The Licensing Sub-Committee of The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea met on Tuesday 4 August 2026 to consider three Temporary Event Notices (TENs) submitted by Damoy Robertson for Bars 1, 2, and 3 at Acklam Village, Acklam Road, London, W10 5QZ. The committee decided to issue a Counter Notice for each TEN, meaning the requested licensable activities for the sale of alcohol were not approved.

Temporary Event Notices for Acklam Village Rejected

The Licensing Sub-Committee decided to issue a Counter Notice for each of the three Temporary Event Notices (TENs) submitted by Damoy Robertson for Bars 1, 2, and 3 at Acklam Village, Acklam Road, London, W10 5QZ. These TENs were for the sale of alcohol on and off the premises between 12:00 and 19:00 on Sunday 30 and Monday 31 August 2026, with a proposed maximum capacity of 499 people for each bar.

The committee considered objections from the Police and Environmental Health, who both raised concerns that allowing the events would undermine the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder and ensuring public safety.

Chief Inspector Dominic Nye and PC Mark Perry, representing the Police, highlighted concerns about the increased risk of crime and disorder and public safety issues. They noted that the placement of trading stalls on both sides of Acklam Walk, which had not been the case in the previous year, created a chicane effect and an unacceptable risk. They also pointed out that alcohol sales are a significant driver of crowd surges during Notting Hill Carnival, and the proposed setup could create a vortex. The Police also expressed concern about the lack of capacity calculations and the reliance on visual checks for crowd monitoring.

Kieran McKenna from Environmental Health echoed the Police's concerns, particularly regarding public safety. He noted that the proposed setup differed from the previous year, which had been an improvement and appeared to work well. Mr McKenna highlighted that Acklam Village is a congested area during Carnival, situated between Portobello Road and Blagrove Road. He stated that the Risk Assessment and Event Management Plan did not adequately address key safety risks, including capacity calculations, monitoring and management of capacity, clear emergency evacuation points, alignment with the National Health Carnival Ltd (NHCL) plans, consideration of other events in the area such as Mr Haywood's event, and alignment with plans for Bay 57.

Damoy Robertson, the Premises User, explained that he had taken on board previous advice, reduced the number of stalls, removed the sound system, and ensured no stalls were located along the Portobello Road frontage. He stated that he had worked with all parties in previous years without significant incidents. Mr Robertson detailed his crowd management plans, including the deployment of SIA-accredited staff, physical barriers, and Heras fencing. He also referred to his Crowd Crush Protocol document. However, the committee expressed significant concerns about the lack of clear capacity management, the potential for overcrowding due to the proximity of the three bars and other stalls, and the unclear evacuation routes.

The committee placed significant weight on the objections from the Police and Environmental Health, noting that their Statement of Licensing Policy requires them to consider the importance of evidence provided by these bodies. They were particularly concerned that the three TENs, each with a capacity of 499, could lead to a total of 1,497 people in Mr Robertson's area alone, without clear factoring of individuals visiting the seven food stalls. The committee also noted that access and egress would be allowed from the Swinbrook Estate end of Acklam Walk, adding to potential congestion. The lack of clear plans for emergency access and evacuation, coupled with the stalls being on both sides of Acklam Walk, was seen as a significant risk.

Ultimately, the committee concluded that there were too many unanswered questions and a lack of overall coordination and event planning. They determined that issuing a Counter Notice was appropriate for the promotion of the crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives.

The premises user, Mr Robertson, has the right to appeal this decision to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of notification of the full decision, but no later than five working days before the start of the proposed temporary event.