties (ie birthday or wedding parties). They would not have late night music and would only have recorded traditional Lebanese music playing indoors only.    13.          In terms of seating arrangement, the Applicant explained that they would have limited seating inside and would have additional seating out in the courtyard in front of the premises.    14.          The Applicant told the Panel that his company had decided to reduce their timing because they would like to work with the local community, ensuring they are happy.  The Applicant confirmed the reduced hours which he was requesting the Panel to consider were as follows:   ·       Sale of alcohol: Sunday to Thursday 12:00 to 22:30pm only with food Friday and Saturday 12:00 to 23:00   ·       Recorded music (indoors) Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00 Friday to Saturday 10:00 to 23:30 Sunday 10:00 to 23:00   ·       Hours premises are open to the public: Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00 Friday to Saturday 10:00 to 23:30 Sunday 10:00 to 23:00   15.          The Applicant asked the Panel to cancel his application for late night refreshment as it was no longer needed considering the reduced hours.    16.          The Applicant assured the Panel that the premises would train staff at the start of their employment and that refresher training would be provided for all staff every six months which would include alcohol, health and safety, ID, hygiene etc. He also assured the Panel that the premises would put up signage about noise and provide contact details for residents in the neighbourhood to contact if they had any concerns about the premises.  The premises would have CCTV outside and inside which would operate 24/7 and that they would maintain a logbook for incidents/reports.   17.          The Applicant explained that his company is trying to grow as a business. Staff would be trained and would be taught about everything necessary.   18.          During question time, the Applicant explained the outdoor area of the premises, namely that the outdoor space had barriers to mark the extent, and the public could easily identify it.  In terms of the floorplan/layout, the Applicant explained that the fridge behind the counter would have beers and alcohol which would not be on display and that the counter would have food only.   19.          In response to questions by the Panel members, the Applicant explained that the outdoor area had seating capacity of 24 with 16 seats inside.  He also confirmed that they would sell cocktails which would be prepared at the marked area on the map attached with the application.   20.          In terms of soundproofing, the Applicant confirmed that the premises was under construction, and it would be soundproofed.  Furthermore, they would have a sound limiter on the music and that work to the ceiling had been done to reduce/minimise noise from the music.  The Applicant assured the Panel that their noise limiter would be in place so music could not go above the limit.   21.          In terms of deliveries, the Applicant told the Panel that some deliveries would arrive early in the morning, but the majority of delivery suppliers would come during opening hours and that some of the deliveries would be at the back of the premises and some to the front.   22.          The Applicant explained to the Panel that waste disposal arrangements were in place and that the bins were at the back of the premises.  Waste would be collected from the back but he did not know when the collection would be – they were still liaising with companies for quotes.   23.          In response to questions by the objector, the Applicant assured them that there would be no big events and that they would not apply for special permits ie Temporary Event Notices.  He also assured the objector that everything would finish by 23:00 and then after that it would be just clearing up.   24.          With regards to the objector’s question regarding takeaway orders, the Applicant confirmed that they would use delivery companies like Deliveroo, Just Eat, Uber Eat etc and that he could not say how many orders they would have each day but based on their experience of their premises in Ruislip, it will probably be 2-3 deliveries at a time (roughly about 65%). In the Applicant’s view the takeaway order collections by the delivery man would be quick as they would come by motorbike and just quickly pick up and go.   25.          In terms of the dimensions and how far the outdoor eating would be, the Applicant confirmed that it would 760cm in length and would include the planters and the width was 682.5cm. The Applicant assured the Panel there would be plenty of space for the pedestrians to walk on the pavement.   Objector’s submissions:   26.          The first objector explained that she was concerned with the application as she lives near the premises.  She was particularly worried about noise and the late hours but acknowledged that the Applicant had confirmed during the Panel hearing that he was reducing the hours which she welcomed positively.  However, she invited the Panel to consider reducing the hours further, namely until 23:00 so that this premises also had the same hours as other restaurants nearby/on the parade.  She also explained that having 24 people sitting outside the premises eating and drinking would cause noise/disturbance.    27.          The second objector was a Councillor, who once again expressed concerns about potential noise the premises would cause. Some residential properties windows faced the premises. There was a Persian restaurant with shorter hours which was appropriate for residential area. Her worry was that it would attract late night crowding. This business was different as it was heavily takeaway and would impact more areas. Furthermore, motorcycle delivery could be very noisy, there was risk of congregation of delivery riders and that having noise signage outside would not be enough to control noise levels.   Summing up:   28.          The Applicant did not add anything in summing up. Both objectors however expressed concerns about the amount of takeaways and the reduced hours proposed by the Applicant which they thought should be reduced further to mirror other premises in the area.   Statutory Guidance:   29.          The Panel considered the Statutory Guidance which states:   “2.1          Licensing authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder. They should also seek to involve the local Community Safety Partnership (CSP).”   30.          Furthermore, the Statutory Guidance states the following:   “Public Nuisance 2.15      The 2003 Act enables licensing authorities and responsible authorities, through representations, to consider what constitutes public nuisance and what is appropriate to prevent it in terms of conditions attached to specific premises licences and club premises certificates. It is therefore important that in considering the promotion of this licensing objective, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on the effect of the licensable activities at the specific premises on persons living and working (including those carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable. The issues will mainly concern noise nuisance, light pollution, noxious smells and litter. ……..   2.16      Public nuisance is given a statutory meaning in many pieces of legislation. It is however not narrowly defined in the 2003 Act and retains its broad common law meaning. It may include in appropriate circumstances the reduction of the living and working amenity and environment of other persons living and working in the area of the licensed premises. Public nuisance may also arise as a result of the adverse effects of artificial light, dust, odour and insects or where its effect is prejudicial to health. …….   2.19      Where applications have given rise to representations, any appropriate conditions should normally focus on the most sensitive periods. For example, the most sensitive period for people being disturbed by unreasonably loud music is at night and into the early morning when residents in adjacent properties may be attempting to go to sleep or are sleeping. This is why there is still a need for a licence for performances of live music between 11 pm and 8 am. In certain circumstances, conditions relating to noise emanating from the premises may also be appropriate to address any disturbance anticipated as customers enter and leave.” ……             2.21      Beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises, these are matters for the personal responsibility of individuals under the law. An individual who engages in anti-social behaviour is accountable in their own right. However, it would be perfectly reasonable for a licensing authority to impose a condition, following relevant representations, that requires the licence holder or club to place signs at the exits from the building encouraging patrons to be quiet until they leave the area, or that, if they wish to smoke, to do so at designated places on the premises instead of outside, and to respect the rights of people living nearby to a peaceful night.   The Council’s Licensing Policy 2020-2025:   31.          The Council’s Statement Licensing Policy 2020-2025 (“the Policy”) states the following:   “54. Each of the four licensing objectives are of equal importance and therefore each needs to be considered with equal weight.   55. The Council expects applicants to risk assess their proposals and put forward measures aimed at promoting the licensing objectives.   LP2 The Four Licensing Objectives   1.    Prevention of Crime and Disorder Whether the proposal includes satisfactory measures to mitigate any risk of the proposed operation making an unacceptable contribution to levels of crime and disorder in the locality. 2.    Public Safety Whether the necessary and satisfactory risk assessments have been undertaken, the management procedures put in place and the relevant certification produced to demonstrate that the public will be kept safe both within and in close proximity to the premises.   3.    Prevention of Public Nuisance Whether the applicant has addressed the potential for nuisance arising from the characteristics and style of the proposed activity and identified the appropriate steps to reduce the risk of public nuisance occurring.   4.    Protection of Children form Harm Whether the applicant has identified and addressed any risks with the aim of protecting children from harm when on the premises or in close proximity to the premises.”   Decision:   32.          Having taken all the representations into account, the conditions recommended by the Police, the statutory provisions and the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Licensing Policy, by majority the Panel were satisfied that the Applicant would comply with the licensing objectives.   33.          Therefore, the Licensing Panel unanimously decided to GRANT the application, in respect of the following:   ·       Sale of alcohol: Sunday to Thursday 12:00 to 22:30pm only with food Friday and Saturday 12:00 to 23:00   ·       Recorded music (indoors) Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00 Friday to Saturday 10:00 to 23:30 Sunday 10:00 to 23:00   ·       Hours premises are open to the public: Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00 Friday to Saturday 10:00 to 23:30 Sunday 10:00 to 23:00   34.          For the avoidance of doubt, the application for Late Night Refreshment was not relevant for the Panel to consider because during the Panel hearing the Applicant confirmed that he was withdrawing it as it was no longer required given the hours the premises would operate.   35.          In terms of conditions, the Panel considered all the conditions as proposed by the Applicant in section M of their application and agreed that these should be included in the Premises Licence.  In addition, the Panel decided that all relevant model conditions, where appropriate, should apply in addition to the conditions proposed by the Applicant.    36.          The Panel noted that the objectors’ main concern when summing up was about the amount of takeaway and trading hours.  However, the Panel took the view that the Applicant was willing to work with the needs of the local community and so had decided to reduce the hours applied for significantly.  The Panel took this positively which would hopefully work better.    37.          The Panel did not think it was justifiable nor reasonable to reduce the hours for these premises still further to be the same as other premises in the area.  The Panel would like to make it clear that each application must be considered based on its own merits and not based on what other premises in the area have for licensable activities.     38.          Furthermore, the Panel decided that it should not refuse the application solely based on fears of what might happen.  It was noted by the Panel that as it stood there was nothing directly linked to the premises in question to support claims that any existing problems in the area would get worse if the premises were granted a licence for the sale of alcohol.   39.          The Panel took on board the Applicant’s response and that the conditions as proposed by the Police were to be attached to the licence to meet the licensing objectives and were enforceable.    40.          The Panel noted that ultimately it was for a licence holder to ensure they are operating in compliance with their licence and to propose measures to promote the licensing objectives and tackle any issues.   41.          The Panel would like to remind all parties that a breach of the licence including the conditions set out above could result in a review of the conditions and even a revocation of the Premises Licence.   Right to Appeal:   42.          Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Licensing Panel 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.