The Licensing Sub-Committee of Merton Council met on Friday 10 July 2026 to consider a new premises licence application for La Tazza Doro, a café and restaurant located at 283 Kingston Road, SW20 8LB. The meeting's agenda also included standard procedural items.

La Tazza Doro Premises Licence Application

The primary item scheduled for discussion was the application for a new premises licence for La Tazza Doro, located at 283 Kingston Road, London SW20 8LB. The applicant sought permission to supply alcohol for consumption both on and off the premises between 10:00 and 22:00, Monday to Sunday. The proposed opening hours for the café and restaurant were 08:00 to 22:30, Monday to Sunday.

The report pack indicated that the applicant had agreed to a condition with the Metropolitan Police concerning the maintenance of an incident log. This log would record various events, including reported crimes, ejections of patrons, complaints received, incidents of disorder, seizures of drugs or offensive weapons, CCTV system faults, and visits by relevant authorities or emergency services.

The application also outlined steps the applicant intended to take to promote the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. These steps could potentially be incorporated as conditions on the licence.

However, the application had attracted representations from members of the public. These included concerns from Daniel Hayden and Durga Gandhi, who reside in the flat directly above the premises. They raised issues regarding potential noise nuisance, citing past problems with previous operators and the building's lack of soundproofing. They also expressed concerns about the cumulative impact of alcohol sales on street drinking, antisocial behaviour, litter, and smoke from customers smoking outside. They specifically requested that the licence be restricted to delivery sales only or that robust conditions be attached to mitigate these risks.

Another representation was received from Jo Rooks, who also voiced concerns about increased evening clientele, noise, disruption, rubbish, and antisocial behaviour, drawing parallels with issues experienced with a nearby public house, The Leather Bottle.

The report pack detailed a comprehensive list of conditions that could be extracted from the applicant's operating schedule. These included requirements for a CCTV system, a refusal book, litter management, prominent signage regarding noise, restrictions on the sale of high-ABV beers, and a Challenge 25 proof of age scheme for alcohol sales. Staff training on responsible alcohol retailing was also highlighted.

The Metropolitan Police proposed a specific condition regarding the security incident log, which the applicant confirmed agreement with. The applicant, represented by Manuel Rocha, also provided a letter to residents who had submitted representations, stating their commitment to operating responsibly and asking to be judged on their own merits rather than on the activities of previous tenants. They highlighted the proposed conditions and argued that an alcohol licence would allow for better control over sales compared to customers bringing their own alcohol.

The Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider the application in line with the Licensing Act 2003, Merton's Licensing Policy, and guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The powers of the sub-committee included granting the licence with conditions, excluding licensable activities, refusing to specify a premises supervisor, or rejecting the application entirely.

The meeting's agenda also included standard procedural items such as the appointment of a Chair, apologies for absence, and declarations of pecuniary interest.