Transcript

The live stream is on. Okay, in that case, let's begin. Welcome to Okay, welcome to tonight's licensing subcommittee meeting. My name is Councillor Patrick Walsh, and I'll be chairing tonight's meeting. This meeting is being broadcast live on the Council's YouTube channel. If I lose connection, Councillor Jacqueline Daly will take over from me. I'd like to remind all participants of a few housekeeping points. Firstly, please keep your microphone muted unless you are speaking. Secondly, please keep your camera turned on when you speak at the hearing. Third, please note that the chat function has been disabled. If parties wish to add any other additional information other than that at their allocated time to speak, they must use the raise hand function so that they are not missed. I will also ask that members keep their questions and comments brief and to the point. I now move to item one, apologies for absence, and we have no apologies for absence. Item two, declarations of interest. Do members have any declarations of interest they wish to make? No, chair. Councillor Daly. Oh, jeez, no chair. Okay, that's good. Then moving on to item three, McDonald's 312 to 314, North End Road. I'd like to ask everyone participating to introduce yourself as I call upon you. We should have with us, firstly, the applicant, Leo, who you are acting as the applicant's council. So, yes, good evening. Thank you. Good evening. We should have Lorna Jolly, the paralegal from Shoesmith LLP, I believe that is. Sir, Lorna is watching on YouTube to just save space and she's communicating with me via WhatsApp. Certainly. Certainly. And is that the same for Kirstie Hughes as well? Yes. Okay. And do we have the premises license holder, Abdul? Abel Campos here present. Hello there. Good evening. And Avril Clark? Yeah, present. And we should have Adrian Overton, the licensing manager. Present. Thank you, chair. We should have Fabian Sims, the senior public protection technical support. Present, chair. We should have Goethe, the council's legal officer. Present, chair. Good evening. And we should have Armin, the council's barrister. Present, chair. Good evening. In that case, I move to those who are objecting. So, we have Jeremy Phillips and Paris Osborne, barristers representing. Sorry, first, can I check off those two present? Yes, chair, I'm present. And do we have Paris as well? I think that may be one of the clerks in chambers. No, she won't be present, chair. She's simply arranged the administration. Certainly. And as I understand it, you are representing Serena, Georgina, Natasha, Matthew, Coltona, and Matthew Spicer, Sarah, Imogen, Felicity, Duncan, Robert, Akil, Crystal, Adrian, Jane, Mikhail, Paloma, Maria, Allah, Hussein Ali, and Driri, and Valerie. Is that correct? That sounds correct. That's not exactly the list I've got. I've set out the list in my submissions, and that was agreed with my clients. But certainly, you covered the majority of those names in the list that you just read. Okay, so, and from local residents, Tony Boies? Yes, present. Astrid Barry? Yeah, present. Matt Lowen? Present. Oliver Dandridge? Yes, present. I'm representing her. That went in today. Charlotte Duxley. Okay, thank you, Charlotte. Simon Jones? No, Chair, I don't have Simon Jones in the meeting yet. Have we, Lucy Taylor? I did see Lucy Taylor somewhere. Okay. Lucy, if you could identify yourself, if you are present this evening? I believe Lucy Taylor is being represented by Sandra Salgate. I am representing Katie Taylor and Laura Salvatore and myself. Sorry, according to our list, we've got Lucy Taylor representing herself, but she's not here. Okay. Do we have Alexandra? No, Chair. Alison DeFreeze? No. Chloe August and Greg Double? Yes, we're present. Do we have our Councillor Lydia Painter, Lily Ward Councillor? Present. Do we have Jasper Davis on behalf of Ben Coleman, MP? Yes, present, Chair. We should have Sandra. I see you're representing Katie and Laura, is that correct? Yes, that's correct, Chair. We should have Rose Francois representing Philip and Luigi. Present. Eleanor, representing Julia. Present. I'm representing myself as well. Promise. Adrian, Murray, representing Jane, Nicole, Paloma, Maria, Alia, Andre and Valerie. Chair, I can't see him in the waiting room and I don't think he's here. Okay. Okay. Sarah Chambers on behalf of the Wollum Green Ward Panel and Annabelle Bachman in the same capacity. Yes, here. Thank you. And do we have Annabelle as well? Annalie. No. Sarah is representing on behalf of Annabelle. Okay. John Scalding representing the Tawny Road Neighbourhood Watch. Michelle Ho, Rwanda, Sumarita, Antoinette. Present. And you're representing Eskina, Jeremy, Ellen and James as well, is that correct? Correct. And then we should have Catherine Langham also representing Serena Langham. Do we have Catherine? She's been trying to get in but can't get in. The same for Lucy Taylor, I think. Okay. Can we check the waiting room just if they are still trying to enter? Okay. In the meantime, I will keep going. Lucy Taylor, I can't see in the waiting room unless she's named herself something else. I can't see her in the waiting room. Okay. Adrian, you have your hand up. Yes, thanks, Chair. I think Councillor Trey Campbell-Simon is in the waiting room as well. And I believe he registered to speak. And there may have been an error that he's not on your list. But I understand that he is able to speak because he did register. So I'm not sure if we can. Yeah, he is in the waiting room, but I don't have it on my notes. But if he has registered, then I can let him in now. Yeah, my understanding is that he has. So, yeah, if we could, that would be fantastic. Thank you. Okay. If you could admit Councillor Campbell-Simon. We should have Charlotte Dexter. And Charlotte, I understand you're representing Belinda, Amanda, and the Vastin Palace Management Company. And then you're also representing Karen and Zerra as well. Is that correct? Zerra. Zerra, sorry. Yes, that's correct. Yes. Have we admitted Councillor Campbell-Simon? We have. And I've just seen Lucy Taylor in the waiting list. So I'm going to get her in. Okay, fabulous. Okay. Well, good evening to you all. So I'm going to outline the procedure. Before we consider the application, may I confirm that in addition to the main agenda, the supplementary agenda A, B, C, and D was published on the 19th, 27th, and 28th of May 25. I will quickly explain the procedure of the committee. First, we will hear from the licensing officer who will introduce the application. Second, we will hear from the objectors. And finally, we will hear from the applicant. Usually, each party will address the committee for a maximum of five minutes. Following the presentation by all parties, the committee may ask questions of any party or other person present at the hearing. Except for members of the committee, no party has the right to ask questions of any other party at any time during the hearing. Following the presentation and questioning, each party will be allowed a maximum of three minutes to sum up the case and representation. So the committee will then retire for deliberations. Upon its return, I will announce the committee's decision. So I'm just going to pause there for a moment. And obviously, we will soon move on to the presentations. Just obviously, given that tonight we have a large number of representations. And by the time I come to you in making your presentation, the comments you may have wished to make or the representations, the point may have already been covered. In the interest of time, I'd ask that to please focus on any additional points of representation you wish to make. If the point has already been made, it has been heard. The members of the committee have obviously received everybody's written representations already and read the main report in addition to each of the supplementary items as well. I'd also ask that all members keep their representations relevant to the four licensing objectives as these are the basis of which we must consider the application before us. As a reminder, the four licensing objectives are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. So those are the four licensing objectives. Thank you for that. I'm now going to move to the first presentation. So could I ask the licensing officer, Adrian Overton, to introduce the application? Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Good evening, panel. I know we've got a lot to get through this evening, so I'll try and keep my introduction as brief as I can. And so just by way of background, I can confirm that on the 8th of April 2025, Shoesmith solicitors on behalf of SMASH Operations Limited submitted an application to vary the premises licence in respect of the business known as McDonald's 314 North End Road, SW61 NG. The application sought to extend the hours for late-night refreshment, both indoors and outdoors, on Monday to Sunday until 5am in the morning. Please note that the premises licence currently in place at this business permits late-night refreshment until midnight, Monday to Sunday. Following discussions with the police licensing team, the applicants subsequently agreed to amend their application so that late-night refreshment is now requested and is amended in the application before you from Friday to Saturday until 3am and Sunday to Thursday until 1am. A number of additional conditions were also agreed with the police at this time, which have been outlined in supplementary agenda A, which I believe you will have seen. On the 16th of May 2025, the revised hours agreed with the police, along with the dispersal policy and the agreed conditions, were circulated to all of the 169 interested parties. One resident withdrew their representation on the basis of the police agreement and the extra information provided to them. Just to make you aware, since the publication of the report, four supplementary agendas have been published. Agenda A, just to summarise, includes the aforementioned police agreement and the suggested conditions. Agenda B includes extra information received from local residents after circulating the police agreement. Agenda C is extra information and photographs from residents supporting their representations. And there's also a submission in there from Jeremy Phillips, KC, who's representing a number of residents here this evening. And finally, Agenda D is an additional photograph from one resident supporting their submission. And as mentioned previously, all of this extra information has been circulated to all of the interested parties. I've got no further comments at this stage. Thank you. Thank you, Adrian. Just a note for anybody that is still in the waiting room. If you are not registered to speak this evening, could you please leave the waiting room? You can watch the proceedings live on the council's YouTube channel. Now that we've heard from Adrian, right, firstly, I'm going to ask, sorry, the objectors. So, Jeremy Phillips, if I could ask you to speak. And Jeremy, you have up to 95 minutes to speak on the basis of the number of people that you are representing. However, gravity would be appreciated. Thank you very much, Chair. I was going to start a stopwatch, but given the time you've allowed me, hopefully it won't be necessary. No, I can be much, much brief on that. Can I just say first of all, though, before I say anything, before I address the objections, that I did attempt to look up your procedure on the internet and the only procedure I could find was that it was published in 2017, but which essentially, as is normal in my experience across the country, requires the applicant to go first with their application. and then you have responsible authorities and then objectors addressing the application that's been made. So, I'm not aware, certainly, that this procedure that you've just outlined, where we go first, has been circulated or advised to the parties. I just make that point. There's nothing I can do about it now and you've said the way you want to proceed. So, that's fine. So, Chair, I will deal with the objection that contained in the written submissions and I'll summarise that as briefly as I can. You have the written document. I rely on all of it, if I may, in our objection and really would invite you and your colleagues to consider it very carefully particularly now and when you retire because I have attempted to bring into it with the support of those who instructed me with the various footnotes, all of the evidence that's contained in the bundles at least you had up until today. So, it outlines initially those who I'm representing who you've mentioned. The first point that is made obviously is that the application that we will hear in due course from Mr. Chair Lambides would, if it were granted, be an outlier. The late-night refreshment licences that the authority has granted at the moment in the immediate vicinity there are three as I understand it. There's Chicken Cottage which goes to one o'clock in the morning on Monday to Sunday. Popeyes which goes to midnight through Monday to Saturday and then outdoors on Fridays and Saturdays I think it's allowed from midnight to 1 a.m. And then Kentucky Fried Chicken has been given another half an hour six days a week Monday to Saturday. So, those are relatively limited. Many other takeaways in the area operate without any additional late-night refreshment in other words they operate as they are able to without a licence from five in the morning to 11 o'clock at night. And those in the immediate area are more Liz to 11 o'clock Amigos both of those in North End Road it should be said and then JRK Kitchen at 62 Wallen Grove. So, those are all trading without the benefit of a late-night licence. So, what do you have in the application before you which has generated this phenomenal level of opposition? Certainly, I can't think of an application that I've been involved in over many, many decades that's led to quite this level of objection. They're looking to stay open at least two hours later than the latest existing fast food takeaway in the area operating on Fridays and Saturdays. And I think probably what has caused the level of I was going to say fury but certainly concern real concern and anxiety is that the application is made in what is generally considered to be the crime hotspot for Fulham in this location. And that's what we say makes it completely unsuitable for any extension at all in fact let alone one that would allow McDonald's to remain open for four hours later than those takeaways with no licence at all. And there's evidence from the Seagrave Road Residence Group and the Wollum Green Ward panel in support of that but again you'll hear from them in due course and I think that's also the point that the councillor for Lily Ward is going to make in addition. I think what is crucial to understand and what you and your colleagues being councillors for this authority and for the area will appreciate is that although it can be argued and I'm sure Mr. Charan-Lambides will attempt to persuade you this that this is a mixed use area the reality if you look at the map of the area is that it is overwhelmingly residential and so it would be completely appropriate if having heard the evidence if having read the concern not only what would happen if you granted this but what is happening at the moment and that's the key point and you've got that evidence time and time and time again in emails in photographs and so forth it wouldn't be inappropriate in fact that the committee say well we will vary the licence and we have discretion in as long as we operate within the licence objectives to determine the hours and actually we determine that the variation in this case will be to reduce the hours so that it should be on Friday and Saturdays it can open until half past midnight which is you know not an early hour and on Sundays we will give another half an hour that would be in my submission and those who I represent a completely appropriate decision but again it's a matter for you you could also you could also say we'll vary the licence we don't think having heard the evidence and read the evidence again that it's appropriate to have any late night refreshment at this particular location and so we're going to exclude late night refreshment we're varying the licence in those terms and that again is contained within my submission as you'll read on paragraph 10 so I deal with the representations I think you've got 160 well it was originally 166 there may be now more objections to the proposal but certainly when I made that submission it was 166 some of those some 12 of those came from local action groups themselves no doubt representing many hundreds of other residents and of course you've got in addition to that excuse me the four ward councillors from both Lily and Wallum Green wards and in addition you've got the ward councillor from Sand and the local MP I assume we'll hear from his representative in due course and those between them will doubtless be representing many tens of thousands more people so it is an astonishing level of objection now the position of the police is I can't put it I suppose it doesn't necessarily take the matter any further they initially objected to the application they then said well look if the committee decides to grant it then we won't object but we would want these conditions and they set out a range of conditions that is not an invitation to grant obviously the police remain neutral they can only represent on the four licensing objectives and typically traditionally they will confine their comments to the issues of crime and disorder and if that's the position they take as a responsible authority that's entirely a matter for them I don't make a point either way but certainly the point I would make is that it's not an invitation to grant it's simply that if notwithstanding the overwhelming level of objection this committee decides that an application should be granted then obviously you will look at the conditions that the police have themselves said would satisfy their specific concerns and I would invite you to look at the additional condition that I have been instructed to propose it's on page 6 of my submissions paragraph 19 essentially entitling representatives of I'll just read it out very quickly since I have my 95 minutes representatives of any formally constituted group or association should be entitled to attend such meetings with a legally qualified person as a reference to fees those fees being paid by the premises license holder for the duration of their attendance of the meeting the reason for that just to briefly explain is I'm instructed I understand and it's entirely plausible that historically there have been other premises which have opened in the area they've offered conditions like this referring to meetings with residents and then when the residents have gone to those meetings they've been outnumbered by lawyers there who I don't say talk them down but it's well known to any lawyer one should really speak directly to an opponent if they have legal representation one can there's the potential there for unfair advantage to be taken and so therefore if there was a meeting it's entirely reasonable to say that they would be legally represented so that they know their rights just as well as the applicants will know their rights so that's a small point but as I say I'm certainly not inviting you to grant the application with any conditions at all there's a section in the submissions on policy you know your own policy so I won't take up your time anybody's time with repeating that save only to make this point that the policy it doesn't say that application should be granted it suggests that having regard to all the circumstances if you do grant it then one might look at these hours and it says for town centres it might be to one o'clock Friday and Saturday which I think is what McDonald's already have in a mixed use area which arguably this is or certainly anticipators will argue this is a mixed use area Fridays and Saturdays the policy suggests say no put it no higher than that Friday and Saturday half past midnight Sunday 11.30 and policy suggests again for residential areas that additional hours are not appropriate and certainly that is where what I would invite you to find having considered all the evidence in this case but if you take a mid view and you take the view that it's mixed use with a heavy residential component then you've got the suggested hours of half past midnight and then half past 11 on Sunday only and of course the principle underpinning the policy is that the council should be endeavouring to promote economic growth and again we all understand why that should be but whilst protecting residential amenity because if you can't protect it then who can and that is your significant element of your function and in this particular case we say you must take all relevant factors into account and the weight of those we say demonstrates overwhelming evidence of residents' concern and the existing licensing arrangements not this is not one of those cases where people say well it's all fine at the moment we want to keep it like that just don't make it worse what is happening at the moment is and no doubt you will hear directly first hand from people already horrendous secondly people point to the fact that the premises the location of the premises coincide and it's certainly no coincidence with the Met Police crime hotspot for the area an incredibly important point thirdly the point is made that there are unprecedented levels of opposition from residents from ward councillors and the local MP and at the end of the day we say this is an important test of the council's resolve to stand by its own now's policy at the very least set out in the statement of policy which has another year and a half two years to run and the point is made and this is more of a historical point that there used to be a cumulative impact policy applying to this area that was not renewed and I think the terms of the present policy was devised to replace that and to provide a protection in the absence of that cumulative impact policy so just moving forward as I say it's all it's all in the written submissions but I'd make the point and I'd invite the committee and you will hear directly from people to consider the impact of the existing licence on the people living in the following streets and they're listed probably in order of priority or importance or sensitivity to the impact firstly North End Road then Haldane Road obviously Tornay Road Anselm Road Appiris Road Appiris Mews Piedmont Walk Anselm Road Halford Road Armadale Road Walgrove Farm Lane Vanston Place Barclay Road and again the references to the representations in from those roads are all contained within the footnotes to the written submissions and turning from the more general to the specific if I may I'd ask you to look at for example the email from the resident at 10A Haldane Road which is immediately at the entrance to that road directly opposite McDonald's I think stands on page 86 of the agenda don't know if I dare try and find that whilst I'm speaking my wife tells me I'm famously unable to do two things at once in the kitchen I should add but that yeah that doesn't look right actually so I have got the wrong I may have a different number but in any event the resident at 10A Haldane Road and what she says is the level of disrupt in that email the level of disruption is already challenging successive shouting and general disturbance later to the night gardens and doorsteps are regularly listed with packaging food waste from late night customers cars double park or idle for extended periods waiting for food often with engines running creating unnecessary noise and air pollution late night gathering to intoxicating customers have in the past led to antisocial behaviour and moving on to another resident in 2 Haldane Road which is the property which McDonald's backs onto and that from memory is I think Natasha who again is I think present on the call who I'm representing today she says that if the licence were to be granted it would be impossible to have a decent night's sleep as this would directly affect my six-year-old daughter who's school age and already faces several difficulties due to her dyslexia diagnosis lack of sleep is detrimental at this age for the educational development mental being as a result as a resident and single mother I'm very concerned about this application and strongly object to it the proposal will bring an increase in all of the above not to mention more noise during sleeping hours and it's that kind of thing which it's not an abstract or a theoretical fancy it's a real fear that is very likely if the evidence is to be believed of existing use likely to be borne out in practice and I would invite counsellors simply to just to imagine what it is like to live next to a fast food takeaway in this kind of busy location in the centre of the borough leaving aside the fact that McDonald's originally were applying for a 24 hour licence which doesn't bear thinking about opening up at 5 in the morning going right through to 5 o'clock they've cut that back but even so closing at this location 3 in the morning is in my submission unthinkable so there's not much more that at this stage I would invite you to consider save that I'd ask you to look at your again your statement of licensing policy it's I think on page 16 of the report and the annex and it's pages 38 to 40 in the statement of licensing policy which says that licensing authority will particularly consider the following matters where they are material to the individual application that's obviously right proximity of residential accommodation tick it's right within residential accommodation type of use proposed including the likely number of customers proposed hours of operation and frequency of activity all of those highly material steps taken or proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent disturbance by customers arriving at all leaving premises well frankly the reality is that whatever steps one takes in this kind of business in this kind of location there's nothing that one can do if one is having literally hundreds of people turning up after the pubs turn out late at night early in the morning to and froing there's nothing one can do whatever conditions one puts on even if one has an SIA security person in the area there's nothing they can do in reality to control or moderate the behaviour of people coming and going in the streets very quickly other elements in your policy steps taken or proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent queuing either by pedestrian or vehicular traffic some queuing is inevitable then diverted away from premises well you can't in this location because they're all about the arrangements may or proposed for parking by patrons the effect parking by patrons on local residents well again you'll hear evidence from others of what happens at the moment let alone in any extended hours the level of likely disturbance from associated vehicle and pedestrian movement again you'll hear a lot about that delivering collection areas and collection times well the prevalence and the growth of apps and scooters and bikes toing and throwing highly convenient for those living further afield but not never convenient for those who happen to be near the collection point where the food is coming from and then the other element in the policy the history of the applicant in controlling antisocial behaviour and preventing nuisance well whatever may be said this evening by McDonald's you only have to look at the evidence of what's happened up till now and the fact that promises may be made when we've all gone away from this hearing and we're all tucked up in our beds or doing whatever we're doing in the evenings in our homes watching television you only have to look at what has gone on in the past if McDonald's are proposing for it to improve in the future why hasn't that happened up to now any responsible operator would not have allowed these things to happen up to now would have liaised with residents would have formed good relationship with residents and would have addressed every concern I don't think you will hear well I'd be very surprised if you hear evidence of that kind of behaviour having happened in the past certainly it's not evidenced by the by the representation that I've seen so Chair I hope that hasn't taken up my nine to five minutes that's as brief as I could possibly make it but rather you hear now from those who live in the area thank you very much thank you Jeremy for your representation and the comments you've made so we do have a number of local residents wishing to speak so I'm going to call you in turn and each of you will have five minutes to speak so starting with Tony Tony boys if you wish to speak now's your time okay yeah thanks I'm ready I will keep it brief I live in which is adjacent to one green and work also with the police and I've seen quite a few of these exercises over the years I fully support what Ben Coleman has said and the objection that he made mine is very similar to his and I think he's absolutely right when he says that these problems are already bad enough to be frank they're really quite frightening what is happening on the streets in that area and near other parts of the borough like Kansas Broadway so this extension would only make this worse I think also actually Jeremy Phillips was completely right that it seems you have in your power to make a variation in the other direction and to reduce the powers and I think that would be fantastic that would be entirely appropriate here and in fact it would be a great step towards achieving the objectives of the committee which of course are the prevention of crime and disorder the improvement of public safety prevention of public nuisance and protection of children and I think all of those and furthermore the consideration of the human rights of the local residents for a level of peaceful enjoyment not just the homes but the neighbourhoods and standards of life so I think I would encourage you to consider that strongly as an option as well and that's all for me Thank you Tony so next up is Astrid Astrid Astrid you have five minutes to speak Hi thank you my representation is on page 148 as you might have read it and I listed four topics the noise the persistence presence of delivery drivers the littering in hygiene and the final one is the loss of residency amenity and that's the one that I wanted to address with you I recently moved into the neighborhood I thought I was moving into a quiet nice community and to my surprise things are coming to shift now if you're considering even giving this type of permission to McDonald's I'm wondering what is going to happen to the rest of the restaurants around is going to turn into a 24 7 fast food chain community I don't longer feel safe and it's going to be basically all the people coming from the pub later on just to come in here having a grab of a burger later at night honestly I think this is a big disturbance for our lives and I highly urge you not to grant that permission to them it cannot come to our expenses thank you thank you Astrid so next is Matt Matt Matt Lowen yes thank you chair my rep is on page 288 of the public reports pack this evening I'll be a spokesperson for the antisocial behaviour I have lived here on Haldane Road now for the best part of six years in which antisocial behaviour has been a constant at varying levels on Fridays and Saturday nights in my view it's clear that McDonald's is a key contributor to the behaviour almost providing a hub for these youths causing the ASB to gather and disrupt the residents these groups of youths can regularly be seen hanging around inside and outside the store on bikes with their bags and McDonald's often hoods up intimidating those who walk down our street they cycle they run they loiter often goad oncoming cars they kick our front doors and they often take it upon themselves to eat and smoke in our residents front gardens and as I experienced last year I had a McDonald's drink thrown at my front door in last year between my next door neighbour and I we have emailed the Hammersmith and Fulham law enforcement team on over 50 occasions we run the police on 10 occasions and I have had calls with senior law enforcement officers including Christopher Denning but it's clear there is so much these people can do hence why we're now starting to go straight to police as we see that's the only way that we can see any form of change materialising it's my belief that by extending the operational hours of McDonald's it's only going to widen the window for ASB to occur whether it be these groups of youth or those who are drinking in local alcohol led premises resulting in increased callouts to the already overstretched police force as a father of two young children it makes my wife and I incredibly anxious every single weekend often concerned at leaving the house particularly when we've had these youths eating Big Macs on our front door steps so anything that I believe is going to intensify or broaden this type of behaviour is not something I'm going to stand and support which is why I ask the committee to consider the rejection of this application thank you thank you thank you Matt so next we should have Oliver Danbridge yeah hi I hope you can hear me okay thank you everyone for the involvement so far it's worth saying that my original representation was on page 289 of the original agenda but it's not on the one online currently I don't believe my objection to the 10 pre-extended hours trial is on page 28 of supplementary agenda B I'd like to make a specific point about how the extension of the operating hours will worsen the already notable traffic based hazards created on how day and north end road due to mcdonald's delivery drivers those parking illegally to collect their food and late night diners I'd also like to reiterate Jeremy's point about the issues not being abstract they're very tangible the road is a one way street Haldane Road and it's barely sufficient for residential traffic as it is let alone all the deliveries in between mcdonald's and morley's my small hatchback struggles have hit through it's made extremely challenging by delivery drivers or those parked illegally on double yellows I often have to stop as do others and ask people to move with my car practically still on north end road it's already a major hazard and people are probably going to get hurt if they haven't already including the large groups of children who congregate at the McDonald's at the other end of the road there's an extremely tight pinch point with a severe blind spot right next to the youth club delivery drivers already simply ignore this and travel the wrong way well over the speed limit on electric bikes or normal bikes there's no doubt in my mind that extending these hours is going to worsen these problems considerably the traffic rules will become harder to enforce as drivers naturally become more careless into the early hours especially those who could be under the influence coming from parties or the pubs it's been touched on I can't really see any way that McDonald's extending their hours isn't going to cause a law enforcement headache and there's going to be a sharp increase in their already large burden cars leaving their music on when they are never to be parked on Howdane Road to visit McDonald's in the early hours of the morning is going to become a severe nuisance to all of the residents on the street I think the lack of care McDonald's exhibits towards Heldane Road which is epitomized by the lack of CCTV on this side of the street which has been confirmed to me by one of their security guards indicates that they do not take their responsibility seriously and certainly won't with extended hours I hope the committee will consider all of this not only as a nuisance but also as quite a major health and safety hazard and reject the application thank you thank you Oliver sorry I put myself on mute next we should have Karen please is that Karen panel it is indeed yes yeah we she's not here chair oh apologies okay she's being represented by someone else that was brought up before thank you apologies there's a number of names tonight but yes you are correct Simon Jones do we have Simon no chair okay and was Lucy Taylor able to join in the end yes okay Lucy we'll hear from Lucy next please hello can you hear me yeah yes can indeed thank you Lucy great sorry that the video's not working probably no bad thing might be working now yes hi I've recently moved to Huldane Road and I have to say that I cannot believe that this is even possible to do I come back relatively late at night and I find it quite bad to walk down the road already and I just think that all the bikes and everything else they just sort of hang around and it's you know as a single person it is not particularly pleasant and there is a very dark corner by one of the first houses and lots of people congregate there and I do feel that that is not at all nice for those people who live there I'm very worried for the people who live the closest to McDonald's and I just feel that please will you consider you know that it's the quality of life for people they deserve a good night's sleep and this is just not in keeping with that it's not in keeping with people's well-being and please could you refuse this application thank you thank you Lucy so Alexandra should be next not not present chair okay um Alison is next after that not present and then Chloe August alongside Greg double I believe she's in the meeting she's she's currently putting our child to bed but I can read what she had planned if a health chair yes can I clarify am I speaking with Greg here yeah that's me so I'm I'm live and in a high risk manoeuvre I'm going to speak on behalf of my wife but so she prepared before I start that it's disappointing no one from McDonald's has their camera on in this meeting which I believe was stated at the start and it doesn't exactly line up with the transparent engagement with the neighbours that we were promised and indeed apparently has already happened as per her previous statement as a resident just a few doors down for McDonald's we already put up with daily issues relating to the resultant which constitute crime and disorder public nuisance and there's a marked effect on our two children who live here too extending the hours as others have said will only highlight these current issues I'm conscious that a lot of the points have already been touched upon so I'm going to go jump to the points that haven't I'm going to spare you the graphics but urination we have seen people come out of McDonald's and use the street as a public toilet of concerns that this will now occur throughout the night if McDonald's is able to stay open 24 hours obviously this is more of a late night after Chelsea have been playing after there has been a big Friday Saturday than it is on a Tuesday at lunch time but again I'd ask you to consider that when you're considering late night it littering everyone has said the same thing I was going to as a little bit of additional flair to this meeting show you the two cartons of McDonald's drinks that I had in the garden this morning but I don't think as any financial imperative in awarding McDonald's and extended hours that perhaps they could make the money from simply enforcing the amount of idling that goes down because in two days you would have made a small fortune noise from cars large disruptive groups as everyone else has said and frankly I think it's mad that this is even under consideration what I would say is that I'm particularly proud of this to Brazil to Nigeria all the way to great English restaurants too this has got a road that should be like the pinnacle of London eating and instead we're talking about extending hours to its local hot spot it's absolutely bananas when you could make the north end road something to be proud of rather than to extend the hours of its greatest black spot no further words back to you guys thank you for that Greg so the next person to speak is councillor Lydia Painter and councillor Painter you have up to five minutes to speak as well thank you sorry about that I was just finding my unmute and camera button thank you chair my original representation is on page 322 sorry of the original public agenda pack as the recently elected councillor for Lily Ward I've had the opportunity to speak to a lot of residents both during the by-election campaign earlier this year and in the months since residents in Lily often raise the issue of the McDonald's operation telling me how excessive noise and late night traffic from delivery drivers increasing over the recent years have led the site to becoming a crime hotspot particularly for antisocial behaviour as mentioned drug related offences litter spilling out across the streets as I think residents have already made clear they are already paying a price from McDonald's negative presence in the area and extending the licensing hours before addressing these issues and bringing them under control would really do a disservice to residents and the local community the licensee is unable to prove to the committee that it has successfully managed to control crime coming from this licensed premises or to eliminate the disorder and public nuisance that have resulted from this activity I've noted that supporting comments were made that the extension of hours was a positive for the local community in the sense it would rejuvenate the north end road area rejuvenation of this area is a key aim of the administration and it was lovely here from Greg about how proud he is of the area and all the lovely restaurants along it but like him I agree that this is not the way to do it evidence included in the pack and even the operator's own record suggests that it would in fact have a negative impact driving away families residents and daytime traders who do not want to wade through even more litter or have their businesses located in an area of rising crime I strongly support a thriving nighttime economy across Hammersmith and Fulham but the benefits here are outweighed by the negative impacts on residents lives because of the specific type of operation that's happening here the fact that the premises is in a known crime hotspot and cannot be prevented from being used by drug dealers by being used for drug dealers by its not really a very welcoming venue to late night or key workers which was another supporting comment made later opening also raises questions of public safety both within the venue and beyond our emergency services already spread thin and as several objectives have noted the police already haven't spent a lot of time dealing with the issues so on the balance of evidence including the negative record of operation and the absence of any proposed measures to mitigate the potential negative aspects sorry sufficient measures because I don't believe the suggested measures are sufficient I ask that my colleagues on the committee vote against the application in order to avoid further harmful effects on nearby residents and indeed the wider local community thank you ciao thank you councillor painter so next I'm going to ask for Jasper Davis who is speaking on behalf of Ben Coleman MP and similarly Jasper you have up to five minutes to speak thank you chair I appreciate that some of the comments that I've got in Ben's statement here have already been raised by residents but I'll just proceed with the statement as written just for clarity of Ben's words good evening I apologize for not being able to join tonight's meeting due to a long standing commitment to another event in Fulham with residents I share the concerns of the dozens of concerned residents I've spoken to who are worried by the damaging and lasting impact that this application if approved would have on the local area I appreciate that McDonald's shown an interest in engaging with the residents and in being a good neighbor however it is my view that extending the opening hours and particularly the proposed three hour extension on Friday to Sunday would restaurant with more antisocial behavior more noise and more litter I would ask the licensing committee to note that no resident has chose to withdraw their objection after being told that the application was no longer for 24 hour opening but for an extension to 1am on Sunday to Thursday and 3am on Friday to Sunday Indeed many residents wrote in to say that the new proposed hours and suggested conditions did nothing to allay their concerns residents tell me that the current problems around the restaurants include the following regular antisocial behavior public urination damage to property fights and loitering in front gardens with police needing to be called littering from food packaging noise disturbances from illegally parked scooters and cars leaving their engines running delivery scooters blocking the pavement posing safety risks to pedestrians especially those with children and increased traffic and speeding on residential streets I appreciate the applicant's offer to close the upstairs seating area after midnight turn off public wifi after 11pm and play classical music during late hours but I do not consider these will address the core challenges for example the restaurant itself recognises that it will not be able to enforce a requirement for delivery drivers to wait inside the store they explicitly state this to the police in an email on 14th April that and I quote says this would be positioned as advisory given they are not directly employed by us it may be worth noting that the restaurant's commitment to conduct litter patrols by a member of staff is not something new I worked with various McDonald's managers over the years to ensure this commitment it already exists the committee may wish to note that the last proposed time for the litter patrols is between midnight and 1am leaving two hours on Friday to Sunday with no patrols before the closing time of 3am on a further matter I'm concerned that McDonald's has asked the police support in trialing temporary event notices to allow the restaurant to open from 3am to 5am within the next six months in their email of 14th April to the police they say and I quote this would allow us to evidence safe and responsible late night trading ahead of a potential further application this suggests that approval of the amended application today will lead to McDonald's submitting a new application for near 24 hour opening on Friday to Sunday in the future finally I should mention that the McDonald's franchise met me in my surgery on we discussed a number of issues but he did not mention his intention to apply for longer opening hours had he done so I would have discouraged him from making the application given the difficulties this would cause local residents to conclude for the reasons I have set out and in order to preserve the safety peace and quality of life for the residents of Haldane Road and neighbouring streets I hope the licensing committee operating hours I thank the committee for his kind attention thank you Jasper right next resident we have speaking is going to be Sandra and Sandra you are representing an additional two other residents so you will have up to 15 minutes to speak but again gravity is appreciated thank you chair I am not going to speak that long because a lot of points that I wanted to speak about safety were mentioned and also my original representation is on page 222 of the original agenda pack as well as my supplemental you can find on pages 6 and 19 on pack C that was admitted today I was just wanted to speak about the safety but especially female safety because I am a single female and currently I live on a Barclay road but I used to live very close to the McDonnell location just side road to the north end road and I just want to share my personal experience and for a female as me walking especially late at night I find it horribly scary and dangerous actually I have been intimidated directly by delivery drivers a couple of times shouting horrible sexual observations about my body I had drunk men also trying to aggressively flirt with me and once I was even followed next to my door and this is a horrible experience which is really hard to talk about and I am now 35 I just can't imagine how younger girls will feel in this area so this is my main point a lot of points were covered about antisocial behavior and safety I think the only point I would like to make that because of where McDonald's is located in specifically North and Road I think their business plan is a lot to do with deliveries and and and it gives a perfect position for them to deliver to the rest of west of London and it just terrifies me what's going to happen to that entire area if this is going to happen and I understand that the applicant may argue that they have no direct control over the delivery drivers but I think for that specific reason no further hours should be granted thank you for allowing me to speak and I hope tonight you will make the right decision for all of us and especially female safety in this area thank you thank you Sandra so the next resident I will take is going to be Eleanor and Eleanor as you're speaking on behalf of one other resident you will have up to 10 minutes to speak thank you chair I won't be speaking for that long I promise but thank you for hearing our objections this evening I'm speaking on behalf of both my mother Julia and I who both live at number 54 Haldane Road this evening my parents bought this house over 40 years ago and I have lived here all my life which is just shy of 42 years I therefore feel that I speak on behalf of both of us and with a certain amount of that it will have a hugely detrimental impact on our right and ability to have a peaceful enjoyment of our home and our rest currently between the hours of 12am and 5am finally the moped stopped roaring up and down the street and please do bear in mind that Haldane Road is meant to be a one-way street that delivery drivers going to and from McDonald's simply ignore it this used to be and I use used to be very strongly a very peaceful quiet residential street and nobody's right to have a rest recuperation and sleep should be threatened by huge conglomerates such as McDonald's who have quite frankly had no respect for the neighbours in recent years we have had a serious and stressful issue with antisocial behaviour on Haldane Road and it's been identified by the police as this is now a hotspot that has left myself and my mother feeling extremely threatened particularly on Friday and Saturday nights to the extent that I will not take the bins out on those evenings I won't leave my house and I've had to email the law enforcement team myself alone 35 times since July last year and I've had to escalate it in recent times to the police by calling 999 10 times in that period and on one such occasion they implied they were going to pull a knife on my mother extending McDonald's hours will only exacerbate the situation and I fear that we will simply be trapped in our home on so many of the occasions I have just referenced when emailing let or 999 have been on their way from or to McDonald's with all their associated rubbish which they either hurl at my house or throw in my front garden they are using McDonald's as a hub to congregate in vast groups which sometimes exceed 20 and I cannot tell banging on the door moving on the vast number of mopeds and delivery bikes parked all over the pavements and double yellow lines at the top of full dome road by McDonald's sometimes means you can't have safe passage without walking the middle of the road McDonald's are not the direct employer of these delivery drivers so any plans to make them wait inside or park consider at leave are quite frankly very misjudged by McDonald's how can they possibly enforce such rules in addition between the hours of 5am and 12pm the Haldane Road and neighbouring roads put up with huge numbers of mopeds bikes rushing up and down in the case of mopeds they aren't quiet can you imagine if this was allowed to happen all night when residents want to sleep but Donald's years ago were requested to do litter pics stopped of late but the amount of litter that we find in the gutters and also our front garden is actually repalling and disgusting if they can't deal with the problem now how on earth do they expect to deal with it with this extended opening hours finally I would really like to implore the committee to consider the mental health and well-being of the residents Pauldeo Road and the surrounding area this is not simply a case of not in my backyard but more that is unjustified and unkind on a predominantly residential area to allow this application to be granted and I ask all of you to consider how you would feel if you faced with 24 hour mopeds antisocial behaviour getting worse from an already dire situation and a continual lack of sleep owing to increased traffic pollution antisocial behaviour and I therefore urge you to reduce rather than increase the hours Thank you Eleanor for your representation I'm now going to call on councillor Trey Campbell Simon and councillor Campbell Simon you have up to five minutes to speak Thank you and you know thank you to all the speakers that have gone before me and you know the speakers that will go after I'm going to keep it brief because I think we have already heard quite a lot from you know residents but also councillors on the call and also the representative here tonight on behalf of the local MP I would just like to highlight that you know I am the one of the elected councillors for the ward of Green the site where McDonald's is within and you know my email inbox with is filled up with complaints about McDonald's you know the council have put a lot of resources into tackling the issues that McDonald's is presenting via the law enforcement team and this is the number one issue at residence meetings across the ward it's also you know any extension would go against the four licensing objectives and whilst I acknowledge that the applicant has proposed a number of conditions including closing upstairs area at midnight switching off wifi playing classical music and advertising the store as a safe space I do not believe these measures sufficiently address the very real concerns of the local community this McDonald's site is located in a densely populated area with residential properties directly adjacent and nearby and residents have already reported for years disturbances from noise litter and late night activity associated with the premise and extending trading hours into the early morning will only exacerbate these issues noise from customers can't get outside delivery drivers arriving and departing and general footfall will inevitably increase and even with the upstairs area closed internal conditions alone are not enough to mitigate the effects that this establishment has on residents and an increase on licensing hours would have there is a well documented pattern of antisocial behaviour along the north road particularly in the late evening and extending of extension of these hours to the premise risk creating a magnet for late night gatherings especially with other businesses that are closed this could lead to loitering rowdy behaviour potential confrontations all of which put strain on the local policing and community safety resources while the presence of one SIA on a weekend you know nights is noted you know it's unlikely to be sufficient to manage the potential volumes of customers and delivery drivers during peak late night hours and the risk of disorder remains high and just you know I'm going to touch on briefly prevention of children from harm the area has several schools and youth services and community centres extending the hours of operation increases the likelihood of unsupervised minors being present in and around the premises late at night this raises serious safeguarding concerns particularly in the early hours of the morning when supervision and support services are limited and although not a licensing objective I feel I finally want to highlight the environmental and community impact McDonald's already generates a significant amount of takeaway waste and the current mitigation measures are not adequate extending the trading hours will only increase littering emissions from idling vehicles and general disruption to the local environment and residents are already doing their part to keep this area clean and safe and this application risks undoing the great work the council have made on the climate and ecology to net zero and in conclusion while I appreciate the tenants the applicants attempt to introduce conditions to mitigate the impact of extended hours I do not believe these go far enough and the proposed changes are not compatible with the licensing objectives and with disproportionate and detrimental effect on the health safety and well-being of the local community and last thing I wanted to mention is even though it's not a licensing condition requirement community engagement is always greatly appreciated with these licensing applications I note that the applicant set forward onto the licensing team to distribute amongst objectors last week about a potential meeting at 10am a coffee and a chat with the applicant on a bank holiday Monday this is not sufficient enough notice 30 seconds remaining I'm just briefing up now this is not sufficient notice and I think that's just a tick box exercise to tick off that they've done community engagement as you've heard from the representative from the MP the applicant was in his surgery recently and never expressed to the MP that he was going to be making this application so in conclusion I wholly ask the committee to reject the application in full and no extension of licensing hours is granted and also a potential reduction in hours thank you thank you councillor Simon Campbell Simon so the next resident I have to speak is going to be Adrian Murray Adrian are you there there's an email to Matt that he would not be attending and he is representing others and therefore Jeremy Phillips KC is representing those people thank you okay thank you Charlotte right Sarah Chambers on behalf of Wallam Green Ward I believe you are present this evening yes I am my Sarah just to say you will have up to 10 minutes to speak this evening so in your own time of course yeah most of the points that I was going to mention have already been covered there's no point reiterating them my my submission on behalf of the ward panel I'm the chair of the Wallam Green ward panel a few people mentioned Annabelle earlier who's the co-chair unfortunately she sadly passed away last month but I'm carrying on as the ward panel chair and she was involved actually in the preparations for this and my objection is on pages 270 to 272 with photos in there obviously I'm into just concentrate on crime and antisocial behaviour as several people have mentioned McDonald's and that area the north end road is the hot spot I think I was probably myself and Charlotte were the first people who found out about this and in fact I've looked it up tonight on our ward panel minutes the police informed us at the ward panel meeting on the 8th of June 2023 that McDonald's is quote the hot spot of Fulham for crime it is still the only hot spot in Fulham for crime and antisocial behaviour I regularly in my role as ward panel chair and IAG chair I regularly speak to the neighbourhood inspector Clive Hayes for this area and the chief inspector McDonald's and this hotspot take up a disproportionate amount of the resource and funding for policing in this area and for the borough there are several hotspots in the north of the borough this is the only one in the south of the borough so I just wanted to tell people and I guess in some ways confirm that sadly the police have to devote proportionate amount of their resources to the issues Haldome Road gets mentioned a lot in our wall panel meetings and the police are working very closely with the let officers to cover the antisocial behaviour here which so many people have referred to I'm not going to say anything further in my submission as the wall panel chair the person who I'm speaking on behalf of is Annelie Backman who lives on Hartsmeer Road she lives on Hartsmeer Road on the top section close to the junction where people have spoke at the junction with Thomas Road around the corner from Brunswick Club and she just said that she already feels it's already an unsafe area even in the day and it's a really bad issue with the delivery drivers the one thing that I hadn't realised until she told me at the weekend was that like many of the female residents she no longer feels safe walking down Hall Dane Road once it's dark late at night she says the antisocial behaviour of the customers and the delivery drivers is so intimidating that to get home to Hattiesmere Road from Northend Road she can only go down Tornay Road but she says it's not safe to walk down Hall Dane Road to get back to her home and I'm going to leave it at that thank you thank you Sarah right so next person I have on my list is John are you present this evening I am chair thank you thank you very much first of all and apologies I'm working both away from my home and from my office and the bit of kit I'm borrowing doesn't allow all of you the pleasure of seeing me but I will so I don't have a camera John as you're speaking on behalf of a number of residents you have in total 45 minutes to speak but also gravity is appreciated absolutely and look many thanks to everyone who has spoken so far in particular Mr Phillips who has very succinctly put the case also to the many residents and to Jasper on behalf of Mr Coleman I did have a kind of structured presentation which I was going to run through and I'll do my best to save time to kind of slightly disjointedly cut out everything that has already been mentioned and therefore try and keep this down to a sensible time I suspect most of the people on this call will already know this but I just wanted to reiterate what Jasper said on behalf of Ben Coleman I think it might have been Tony Boyes who referred to Mr Coleman as well as many of you will know he spent a lot of time over many years working on licensing matters and taking a lot of time to understand operators and understand residents and he attended a large number of licensing hearings such as this one and invariably brought a wealth of knowledge and common sense to the process and therefore I am going to put my hand up and possibly identify a bias in that I do think his opinion needs to be given weight because of the deep experience that he has and he accrued over many years just a bit of context about me I have lived for 25 years with my family on Tornay Road I have three children a wife and one of my children is a daughter both of whom increasingly feel unsafe on Tornay Road we have heard that issue a number of times and certainly after dark we are probably somewhat unique if you come out of the front door of McDonald's you turn right we are about 20 paces away we have a motorcycle bay which can hold up to about eight bikes it's regularly overrun from very early in the morning McDonald's opens at five until very late at night and the numbers on our road quite frankly are staggering I think the worst I've counted in recent years is over 30 bikes at any one time I'm also probably along with the people I'm representing at the end of the Tornay Road which is close to the North End Road my back garden is two three gardens away from the back of McDonald's and within virtual touching distance of the site so the general point is I pretty much wholeheartedly support what Jeremy Phillips said and to the extent possible as I've said I'm not going to or I'll try and cut down any repetition I agree and it's something I think Mr Phillips picked up on that this case is very much about fundamentally the position that the council will take in line with its own hours policy and the fact that that policy was put in place if I've understood the history correctly to protect and balance the interests of everybody including residents when it was decided to do away with the cumulative impact policy that was there previously as I say I don't intend to add to Mr Phillips comments on the policy I would note however that having looked at the conditions that are put forward by the applicant nothing would effectively ensure that residents are not disturbed by countless delivery drivers departing McDonald's or arriving to collect an order other I I don't think there's anything in the application that would prevent customers from being disturbed continually through these hours the fact that the applicant moved from 24-7 to 22-7 or 27 effectively makes little or no difference I think to the attitude as evidenced by the fact that virtually nobody if anybody withdrew their application I don't think there's anything in the application that would prevent people from enjoying themselves at local establishments probably alcohol led establishments and then staying longer in the location to enjoy a late night burger and certainly nothing that would prevent them from travelling to the area to do that and there's likewise nothing that McDonald's can do about the antisocial behaviour the almost constant smell of urine on the roads and people unfortunately being sick there's just very little that McDonald's can do to manage or control that I do have a picture rather ironically on my phone from this morning at 6.38 where as if by some intervention there was McDonald's litter just outside my house I've actually photographed it for anyone who wants a time record of it I think this goes to the issue that whatever was put in place in the past probably just isn't working now things have moved on the size and scale of the operation and the way it's carried out as I think someone previously mentioned with a huge reliance on delivery drivers really does change the game in terms of what is meant by these applications and also what can realistically be done about them one point I would just like to pick up on that Mr Phillips also mentioned is that of course he mentioned that this the North End Road is a mixed use road the ground floor contains lots of commercial shops the first floor and above tends to be very strongly residential of course that's just the North End Road the council statistics draw the conclusion that this area is the most densely populated part of Fulham it's above the density of the population is higher than that applying to Hammersmith and Fulham and indeed it's higher than the average for London and those statistics are accessible but the reason I want to mention it is because of course it's not just the front door that's important here if you look at the 26 adjoining roads to the North End Road if going north from Dawes Road and stopping at West Kensington Tube Station 25 25 25 of those are 100% residential it's this area is inescapably residential it is not it is the most densely residential part of Hammersmith and Fulham and way above the average and in my view the request for rejection and reduced hours is driven by the fact that the vicinity the area it houses large families small families large amounts of children schools as I believe one councillor mentioned means that you cannot divorce a decision from the empirical facts of the local amenity one thing I do want to just add my own personal experience of is what we've contended with on the road and at the site so I've mentioned that we get a large number of bikes on the road obviously to state the obvious these bikes are not on a residential road because they're visiting friends they're not there because they live on the road these people are carrying out a commercial business and a commercial activity from five in the morning till midnight so invariably this type of arrangement is by definition sanctioning commercial activity every day on our roads and the noise from that very few of these bikes I would say less than one percent of them are electric they are diesel or petrol led engines so not surprisingly the drivers get to know each other they're in communication they quite regularly will turn up and sit on a road and do nothing they're waiting for an order hopefully from one of the local takeaways and while they wait they will make a phone call they will play music they will chat if they see a mate of theirs who's luckily got a job one of them surprise surprise will hoot quite and the other one if we're very lucky will respond with another hoot and so the noise generated is not just the turning up the journey to arrive there and when they switch on to leave and deliver a delivery and it's not just when they're at the point of delivery in the vicinity actually noise is generated just during the time that they're on the road and that again is not something that can be controlled or managed by the applicant the noise is sometimes made even worse when they get an order they leave their bike and they lock it on the key and you normally get two high-pitched electronic noises indicating that the bike's locked they go and collect the delivery and they come back and then they unlock it on the key and you get another high-pitched noise so in addition to all the other sources lo and behold at 11.45 at night all of this you can hear why can you hear it so clearly the reason you can hear it so clearly is that there is no ambient noise there is no background noise this is not like during the day when the market's there and the shops are open the shops have closed it's quiet I'm not kidding I can tell you the songs they listen to on their phones I can hear the conversations it is quiet and to extend these hours in any way will in my view incontrovertibly inescapably mean that that will happen on residential roads right outside our doors it's not just noise I will come to crime in a minute we get lots of people early in the morning van drivers before they go off to work park come and get their McDonald's invariably they like to make phone calls with hands free they play music they're on the phone again that can all be very loud and again you can hear it all it's incredibly intrusive we also and I did say that I'm at the end towards North End Road we have issues peculiar to that location in that we have had an ongoing problem to do with the noise of what is quite a large extractor fan at the back of the building it has been raised and discussed and I believe Avril is on the call tonight so she knows that for a very long time she's had emails and ongoing correspondence we are the problem was recognised I suspect but I don't know that the unit is fairly old and takes quite a bit to upkeep but I'm no expert we have spoken to the local authority obviously it was spotted last year the issue has been rumbling on during the winter probably windows were closed obviously now people would like to open their windows but quite frankly we can't and a number of us particularly those who are at the back of the house cannot sleep it is an ongoing issue and we are in touch with the environmental team and I'm afraid we'll continue to have to be in touch with them until it is resolved but I think we're into month six maybe month seven don't have the exact dates in front of me and we're still not there so relevant for us is because if I've understood it correctly McDonald's close at midnight but the extractor fan doesn't shut down till one and they open at five and the extractor fan starts at four so if they close at three the extractor fan will go off at four but it won't go off at four it will come on at four because they open at five and so all of a sudden we have this huge unit which is generating noise very close to admittedly the houses of people I'm representing tonight which are very much at the north end road end of Tornay road for those of you who know it and invariably look you know being so close depending on where the wind is we get a lot of cooking smells cooking oils cooking fats I don't know the process for how you cook a burger in McDonald's but whatever they use you know you can sit in my garden and you can be in my house and if you don't close the windows then I'm afraid it's a pretty unpleasant smell I said I'd mentioned crime I am mindful that I think I've been going for 14 minutes so I'm going to try and keep this relatively short I think it's particularly useful representing their submission is on pages 214 to 216 and I think it's important to note that the crimes of violent and sexual offences which obviously we've heard about concerns tonight antisocial behaviour and public order in the area recently are all higher than the national average and in some cases twice as much significantly higher that just reflects the reality of today Mr Phillips is absolutely right this is not some thing we're worried about turning up and happening in the future it's now it's been now and it's been now for a very long time and I suspect that there's always danger in speculating that the reason that we got 160 plus objections and the reason that we got so many residents associations and neighbourhood watch groups who represent tens of hundreds of residences is because some of the experiences we've heard of are quite frankly frightening some are unacceptable and people who have to pay to park on their road people who pay their council tax draw the line at what is or isn't acceptable just looking through my notes I think I I'm going to hope that actually I have substantively covered quite a bit just one other direct experience because it's been mentioned about Haldane I went down Haldane road last Friday evening and you literally couldn't make it up two groups on either side of the road and there was a woman walking down the road away from the north end road and she was I would say from where I was standing which was very close she was clearly intimidated she did not want to go anywhere near those groups she had to she was forced to walk down the middle of the road with traffic okay dangerous dangerous in itself now feeling tense and worried about someone getting to their front door you know this is 2025 Fulham Southwest Six really do we do we have to live in a world where we've heard of the the behaviour I know it's happened to my daughter so I fully sympathise with the women who have spoken earlier but but do you know what it was in broad daylight it was in broad daylight and I took my time and the woman passed down the middle of the road but quite frankly you know it's a little bit sci-fi it's a little bit extreme and I suppose what I hope the committee takes from this is you know it's not that McDonald's is the cause of all crime it's not that you know we know from what we're told of course this you know the crime happens on our streets there's no CCTV on our streets there's CCTV at McDonald's there's no SIA guard on our streets there is in McDonald's the dispersal pushes it the dispersal policy will push it onto our streets it's already there okay and I do think this is a moment for a reality check you know a sensible moment of reflection and I do think it's partly the reason why the requests reduced hours by Mr Phillips which I fully support is actually so important look I'm there is a lot more but in fact you know you can probably hear it and see it from all 160 and the objections it's an incredible bundle in some senses I think quite sad that it's come to this but there we go I'm going to leave it there in the interest of time I hope I have chair kept within my allotted period thank you John and yes indeed you have so next up on my list is I've got Catherine Langham Catherine are you present this evening thank you chair I represent my daughter who has a house in a mcdonald's on holdayne road where she lived for four years from october 20 to september 24 the house has been tenanted since october 24 when I have and I have permission to represent the tenants as I manage the property I was a councillor in my local authority for several years and I sat on licensing committees in his introduction to the licensing objectives for 2018 to 2027 Stephen Cowan states we want to create a vibrant safe and considerate night time economy we support the revival of nightlife with more well managed late licenses in non residential areas we believe the policy strikes a balance promoting economic growth while protecting residential immunity any extension to ours from McDonald's in this semi residential location would not protect residential immunity we all know the aims of the licensing objectives and we're all aware of the problems and how they road relating to McDonald's firstly the gangs of uncontrolled youth who are children who were 10 in 2020 when my daughter moved in and are now 15 they are increasingly threatening and they feel empowered by the fact there appears to be no sanction on their behavior our tenants reported on the first night we moved into the house we were essentially harassed by a group of around 15 year olds they were throwing things at the window lingering by the front door shouting at us to come out and fight and even came through the gate and up to the window to retaliate as we had asked them to leave they remained outside for around an hour on and off so these people were held hostage for over an hour they kept going back and forth to McDonald's they go on to say we regularly here see a group of youths hanging at the top of the road by McDonald's shouting throwing things and generally being a nuisance the police and the LUT have failed to control this regular problem and thus to safeguard these vulnerable children who use McDonald's as a base It is now thought they may be McDonald's North End Road is associated with crime disorder and threatens the well-being of children two other licences of objections the congestion delivery riders we have added in agenda C item 6 pages 3 4 6 and 7 various photographs of them blocking the road or parking on the side of the road my daughter has reported that the couriers often leer she has been very scared having to pass them to public safety the cars are engines running music playing and the appalling litter are all examples of public nuisance so McDonald's actually contravenes all four licensing objectives there have been around 22 antisocial behaviour in the last year and yet the police and the SNT have failed to control the problems when called by frightened residents whose doors are being kicked they don't attend but merely say stay inside and don't engage it's not good enough it's somewhat surprising that Sergeant O'Brien attended a meeting on his day off and therefore off-duty to agree conditions with McDonald's to be open until at least 3am whilst keen to agree terms with franchisee smash Sargent O'Brien has refused to consult with local residents saying to discuss this further would remove the impartiality from my decision making. It's totally irrational to disregard the fact that McDonald's and its surroundings are crime hotspots and arrange conditions that do nothing to relieve the suffering of local residents. The conditions of greed will use the situation inside the outlet, but it will drive people out, so as we've heard they'll be drunk, they may vomit, they'll sit on walls to eat, they'll chuck their waste into gardens, they'll keep their engines running, they'll play with music all night long. This is customary behaviour currently up to midnight, but it'll obviously continue throughout the night, making life untenable for nearby residents. The SIA will only represent, will only protect the staff in McDonald's. We have contacted McDonald's and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham numerous times over the past four years, so this is not a new problem. Asking for help, but to no avail. See supplementary agenda three page 40 to 46. There have been zero consultation from September 2020 until this last bank holiday Monday, two days ago, and no attempt to improve matters. It would be totally contrary to policy and licensing objectives to allow any extension to ours for this outlet. And so councils, we employ you to review this application, and please consider reducing the hours of operation. Thank you very much. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Catherine. So the next person I've got on my list is Charlotte Dexter. And Charlotte, as you're speaking on behalf of a number of residents, you have up to 25 minutes to speak. But of course, gravity is appreciated. Yes, thank you very much. I'd like to say something that nobody else has really talked about, but I'm sure that the councillors, because of the weight of the representations made. And in fact, as far as I know, in the history of the licensing act 2003 here in Hammersmith and Fulham. This is the largest hearing that has ever taken place since 2005 when the whole thing came into force. So I'm sure or I want to hope and be sure that the three subcommittee members who are here tonight made their way down to 312 North End Road to see what was happening. So what I did when I saw what was happening and I've been there many times over the past 2 years initially going inside to speak with managers and so on. Here and they're very friendly chats talking about the police talking about the lead team. The initial 1 was because. The initial 1 was because. Because morally's was applying for license a 24 hour license. As a new operator in what had been a pub. The barrister spoke earlier about. Someone that the seven flats above that pub that were built out in the in 2020 or so. And he quoted from one of the residents who had very tempered and appropriate comments being made about the problems that he has even getting into his door into the building at the rear on every occasion in the evening. So morally's was coming in and. That license application was actually rejected. In full for late night refreshment. And they close at 2300 they were closing at 1212 PM, but. We had to report that and things changed luckily. And we thank the licensing authority for that. So what I learned was that. Well, first of all, I walked in and there was an SIA. A security. Institute association, you know, security guard on the door, and it was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. So I asked about that. And they said, well, they always have. They usually have somebody on depending on the day, depending on the school. You know, they don't have it during half term and things like that. So the idea that that a condition has suddenly been put on the license for a security guard at midnight. Well, it's interesting, but it doesn't fit with what's really happening at McDonald's, especially in winter in the dark hours. They put somebody on all the time by 6 o'clock they've used 6 o'clock in the evening. They've often they often close the upstairs 100%. Years ago, they pulled out all the terminal, the computer terminals and so on, because they only got ransacked by kids, unfortunately. So, one of the things that's happened over time, of course, is that it has become a almost pure takeaway. They've taken away the stools that used to be that are on the existing plan. We asked for a new plan. Unfortunately, I guess they didn't have time to, you know, make a sketch on the back of an envelope as is allowed in the licensing act. All the stools that are on the existing plan are no longer there. They haven't been there for, you know, they can tell you, but I don't know, at least three or four years, I would think. They used to be along the windows in the front and then on the side, on the Haldane Road side. There were there were stools as well along the window. Those are all gone. The whole ground floor has changed dramatically with the advent of, you know, wireless and kiosks to order everything. You don't order anything at the counter anymore unless unless that's all that you can do. And of course, a manager will be called and they'll help you order something in the old old fashioned way. So their kiosks and their advertisement boards and things flashing and all these things. It's kind of an interesting maze of excitement and lights and action for you to kind of walk through and wait while your your order is then called and you see it on the screen. And if you don't get it quickly enough, then they call it out manually and so on. So, you know, it's kind of interesting to just watch the whole thing in action and see the chaos that that rains when when there are a lot of people there. Then suddenly it's very quiet. Okay, fine, but by closing up stairs quite early, of course, they're pushing. It pushes people out onto the street and that they walk a bit and they walk into tourney road and they walk a bit and they walk into pirates road or they walk back. They walk into Haldane road. You can see what happens. They walk across the street. They walk into Wollum Grove. Okay, they're running a business. People buy things. People have a right to walk around. Fine. Yes, we understand that and we're not really against McDonald's. It's just that McDonald's has a corporate attitude that doesn't fit in in this specific neighborhood. We're very neighborhood proud in Fulham. We love our roads. We love our houses. We love our flats. We love the trees that we can enjoy and and somehow McDonald's doesn't seem to understand that. So the manager, a few of these managers who I spoke with, they went on to explain to me in grotesque detail the kind of problems that they have. And I said to them, well, do you call the police? And they said, Oh, no, no, we don't call the police. No, they come in every day or so. And they have a chat and a cup of coffee. And they've told us, don't worry, we'll come in and talk to you. Well, no wonder we don't have statistics, but let's not even go there. But that's that's what happens. That's what happens in premises. And we know that around Fulham, you know, a lot of premises, they have a golden rule that they never pick up the phone, but they make sure other people pick up the phone. The idea of a condition about a safe place. I mean, this this is super concerning, especially especially to women, mothers, really anyone. This is a crime hotspot is not a safe place. And the concept of the safe place, which is part of the Met Police working with the National Business Association or something industry association, is that people actually can feel that there's someone there that can take care of them, that they can talk to. These are this is calling on professionals that are in a space that that can actually deal with an issue. You know, McDonald's is not the Samaritans. The idea that that the police and McDonald's think that putting up signs that say, you know, don't worry, this is a crime hotspot, but it's also a safe place. Please talk to our manager and what the manager is supposed to come out from the friar and start chatting with, you know, some distressed woman or mother. I really want to say in the name of Fulham, it's unbelievable. It's not credible. It's really not credible. I'm sure we'll hear from McDonald's about how credible it might be, but we really need convincing on that point. I would say generally that McDonald's has no dark hours strategy, no dark hours strategy. Their strategy is just to make more food. And as John Scalding just said, you know, just one more 15 minute period of late night refreshment would give them even more impetus to keep their fans on longer and to become even a bigger delivery hub than they are now. It's very clear to us that the longer the hours, the bigger the operation, the louder the operation, the more intense the operation, the more they can prep food perhaps for other places or all kinds of scenarios that we don't, you know, we don't know about. We can only make conjecture. Apologies Charlotte for interrupting you there, but could you please tie these specifically to the four licensing objectives that I spoke about at the start of the meeting? Just yes, I know the full life. Would you like me to say them each time or what? No, no, I just please keep them connected to the preparation of food, whatever. Please keep them specific to the full licensing objectives. Yes. So if they prepare food after 12 midnight to 5 a.m., they can be preparing it. Yeah. And they can inhibit public safety because they're coming inside and out while people are, you know, trying to sleep and everything else. They can create nuisance. I'm unclear on how you you want me to, you know, rejig my arguments, but OK. So the gosh, thank you. I mean, I've totally lost my train of thought now. All right. So my my my sorry, my my my representation was on page is on page 298 to 299 of the agenda pack. And my my my point really was that your licensing policy, which is our licensing policy as your constituents, gives you an immense amount of power. It mentions residents 44 times vis-a-vis all four licensing objectives, and it allows you to look at the licensing objectives in the context of ours. As they relate specifically to the needs of residents. What are residents? What are we but residents and your constituents? This act was not put into place to desecrate our our borough. It was there to give you the power to balance the needs of your constituents with the needs of operators like McDonald's. And you have every ability to be concerned about crime and about public nuisance and about public safety and about children and harm and balance it. And that's what we're asking you to do tonight. And we believe that the only way that you can do that is by reducing the hours, which is fully fully within your remit as a full variation application has been made by this operator. Finally, I would say that the irony is that McDonald's has huge power, huge corporate power. It could change things overnight, but their structure isn't that way. It's the franchisee who's in charge and he doesn't have the cooperation of corporate power at this level, but he could demand it and he could change everything very quickly. And he did that that this morning. Suddenly this morning, you know, people came out to take to go to work and they took pictures of a very clean Holden Road suddenly overnight. And there were no no drivers suddenly no riders anywhere for a good two hours. Then somebody walked around the road and they thought they were all packed in and torn a road. Okay, come to your own conclusions, but, um. You know, I guess they proved to themselves that they could change. But the question is, do they want to change in relation to the 4 licensing objectives? Or do they just want to be a commercial power and. Take what they can out of this very, very sensitive. Densely residential community of 85,000 people in nine different wards in Fulham 85,000 people. I asked the committee tonight to think of those 85,000 constituents who you represent and to reduce the hours of McDonald's at this juncture to send them a clear signal that they haven't come up to snuff at all for your constituents. Thank you very much. Thank you. So that concludes the representations made by the objectives this evening. We will now move along to the applicant as 310 minutes have been allocated to objectors to speak. Similarly, 310 minutes shall be provided to the applicant to speak as well. So could I please ask the applicant to make their presentation now? Sir, thank you very much. In the spirit of representing a quick service restaurant, I will do my very best not to take up 310 minutes. So it's often quite astonishing. I've been representing McDonald's for a long time and McDonald's are a nationally and internationally recognized operator that engage some of the highest operational standards and practices ever evolving, ever improving in the country. And it's often a mystery to me how it is that for some reason it seems to be such a totemic target for local residents. It's almost as if it's an invitation to exercise general democratic rights to participate in local government and raise all sorts of concerns about whether the police are doing their job, whether the council is doing the job, concerns about the local area. And as you started with your presentation and your direction to us all earlier this evening, the challenge faced by you and your colleagues is that you need to restrict your consideration to what is relevant to the promotion of the licensing objectives. And what is relevant to a very strict legal regime, you are not required to range far and wide, as has been suggested, and you're certainly not required to create and implement sort of quite novel and plainly quite wrong legal tests. So before I make my application proper, I will remind you and your legal advisors, and you're lucky enough to have two, that the suggestion by Mr Phillips, that you can somehow reduce what is already there within the operation of the Act, is just wrong law. paragraph, paragraph, sorry, section 35 subsection 5a of the licensing act makes it very clear that a relevant representation empowers you to take action. And these are about the likely effects of the grant of the application. So what you're looking at, and what you're asking yourself is, if we grant a variation in the terms requested, what are the likely effects of that, that is forward looking, it is based on the application. And it doesn't allow you to look back to what has already been granted, and somehow meddle in some impromptu reviews. So I would urge you strongly not to follow and fall into the trap that Mr Phillips is suggesting by making this novel wrong legal point. You certainly won't be following your own statement of licensing policy, wherein section 3, you recognise as a key principle, the importance of the various Human Rights Act protections that apply. And you certainly won't be following Section 51 of the Act, which relates to reviews and the fact that a review ought to be fully and properly made. Secondly, no doubt you and your legal advisers will be aware of Section 9.12 of the Section 182 guidance. The police are your main source of advice on crime and disorder. They've looked at this case and thought to themselves, no, there are conditions that can be satisfied. Mr Phillips, in his opening, generously acknowledges the fury and anxieties that local residents have. These anxieties have been on show. They are general and they are nonspecific and they are not supported by your experts because they've chosen not to make representations. The case of Thwaites and the High Court warns you quite specifically about adopting, to quote the words of Mr Phillips and the High Court, adopting these anxieties to elevating them to evidence and circumventing the responsible authorities that you have. As for the suggestion that you use conditions to somehow provide fees for the community of licensing lawyers, there is no legal basis for that. And I will in due course come to this notion that there is nothing you can do with conditions. In fact, it is very appropriate within the context of this permissive regime for you to examine where there are, whether there are conditions in order that. The applicant and operator of this premises can do its part within the promotion of the licensing objectives. So you have a modified application before you. It has been modified because those responsible authorities that can and are interested to engage with the applicant has engaged with us. And we've amended our application. So from Sunday to Thursday, we are requesting an amendment of an additional hour. And from Friday to Saturday, we are requesting the addition of three extra hours. And on Friday to Saturday from midnight to three, there will be at least one SIA subject to ongoing risk assessment. And I'll come to that in due course. There is no planning restrictions on the use of this premises. And so that settles that at least. And I've really been trying to find a way to assist the committee and indeed myself in acting for McDonald's. When you're when you're faced with this surge, as is as is often the case, acting for McDonald's, as I say, they represent some totemic call to action for local authorities. Where local residents come out to engage, which is quite odd given their extensive record. Shoesmiths have been acting for McDonald's for actually since the inception of the act. They've never had to represent McDonald's for a review. And the reason for that, of course, is that it's not needed. McDonald's are a responsible operator and perhaps one of the most responsible operators who very quickly engage with responsible authorities, with civil society, attach themselves to a problem and then find a solution. So, for example, you've heard about the extractor fan, the extractor fan issue came to our attention sometime in December at the time this application was made. We've engaged with the local residents and the responsible authorities. And as far as your responsible authorities are concerned, so that's your planning department and your environmental health department that has been settled in a matter of months. So how do I suggest you cut through? Well, I think the answer is in the Section 182 guidance, particularly in paragraph 14.13, which reminds us. That a statement of licensing policy should make clear that licensing law is not the primary mechanism for general control of nuisance and antisocial behaviour by individuals once they are away from licensed premises and beyond the direct control of the individual club or business or whatever it may be. Nevertheless, it's a key aspect of such control and licensing law will always be a part of a holistic approach to the management of the evening and nighttime economy in town and city centres. So the question then is and the older iterations of the section 182 guidance would say that licensing law was not a panacea. It can't cure everything and it certainly can't cure general concerns. But what it can do is be quite surgical. It can surgically address what is McDonald's doing to meet its responsibilities. And in my submission, if it's if it is doing all it can. To meet those responsibilities, then the local authority should work with it in order to promote the licensing objectives in partnership with the operators, with the local community. And of course, one of the key aims and objects of the regime in paragraph 1.5 of the section 182 guidance is. To recognize the important role that licensed premises play in our communities and to minimize the regulatory burden on them to encourage innovation and support responsible premises. I will say that we are both innovative and responsible and are worthy of your cooperation. So you rightly hit on the point that relevance is of paramount consideration. And I'm grateful to the local residents for attempting to be as relevant as they can. And I offer no criticism for the fact that they they may stray into irrelevant considerations such as house prices, parking provision and the wider anxieties that we've we've we've we've heard from. But I'm confident that this is an experienced committee. You have a experienced advisors and to to legal advisors assisting you. I often find it's helpful to give some personality behind this, you know, the golden arches that so antagonize local residents unjustifiably because, you know, if for all these hearings that I've done and I've been doing it for more years than I care care to remember. If these anxieties ever came to fruition, I am my bank manager would be very happy because I would be back to back in in reviews, given that I'm the go to person that McDonald's instructs in these cases. So Smash Limited and its director, Abel Campos. So Abel has started, like many franchisees, working as a grill fryer. In fact, the vast majority of people that have a long term relationship with McDonald's have to start from the shop floor. They literally start grilling the fries, grilling the burgers, moving on to service and so on. Abel crawled up the corporate ladder and became a director. In fact, he was a director of franchising. So he really knows how to be a franchisee and how to be the best of franchisees. And he became director for UK and Ireland and the head of franchising, as is often the case with those of our staff that start in the fryer and work through the corporate ladder. He had his ambition to open his own stores and become a franchisee himself. So he took his experience of the shop floor and of the boardroom and combined those together. And so he started with three stores in the West London area, mostly in March 2021. And he now has some 14, two of which are in your borough. And of those two, so there are more than two, they operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I can confirm that Able stores have not been subject to any reviews, any prosecutions or any serious intervention by your responsible authorities. And I'm very curious why, for example, the councillor who says his inbox is full of complaints about McDonald's has not approached us. And we're very approachable. Mr. I don't like to refer to people's names, but the gentleman that talked about the extractor fan has engaged with us, has found us engaging and can work and cooperate with us. Why has he not contacted us? But there has in fact been extensive engagement by your local authority. And I'm going to say endorsement and commendation by your local authority in the way that you have worked with us. Able is the director of your local bid. So your local authority endorses him and encourages him to be part of the business improvement district and trusts him to be one of those voices. Your local environmental health team have a community toilet scheme. This may sound like a small thing, but your local authority encourages licensed premises to open its toilets to the public. So you don't have to buy a burger or a coffee to use the facilities and has got McDonald's to sign up to the scheme. Your local authority was so keen to have our engagement that you offered us money to do this, which I hasten to add, we refused. The toilet community scheme is important because it also contributes to accessibility. We have a gender neutral accessible toilet that's available on the ground floor with no stairs. Your local authority in line with many others promotes accessibility in the nighttime economy. One of the key things to particularly people who have mobility challenges is being able to get to a well lit, safe, accessible toilet. It's the difference between having a night out that ends at 6, 7 or 8 o'clock or like those that don't suffer from particular disabilities, being able to stay out until 12, 1, 2, 3 o'clock as the case may be. So when the local residents, and particularly Mr Phillips, invites you down this unlawful mischief of reducing the hours, he fails to consider what impact this reduction in accessibility will have on your thriving nighttime economy. Your local environmental health team have scored, you operate the scheme of scores on the door, and we have a five star scoring. So your environmental health team, despite the legion of complaints that are being alleged by local residents in their passionate anxieties that you hear, are nonetheless awarding us. And highlighting us as a venue that is five stars. So I don't understand that contradiction. And as I say, it's something that I often confront. The other matter is this issue of safe haven. Now, safe haven is an extension of the Ask Angela scheme. So not just this McDonald's, but also other McDonald's are encouraged to stay open at times. And the reason for this is that we provide a well lit, safe, CCTV trained environment in the nighttime economy that is unmatched and unparalleled by other operators. If you are one of these persons that are walking down the street and feel unsafe, the bright lights of McDonald's provide a protection for you. They provide a shield and an oasis where you can stop, take a breath and ask for help if necessary. And that is our experience within these 14 premises that we operate this specific premises and indeed nationally. And it's something that we're often commended for. Our wider duties and our wider engagement with the community is such that in all 14 of our stores, we have defibrillators so they can be accessed by the emergency services. All our managers have first aid training, all 150 of our managers have been trained in antisocial behaviour and conflict training. In fact, even to the designs of our stores are such that the screens that were so helpfully described by one of the later representatives from civil society are such that you punch in your order. And in punching your order, you're able to be exact and specific. There is a direct printout that goes to the kitchen. Your order is able to be prepared freshly. And so you get exactly what you asked for. Far from being chaotic, it actually reduces antisocial behaviour and conflict because there is clarity and there is accountability. Now, we've it's been said that we don't promote innovation, that we are not looking for ways to improve. That, too, is quite wrong. McDonald's is always looking at innovative measures, everything from the design of its premises, the colour of its premises. The really sad fact, I always find it disappointing to share this, the fact that we know through experience that putting on classical music tends to calm people down and move them along. Simple steps like this make a huge difference. But of all the franchisees of all the regions and areas in the UK, this franchisee in West London was chosen specifically for his competence by McDonald's centrally to test and run a pilot scheme, which is the use of body worn cameras by staff in the store. There are, in fact, six body worn cameras that are available on the staff and two that are available to SIAs. The SIAs that we have during the day are part of the Business Improvement District and they're shared around various premises to deal with daytime challenges, which are completely separate to the challenges of the licensed economy and the nighttime economy. But you can see there that innovation is something that McDonald's is incredibly keen to engage with and does indeed engage with. And this is just the list of commendations that come from your environmental health, your police, your council and indeed McDonald's nationally, which has faith in this operator. And that explains why it seems to me there are no representations from your responsible authorities because. There are no concerns about environmental health, about nuisance and antisocial behaviour or indeed crime and disorder, because this premises does all it can to mitigate these. This premises and this operator are a partner with the responsible authorities and they are a trusted partner. So if your local police, your environmental health team and your council can generally trust this operator, I see no reason why, councillor, you and your two colleagues can't equally trust the councillor. Sorry, sorry, this operator. In fact, you'd be in a bit of a pickle where you'd have to explain to yourself why you as one subdivision of the council can't trust the operator in the face of overwhelming endorsement by other limbs of the council. And so it's an interesting matter for you and your colleagues to engage with. Key to this is the operating schedule, whether the operating schedule by this operator in this location for these proposed licensable variations. That's the service of late night refreshment for these additional hours can be relied upon. First and foremost, you have 15 conditions on the premises licence, which already exist and would not be taken away unless you choose to amend them. You then have an operating schedule, which has been suggested by by the applicant on pages 36 and 39 of your agenda, which I will which I will go through. As I say, these replicate matters that are already on the premises licence and it's a matter for you whether you choose to adopt them or indeed choose to keep what is already there. So we suggest an incident log. An incident log is not on our premises licence. It's kept in any event so that that happens. We then have some details about the CCTV system, that it is digital, which it is. Customers are warned by the operation of CCTV, that staff members are conversant with the use of the CCTV, that we're compliant with data protection, that our recordings are stored for a minimum of 31 days and are date stamped. They're made available to the police and the licensing officers, that it's maintained and that it covers the corridors leading to the toilets, first floor and all entry points. All that is done. It is not reflected in your current licence. But if you wanted to adopt those, you are welcome to do so. Whether or not you adopt those, that is the situation that exists. Just because it's not on our premises licence, it doesn't mean that we don't promote the licensing objectives. Operation is more than just about the conditions. So the operating schedule continues with training. Training is key. Training new members of staff, retraining, refreshing that training and learning as situations arise is a key aspect of our training regime. Our training records and interventions are legion. Everything from first aid to health and safety to conflict training to CCTV and engagement is covered by our training. And it includes quite crucially SIA accredited conflict management training. Whether that's with an upset neighbour or an unruly patron, they're engaged and we'll work with them in order to defuse the situation. And I'll come on to that again when I talk about staff safe. We use door staff. Door staff are used on a risk assessed basis. All of our premises constantly risk assess the way we operate. And indeed, one of the local neighbours talked to this risk assessment, the way in which we may close the upper floor, the way in which we change the music, the way in which we change internet access in order to be aware of what is occurring in the store and on our premises. So you can see there that we will continue to do that. We work with the local bid, which is why we sometimes have SIA during the day, particularly to deal with school children during school hours, which is a challenge for the whole area, not just for us. And we'll continue to have SIA during the night to see if it's required. We do proactively engage. So that's there with the door staff. And you can hear the various means by which we've intervened. So, as I've said, music, internet, lighting, SIA and staff safe. So staff safe is an audio visual monitoring capacity that operates actually out of Scotland. And what it means is if staff activate the staff safe system, they they take a look at the images. They're able to hone in. They take good quality images above and beyond our CCTV and are able to say you there in the green coat. We're watching you. Please behave or we will escalate the situation. They'll be warned that they're on CCTV as the case may may be. Our body cam pilot is going to be linked to that staff safe. So in terms of engaging with the police and local authorities, not only will you have CCTV, but you will also have staff safe backup. So we always work in partnership with our local responsible authorities, and I think that explains why they're not here today. Why they're keen for us. As I said, they wanted to pay us money to engage in the schemes with them, and we're happy to do that. But all our systems are in place, and it's evidenced most recently by the work we've done on the extractor fan. We never sell alcohol. We have no intention of ever selling alcohol as far as I understand it, and there are no open alcohol containers permitted on the premises, and they're not allowed to be consumed in the store if they are smuggled in. So there is that. And so we hate litter as much as you do. We are the first company in our sector to introduce litter patrols in many areas of the country. We're the only company that has litter patrols. Litter patrols happen on our premises, whether there's a condition or not. The general mantra is that we operate from sunrise to sunset, and we do so because of safety. And that's part of our insurance policies. So generally we let we collect litter on opening times will go out just after the breakfast rush, typically after lunch, after the school rush, and in the early evening. We have litter picks on two levels. There's the patrol that goes into our wider area, and then we also have our doorstep, and that can happen later into the night because our risk assessment allows us to do that because we have our CCTV cameras focused on our staff there. We also work with local authorities. So where we can get highways and environmental health and all of the red tape that is associated with local government to work together. We're happy to sponsor bins. We used to sponsor the bin it campaign now because I think I think I'm correct to say in saying that all our packaging there might be exceptions I have to check all of it is recyclable. So we now promote recycle it because that's part of the process that we engage in. We also work with community groups. So in other boroughs, and I think with yours, we work with local schools where we sponsor litter picks in local parks, local open areas to highlight the importance of litter picks. We collect all litter. We collect all litter, not just our own. We're not picky about the litter that we pick. And in respect of this premises, we would be content subject to authorization from the landowners to collect from people's front gardens. We don't normally do that because it's obviously private land, but we recognize it is a problem. And so our wider litter pick goes along the frontage of North Road and goes up Haldurn Road until it turns and also up Tawny Road. And so if we have permission from those residents, we will we will go into their front gardens, but only during daylight hours. And that can be communicated to us during the proposed intervention and residence engagement that we are we are looking at. So that's kept under review. I appreciate it doesn't may not go as far as I say, there are practicalities and insurance that that pertain to that. We're always willing to listen. And if we do find a particular hotspot that is within our catchment area, despite the legal position saying it's not our responsibility, we will engage as far as is reasonable to do. So we've suggested resident engagement and we've suggested meetings every six months. We're happy to adopt Jeremy Phillips suggested, but instead of every three months, though, we will refer you to the drafting of our condition. There were certainly not agreeing to opening the floodgates to paying for legal representatives as much as my licensing colleagues would. Would enjoy that the condition is drafted by us is is proportionate and appropriate. We've added conditions to do with noise, amplified music and so on. We only have background music. So that's not there, but it's a belt and braces approach if it's needed. The same with smells and so on. We're happy to display those signs and engage with our delivery drivers. Now, our delivery drivers are third party delivery drivers and in much the same way as our patrons are third parties. It doesn't mean that we can't and don't engage with them. So the app based delivery system, which is caught everyone by surprise, is a fast learning process. We provide space on our premises for the delivery drivers. There is a limited amount of time that a delivery driver ought to be in the area because they are only notified some three to five minutes before the order is ready. And so there's no need for them to be hanging around in the area. We are able to geo fence certain areas so that certain distances to the restaurants are not open. So we're able to work with local authorities to ensure that drivers can be kept out of certain areas. We are able to deal with complaints if there are specific drivers, but that, of course, requires engagements from the responsible authority and to the civil society engaging with us. But there are measures in place. It's a reality of modern living that we're all catching up with and all looking for innovative solutions to that. People want things delivered to their to their to their homes. And the delivery drivers, whether they're from McDonald's or other areas, actually serve the local community, because typically a successful delivery service, whether it's during the day or in the evening, delivers to a catchment area of within 15 to 20 minutes. So it's something that your local community wants. And so while there may be many local residents that are objecting, you and your colleagues are also thinking about all those people that don't object, that value these late night services for whom they are an important feature. So there are means and ways to encourage the drivers not to loiter, not to use their phones and and so on. And again, despite what is said to be many complaints and concerns, you know, the anxieties are certainly amplified tonight. They've not been directed towards towards towards us. So that covers the operating schedule. Oh, we include our our dispersal policy and dedicated areas. So I just turn to the police. Now, if the perception of crime associated with this premises were such as it is, and there's references to regular meetings with chief inspectors and and so on and so forth. So I don't expect the police to have been so cooperative, nor to trust us with this to be members of your safe haven initiative. Now we engage with the safer neighborhoods team regularly. We meet routinely. We engage with him during the day. We've not actually had any late night incidents during our licensable activities. So this idea that there are existing problems with the operation of our late nice license is just is just wrong. And I appreciate there were many references to during the day and school children and so on. And and you and your colleagues, sir, have been doing this long enough to know the relevance of those is is limited. But we've indicated to the police that we are confident that we can promote the licensing objectives. We're going to continue to explore through the use of tens how feasible that is. But in the meantime, the police seem to be agreeing with us. They've certainly agreed with us more than halfway and said, OK, let's give it a go for the weekend. They've asked us not to open the upstairs area and we've agreed. They've asked us to switch off Wi-Fi and we've agreed. They've asked us to play classical music until 3 a.m. And we've agreed. And we have no open alcohol containers, which is already the case. And they've also asked us to take on board the responsibility of being a safe haven within your nighttime economy. And we are happy to do so. Now, these conditions and this faith by the expert licensing officers of your local authority reflect that we are allies of the police, that we are trusted co-workers in the nighttime economy that can and do promote the prevention of crime and disorder. So, again, you find yourself in an odd situation where your experts are saying to you, not just that we trust McDonald's. Your experts are saying to you, we trust McDonald's with anyone that might feel vulnerable. We trust them as a safeguarding partner. So that meets crime and disorder, protecting children from harm, though it's not a licensing objective, protecting the vulnerable. It meets your policy concern about protecting women. And it also meets public safety and public nuisance. So, as I say, we feel we have a ringing endorsement from the responsible authorities and the council, and that we can meet the concerns of our local residents. We are quite confident that the concerns of the local residents will be proven to be no more than quite natural anxieties over change. You know, when you see an application in black and white that says we're going to open until 5am, then all of your concerns are going to be shoveled into your representation. The opportunity to attend a hearing like this. And you and your colleagues, sir, have been very generous with your time and your patience for them to effectively vent their concerns about their community. It serves a purpose which is not just about the promoting licensing objectives, but just engaging in the democratic process. But we mustn't let that hijack the very clear legal regime within which you choose to operate. I'm just going to look at my phone, not because I'm being rude, but just to check with my clients whether there is anything that I've left out. I've been corrected. We're still engaged with the environmental health officer on the extract to found that is ongoing. So apologies for that. But we are engaged with them. I misread my instructions so I can see a little note there. No, that's the only correction I need to make. Sir, I commend the application to you. I trust you will have the same confidence in us that your police authority do, that your other organs of the council do, and that this whistle stop tour through the existing operating schedule as per our license and in the operating schedule will give you the confidence that you need to grant this premises license. I'm here to answer any questions that you have, and I've certainly not spoken for 300 minutes, and I hope that gives me some small credit with everyone. Sir, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much for your representation. We have now heard from both the objectives as well as the applicant. So we will now move on to committee questions. So can I ask each committee member to ask questions of any party about the application and issues that have been raised at the hearing in relation to the four licensing objectives? As a reminder, those are one, the prevention of crime and disorder, two, public safety, three, the prevention of public nuisance, and four, the protection of children from harm. So do any members of the committee have any questions they wish to ask? Councillor Stanton or Councillor Daly? Councillor Daly, I can see your hands up. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Councillor Walsh. And thank you to everybody who's come along and spoken so eloquently about the issues. Can I just ask my first question of Councillor Campbell-Simon? There were some challenges there about the kind of case work that's brought to you. You said in your, when you were speaking there, that issues at McDonald's were the number one issue at surgeries, which was quite challenged there by Leo when he was talking about it. Could you just tell me a little bit more about some of those issues at surgeries? And I'd like to know if there's anything that you've heard this evening that's been surprising, particularly around public nuisance. Yes. So I can go into a bit more detail. So you're right. I did, I did state that it was, you know, high up on the concerns. I raised the surgeries, but also, you know, my counselor inbox rough estimate must be 40% with residents complaining about, you know, them being sandwiched in between two fast food takeaways on the Haldane Road. You know, you know, the surrounding streets and, you know, their concerns of raising the issues with regards to McDonald's, the ASB, you know, the loitering, you know, the noise nuisance as well. And yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's quite a lot. Um, and you know, the, I guess the reason, um, you know, why, um, you know, uh, McDonald's haven't specifically signposted it to McDonald's is because, um, you know, the, the, yeah. The reason is why I haven't signposted it to McDonald's is because, um, you know, it's, it's a, it's a, it's, it's a council, um, issue to address, but also on my attempts to engage with McDonald's, um, I have been, uh, rebuffed. Um, even when I went into there on three separate occasions, um, and introduced myself as a local councillor, um, I was told that the applicant, uh, you know, wasn't there and, you know, couldn't speak to me. Um, and that's on three separate occasions. I have also, um, emailed McDonald's in the past with regards to these complaints that are being raised. Um, and you know, there is no, there is no appetite from what I'm witnessing from, from their side to, to sort of, uh, engage in any meaningful dialogue. I know that residents on the call have stated that they've gone into McDonald's and, you know, they've had, you know, relatively positive conversations. Um, but that hasn't been, uh, my experience as the ward councillor. Um, and so, you know, I haven't heard anything that surprised me in terms of, uh, public nuisance and, you know, all of that type of stuff on this call at all. Thank you. You also talked about, um, McDonald's with their community engagement. Um, I think you described it as a bit of a tick box. Can you, could you, would you mind just elaborating a little bit on, on that community engagement and, and sort of what's happened and how the community has been engaged? Um, yes. So, um, I, I, all the, McDonald's sent a email to, um, the licensing team that was distributed last week. Um, you know, stating that, um, you know, all objectors had, um, you know, were invited for a cup of tea and a chat, um, with the applicant on Monday, which was a bank holiday. Um, this notice was given by the applicant, um, at very late notice, cause it was circulated at near the end of last week. Um, and, and, you know, I feel like that's just a tick box exercise because, you know, a lot of residents had made plans of what, how they're going to spend their bank holiday weekend. It may be too late for them to have changed it. Um, and you know, it's only this community engagement has only arisen since they've submitted a licensing application at first, which was a 24 hours. Um, and then on the advice of the police, uh, you know, what was reduced to suitable hours or what they feel is suitable hours. Um, that community engagement hasn't happened, um, before this application. It hasn't happened in the three years that I've been a counselor. Um, and also, you know, McDonald's has been identified as the crime spot by the number one crime spot in, in, in, in, you know, hotspot for crime in Walnut Green, um, by the police. Um, so, uh, yeah, that's, that's why I'm saying that the community engagement is just, I feel it's just a tick box exercise. Thank you very much. Um, chair, would you mind if I just directed something really similar to, um, Leo, um, on that, on that sort of same matter? Um, Leo, you talked about, uh, McDonald's having the highest operational standards and practices. Is, um, consultation and kind of meaningful consultation with, with residents, uh, like a practice in McDonald's? Is it unusual? Um, is, is, would it normally have been earlier? Um, what are, what are, what are the highest operational standards and practices as regards to consulting with residents, please? So, ma'am, we always engage and we typically find that people don't want to engage when an application is put in. As I said, I've, I don't really understand why not, but it, but it's a common factor. So what we try and do is engage with the responsible authorities. Um, you know, I mean, the fact that we engage with your, uh, environmental team and are part of your, you know, toilet scheme, accessibility schemes. Uh, we, we, we're not afraid of getting responsible authorities in, uh, the gentleman that made representations about, uh, the extractor fan. Um, he's been into the store multiple times. He has our number. He has our email. So he's been able to contact us. So I don't understand why your counselor colleague, uh, hasn't, uh, and we are going to be, uh, checking our emails again. Uh, and certainly Avril and Abel haven't had, uh, those, um, those emails. Uh, we do the litter picks. I mean, we sponsor your local Christmas tree. Um, you know, we have, we host defibrillators. Uh, we provide a base for the, uh, uh, uh, ambulance service. Um, in some parts of the, uh, borough and of London, uh, we provide the, um, the base for the street pastors. Uh, we sponsor football teams. Um, it's just, it's part of the ethos, uh, for us to, uh, get in touch with the local community. And, and you can think about it in a really cynical way, but when you operate a quick service restaurant like McDonald's, you're, you know, people aren't going to drive to this McDonald's. They're going to walk from the surrounding area. You know, they're not going to order a delivery from the sort of McDonald's in the West End. They're going to order a delivery for us. So even if you want to think about it in pure commercial terms, we want to be good neighbors. Cause our neighbors are our, uh, customers. Uh, so we fully believe in community engagement, which is why we've suggested the condition. We said it every six months, but come every three months. All the local council is a welcome. All the local residents groups are welcome. We will provide minutes afterwards. And I can tell you this, that in the first few times people will turn up. And then after that, people will be twiddling their thumbs. Cause once they get to know us, they know that we're responsible. As for the invitation for coffee on Monday, uh, we sent the, uh, email on Tuesday, uh, to, uh, Mike Tucker in your, uh, licensing service. And I don't think he forwarded it cause we don't have the contact details back in the day. We used to get everyone's emails and contact details and addresses. And so we used to write to them individually, but we don't get that now because of data protection. And even the names of people are, you know, are redacted. Uh, so, um, Mike didn't send those out, uh, until Friday. So of course people have made their bank holiday plans, uh, but we were there and we were available. Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm gonna ask, keep asking you a couple of questions here in the conditions that the police came back with, um, were a couple of things. And I just really like your view on why they have added these conditions. Can you tell me the purpose of not opening the upstairs area? What is, what, can you tell me what the police are seeing as a threat there or a danger and how not opening the upstairs area, um, uh, mitigates that? Uh, so what we do in many of our stores is that we keep a view of, particularly during the nighttime economy, who's using it, what's happening nearby. Uh, do you want to encourage people to sit and stay before moving on? Or do you want them to get their takeaway and move? So for example, I dealt with an application in Winchester, uh, uh, where the McDonald's was part of the, you know, the dispersal route. And there it was worked out with our sound consultant that if you let people into the McDonald's to sit down when they left, the noise levels were lower because it did a number of things. One, it adjusted your hearing. So having left the nightclub, your voice wasn't as loud. Secondly, it gave them a little bit of a pause, had something to eat, and they generally left more restful. So in that case, what we were doing was dispersal was taking perhaps longer, but it was actually safer. So some areas want us to disperse quicker. What we prefer is the flexibility to make those decisions ourselves on a risk assessed basis. So for example, in this area, we know that when, um, football matches or concerts or, uh, events such as bank holiday are happening. We want to keep a watch on what's happening on the ground floor and the upstairs. Do we want it to be seated only? Do we want it to just be walk up and walk out? And so there's that flexibility. So as part of the discussion we were having with the police, we said, this is something we do. And so they requested that we just close. So what we're doing is we're having a more focused operation during this, um, this time period. And if we find that that's a problem and we want more seating, uh, we will apply to you. So that's the reason for, for that. I think it just reflects our ongoing risk assessment in terms of switching wifi off. It discourages people from hanging about. So if you can't use the free wifi, uh, and you're one of these. Groups that the local residents and others don't like and are suspicious of, then not having free wifi will encourage you to, to, to, to, to move on. Uh, it'll also discourage people from being outside the premises because then they're not just accessing the wifi. So these are all built on, uh, experience. Um, as I say, a small part of me dies every time I mentioned classical music. But we've also worked out that if you sort of take away generic pop, uh, and play some generic classical music that also turns people off, uh, and moves them along. Uh, we're well known for not allowing, uh, open containers of alcohol on, on, on, on the premises. Uh, so it just reflects our experience. Uh, it's a very dynamic risk assessed, uh, situation. And I think that's why the police wanted them, wanted them there. Uh, the things that the, the thing that they particularly insisted on was what I say is the biggest compliment to us, uh, which is, uh, for us to adopt and be part of your local safe haven scheme. Thank you. What you described Leo is this really well run responsible, good neighbor, who's collecting litter, providing a safe refuge, um, working with the local community. But we've heard from so very many residents with a very different lived experience. You described it as just wrong that their lived experience of, of, of being near this particular McDonald's was just wrong. Um, what do you think is, is influencing these residents to, to, to, to be, to have such a different view of McDonald's than, than you have or this particular McDonald's? I mean, you, you, you did talk about this particular, um, uh, owner franchisee being, being, um, coming from the heart of McDonald's being, you know, having this whole innovation, like leading with, with, um, body, body cam, this kind of thing. Why do you think it's so very different? Why do you think the lived experience of, of, of residents is so very different? Um, well, let me just start specifically by looking at, uh, Councillor Campbell Simon, uh, his evidence to you went from being the number one cause. To a prominent cause in answer to your question. He went from being his inbox being mainly about McDonald's to 40% about McDonald's. He went from McDonald's being the sole problem to about being sandwiched between two fast food takeaways. And so what you can see with just that snippet, the way in which his anxieties, his legitimate concerns to represent local residents and his constituents. Have been. And as I say this, um, with, with, with a degree of, uh, humility and irony being a barrister, the rhetoric doesn't match the, um, the, the, the evidence. Uh, and I appreciate that he's doing that in the interests of his, um, uh, his local residents, uh, and his job. So I ask my clients, well, has he ever emailed you as far as we can tell? No. Um, if there is such a litany of crime and disorder concerns, where is the intervention? Uh, and this is why it seems to me that what is happening here and happens with other applications are ideal with is that when I asked to drill down into the specifics, there's a great deal of passion, but there is. little reliable evidence and the real question ought to be, can this operator be a partner in what is described as a difficult area? You know, can they be a partner to reducing crime and disorder if it is at that extent? Uh, and that's why I say the answer is, it is yes. And I'm not trying to belittle the experience of local residents. I'm quite certain that there is problems around traffic and road use. Um, you know, we wouldn't have a litter policy if we didn't hate litter being thrown in the streets. I'm not saying it's not there, but getting the opportunity to engage in this process. And I'm probably straying on my sort of territory as an amateur psychologist here. It is maybe just, just the opportunity to engage with a council in this way. I mean, you probably know from your own experience counselor that in a planning committee, they'd have less than a minute to speak. Uh, whereas in a licensing committee, you know, we can be here all night answering questions. So the evidence doesn't match the passion. And so it seems to me that needs to be tempered a little bit, uh, with, uh, with that approach. Thank you. Leah, I am a little worried about this kind of, um, question about evidence though. Um, and you know, you, you, you were sort of saying that you needed some kind of imperfect evidence of, um, uh, of kind of nuisance. And I don't know if Eleanor Fiennes is still, um, uh, on, on, at the meeting. Um, Eleanor, thank you. Eleanor, you were talking about, I think I've, I've written down here, 35 let, course, the let team and 10 999 calls. Um, could you tell me a little bit more about, about those? Without having kind of evidence from anywhere else. I'd just like to hear a little bit more about, about your experience of, of reporting, um, uh, public nuisance. Yeah. As, as Matt alluded to as well, Matt Lowen, who's also on the call, um, a bit earlier between the two of us, we live next to each other. It has been horrendous, particularly for last year. It's just got worse and worse. Um, it has gone from basically, I have to email that on a Thursday, Friday night to now we've got to the point where, um, when you've got 20 youths sitting on your front door steps within your gate, kicking on the door, throwing things at your windows that look, it happens to be McDonald's rubbish. It's, it's really intimidating, you know, we are two females in this household. Um, neither of us have anything against McDonald's. It's not about McDonald's. It's about the pool that it has. So people tend to congregate there and then walk down, uh, walk down Hall Dame Road and then they start abusing people on this street. I, I work quite often quite late hours. I actually now will not walk home on my own. I will get a taxi to my front door because I don't like walking past the McDonald's. Um, I wish, um, with all my heart that McDonald's have engaged before they put this, um, license application in, but they did not engage with any of anybody. On Hall Dame Road, but I cannot strongly urge you to consider, you know, the thought of if it was your road and you had to call the police 10 times in the space of eight months, how that would feel. But 35 times in a year to have to email the let team and feel constantly in danger and in stress is horrific. I cannot tell you that this is a here and now problem. And I don't see how giving a later license to McDonald's is going to assist. It's only going to make it worse. Eleanor, can I ask you, are you at all reassured by their commitment to being a safe haven? No, I'm not because this is a here and now problem. The problem is already there. This is only going to make it worse. I, you know, it's all very well for them to say, you know, the golden arches, the nice bright light at the end of the street. I live at the opposite end of the street to McDonald's. Are they going to walk me home at night when I'm coming back from work? Because I don't think they are. They shouldn't have to be wearing body cams. Why haven't we got any CCTV down Hall Dame Road? And what does that do to our GDPR rights? And why should we have to put up with this? You know, I have lived here. It's my birthday on Sunday. I've lived here for near on 42 years since the moment I was born. And I can honestly tell you that in the last five years, McDonald's have let every single resident in this street down. And no, they haven't engaged. So to say that are to belittle the representations you've heard from residents tonight. We don't stand for, you know, any sort of crime or disorder. And we would work with them, but they haven't engaged us at all. And I do not feel that I'm going to feel protected by any of anything that they said tonight. They haven't engaged with us. Thank you very much. Chair, let me let me pass back to you. I have more questions, but I feel like I'm hogging this. Sure. Councillor Stanton, do you have any questions you wish to ask at this time? Or are you happy for me to proceed? I have just one question, Chair, if I may. Yeah, please proceed. And I think it is to Adrian Overton. Thank you, everybody who has spoken so far. This this will be very brief question. And thank you, Councillor Daly also for asking the questions I was going to ask. It is most helpful. Adrian, just really to aid the committee and perhaps to give some insight to the residents on the call. Can you just define what is meant under the Act by the prevention of public nuisance? And so, yeah, that would be any any nuisance caused by a licensed premises. So whether that's and that's where that would be primarily nuisance from licensable activities carried out at the premises. And so in this case, it could be noise from customers coming and going from the premises noise from deliveries, you know, being collected from the premises and being delivered to residents homes. So it does depend on the licensable activities being carried out. And it would differ. Obviously, if you had live music, there would be a different type of public nuisance. But in essence, you know, for late night refreshment, that's that's what it would be. Perfect. Thank you very much. Chair, that's it for me. Thank you, Councillor Stanton. I do have a question for Leo on behalf of the applicant. You describe your premises as a safe haven. And during those late hours, can you clarify your policy on serving hot food to customers who are clearly intoxicated? You did you did mention people coming up from nightclubs and how you balance that with your obligations to prevent disorders and general public safety? Well, it's about recognizing that there's a balance. So in respect of Adrian's answer around public nuisance, you know, you do have an answer to what is public nuisance. And it's found in the Section 182 guidance that paragraphs 2.21 through to 2.27. And it recognizes that as well as responsible premises, individuals who engage in personal responsibility, you know, have a personal responsibility in their own right not to engage in antisocial behavior. And once they leave a premises, it is no longer the responsibility of the premises. So the fact that certain people use McDonald's or any facility and decide to walk far down the road, sit on a wall and litter cannot be put at the door of McDonald's. And that's explicitly set out in paragraph 2.27. And that's why I started today's hearing with a reference to chapter 14.13, which is that, you know, licensing isn't the whole answer. And if you are all looking for a holistic answer to the problems that are evident in your area, then you are using the licensing system wrongly because you're making McDonald's responsible for things which at law it cannot be held to be responsible for. What your examination ought to be focused on is whether it's doing as much as it could to prevent contributing to crime and disorder. And I'm really keen to hear what suggestions people might have. Realistic suggestions, not the fanciful suggestions of Mr Phillips, who says, oh, well, you know, pay for multiple lawyers to attend meetings. I'm not sure that that is a useful contribution. So in terms of the vulnerabilities of people, it is the police that have asked us to be a safe haven in much the same way that you as your local authority have directly asked us and offered us money to open our premises to the public throughout the times we are open in order to provide accessible toilets. So, you know, you both trust us to do this. You trust us to be able through our training to see who's likely to cause conflict, who might be vulnerable because of drink or other issues, who might need to be separated to provide a safe haven. So, for example, we have a, you know, the upstairs would be locked in the unlikely event. And we've never had anything like this past 11 o'clock that there is a fracca or a mele. You know, we're able to use our premises, our SIA and our conflict trained managers to address that. But there just hasn't been. What you are looking at is wider issues for which McDonald's cannot be responsible for. And as we've already heard, it may well be that it's other licensed premises or other unlicensed premises that are contributing to the problem. So having a late night venue open with SIA, with cameras, with training as a haven, I'm going to suggest could positively benefit the nighttime economy rather than have the negative impact. That is the assumption that has been taken by many in the hearing today. I'm curious about, obviously, as you mentioned, the training that you provide, not necessarily, but the applicant provides to its staff. Could you elaborate a bit more just in terms of both in terms of onboarding, but also in the refreshing of that training? How periodic is that if you if you have that to hand? Well, it may be useful for you to hear from the director of Smash because he's actually that I've been invited many times to go into the kitchen and fried chips. And so far, I've said no, maybe I should do that to have a better understanding. But Abel's here and he's able to speak. So he has been trained from shop floor through to corporate director and now as franchisee and is responsible for all the training that he gives to his staff from onboarding and refresher. So I'm hoping I know he's still online. Abel, could you answer that question, please? I can. And thank you, Leo. And thank you, Chair, for asking the question. And thank you, firstly, to all the residents that have taken the time to share their views. I hear you loud and clear on a few of the issues that you've raised. And I'm committed, following today's hearing, regardless of the outcome, to engage better and more thoroughly to to further address some of the concerns raised today. I'm as keen as everybody to ensure that Fulham is is is a fantastic place for all the residents, the visitors and the staff that I employ there to address the specific questions about the training. There's a very robust training program from the individuals that first initially start with us with conflict resolution training, food safety training, advanced communications training. And as they progress through the ranks and then take on the abilities to lead a shift within one of our restaurants, there is a further 12 week training program, both held within our organization, but also supported externally by nationally accredited companies such as such as Mabo Pulse do a first aid training course that lasts five days. This is an advanced first aid program to assist all our shift leaders in dealing with urgent first aid issues that may come up. Mabo, as I have addressed, do a full comprehensive session with all our shift leaders and crew trainers and above to make sure that they are fully trained and well set up and confident to deal with issues as of when they arise. We have an external company that attends to pass on advanced communication skills with all our shift leaders to help address and diffuse as good look to escalate. And this is just a bit of a snapshot of some of the training that takes place. First, initially, and then as a refresher, as you would expect from a responsible employer, the welfare and the wellbeing of my staff is critical. So significant training takes place regularly at that scheduled intervals, both that ensure that they are adhering new procedures, new guidelines. We regularly address following the risk assessments that we regularly review and retrain our teams on the correct procedures. So, yeah, a fairly robust and thorough training program, which without wanting to blow the trumpet for McDonald's is very much well known for the rigor and the thoroughness in which we train our people. And that's why they are so highly regarded across the quick service industry. Thank you, Abel. So it's just two follow up questions to that. Firstly, as you mentioned, crew leads and above receiving the training. Apologies, I don't quite know the structure of your particular kitchens, but would that apply to, for one of better expression, the front of house, those working the tills or are they an interchangeable term there? Chair, they apply to every single person that I employ, regardless from the first day that they even before they get on to our shop floor, so to speak, they receive antisocial training. They receive safe, respectful, inclusive workplace training. They receive additional training on food safety to make sure that even before they set foot in one of our restaurants, they have a real basic and solid understanding of what is required. So when Leo references the fact that McDonald's is a trusted operator within the quick service industry, that is part of our foundation of setting our staff up for success on day one. So when they enter the shop floor, they are set up to succeed and to deliver a fantastic customer experience. Thank you. The second question I had is just obviously there's two kind of notable provisions that are kind of notable in this application. One is obviously talking about cutting the Wi-Fi off and also the playing of classical music. If I understand it correctly, you currently operate 14 premises in inclusive of this one. Could you let me know? Is this something that you've tried and tested in other premises that you are responsible for yourself? So I think, Chair, I think you may have gone through several locations in London, notably some some tube stations and some other public areas where the same tactic is deployed by other bodies to try to defuse and sort of help. As Leo put, just settle people down once they've had a good night out. And these are just measures that we've adopted that other other brands, other companies use, and these are tried and tested elsewhere. And based on discussions with the police, these were things that based on those conversations that we both agreed would be beneficial to have in place. I just want to be clear on this point. Obviously, you say it's something that's used by other businesses and organizations, but specifically for yourself, because I just want to be clear. Is this something that you already use at some of your other stores that you manage? Apologies. Yes, is the answer. OK, so just wanted to understand if this is a method that you'd used and found effective in other premises that you manage. Sorry. Yes. Apologies, Chair. Yes, it is something that we use. We have some robust systems in place where we can schedule the Wi-Fi to go off at specific times of the day. So it does not need any manager interaction during that period of time. We can set it for Monday to Friday, 4 to midnight or whatever time we want for that to toggle on, toggle off as needed. We also set the music directly with a supplier. So again, there's no intervention. It's all automated. It's all done centrally by our partners based on the timeframes, the music styles and everything else that we would need. So again, a very robust system that's not reliant on management intervention in any point in time for it to trigger on. It's all automated. Thank you, Abel. Sorry, the use of classical music to deter antisocial behaviour, as far as I've been able to research, seems to have originated with Belfast City Council, who discovered that playing classical music in open spaces deterred street drinking and vagrants. And so that's where that was initially trialled. Thank you. Good to know. Councillor Daly, I can see you've got your hand up. Thanks, Chair. If I can ask just one question of Abel there. Abel, we heard from a few different sources. Let me see. We heard from Sarah Chambers, the chair of Wall and Green Ward panel. We heard from Ben Coleman's representative. We've heard from Lydia Painter, from John, Councillor Lydia Painter, apologies, from John Scalding, that where you're operating on North End Road is the kind of this sort of ground zero for quite a lot of crime, a real hot spot for things like drug dealing, for violent and sexual offences. I think I'm quoting John here as being significantly higher than the national average. Can you tell me how do you keep your staff safe when they are leaving your establishment at 11 o'clock at night, at 12 o'clock at night and proposing at three o'clock in the morning? How are you keeping your own staff safe in that situation, please? So Councillor Daly, thank you for the question. I think I need to start off by saying that a lot of the points raised this evening have not been shared with me. So when I met a member of parliament, Ben Coleman, he did not raise these issues with me. I have spoken several times with John Scalding. We've had numerous conversations. The main issue that we've tried to address with him has been some plant noise, which, as Lydia has already noted, is still a little bit ongoing. We will get to the bottom of it. The other issues that have been shared today, although incredibly disheartening to hear, have not found themselves to me. So it's hard for me to comment on those issues when I was not aware of those or the severity in which they've been outlined today. What I can tell you about, you know, one of the things that I am passionate about is the welfare of my staff. And part of the reason why we are pursuing this late night application is exactly to the point that you've just said, Councillor Daly. It's around the importance of making sure that as my staff members finish at one, two or three in the morning, that that in itself creates a challenge from a transport point of view for them to get home safely. So whilst I can, of course, ensure that their welfare and their well-being is very well looked after when they're in the restaurant. And once once they do set off and embark on their journey home, they are then, you know, seeking transport, which which may create issues for them. So this is part of the reason why providing that segue from the current closing times that we have to a later closing times means that those individuals can now stay in the restaurant and help facilitate the close of a trading day and help facilitate the restart for another trading day. So hopefully those issues that you just highlighted will be mitigated by having the staff in the restaurant because there will be needed to close and reset the restaurant for the following day's trade. So but a very good point that you raised about their welfare having to finish such such late hour in the night. And one of the reasons we're willing to stay open is to facilitate them remaining in the restaurant. OK, so so it's going for 24 hour opening would be safer for your staff because they wouldn't need to leave overnight when. When when when there's there's so many issues. Thank you. We don't accept that there are issues. Oh, in terms of the hot spot. It's a statistical exercise. Ah, physical exercise that includes data such as deprivation, such as vulnerabilities and so on. And I've chosen not to challenge it because your expert isn't here to explain the data behind it. But we don't necessarily expect that data. And we would seek to critically analyze it. Paragraph 9.12 of the Section 182 guidance tells you that just because the police say there's crime and disorder or indeed anyone, it must be subject to scrutiny. So just to accept it because someone has said it is bad practice. So we've had no issues of sexual assault, crime, disorder or concerns about our staff. You able also said that even with these hours, we're able to keep them and arrange for proper transportation for them. But staff safety, as well as our environmental concerns are actually two of the key drivers behind going for a 24 hour operation. But please don't leave with the impression that we accept that conclusion because we don't. And as you well know, there are many, many means by which to examine statistics. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No more questions. Thank you, Councillor Daly. I just had one final question for myself, just in regards to the use of the the SIA. Obviously, the plan would be to have one on staff given. As it's been mentioned this evening from a number of residents to clear reference to two groups of individuals. Are you confident that one SIA would be sufficient to be on duty at those later hours? So we are. But I will say this, that we keep things under risk assessment. So if there was a particularly difficult football match during the day, then we would risk assess that and have more as as is needed. And if you recall, when I was talking about the body worn cameras, I mentioned as part of this pilot, we have six for our staff and two for SIA if needed. So we're not averse to bringing in SIA if and when they're needed. And in fact, if it would provide you and your colleagues confidence, we often agree to SIA conditions. We have them on site. They're completely independent for us. And then typically within six to nine months, we have to go back to the local authority and say these people are doing nothing. We want to remove the condition. So if you and the local residents will be comforted, we're quite happy to pilot and report back in six to nine months time what the impact of having two SIAs operating until 3am will be. It would be a very, very sound and somewhat neutral way of obtaining further evidence if it's needed. So I'm happy to offer that to you if you if you think it would it would alleviate some concerns. Well, I say thank you for obviously raising particularly the matter of the football grounds. Obviously, you know, it's no secret that the location of this establishment is quite close to the the Chelsea football ground. So it would be to be expected, obviously, that there will be certain event days. And also, as you mentioned about risk assessments. You know, in let's say in anticipation of a potential granting of this extension, would you or have you undertaken a risk assessment for event days in Fulham at this? And what would that look like in terms of that kind of security provision? So typically your matches are during the day. The latest they finish, I think, is at 9pm. So many hours before late night refreshment. So by the time we operate licensable activities, we don't we don't need them. But during match days when we operate just like any other unlicensed premises, we will risk assess and more often than not engage with the police, but also have two SIAs. So that might be an example of where the police will say to us don't open upstairs. Do only football do only takeaways or they'll encourage us to do a seating in order to deal with, you know, knots of people. So this is just an example of how we risk assess and operate and react to. So typically we have we have two. So I say right now, as you say, if football matches end at 9pm at present, if there were to be an event day, your normal practice would be to have two SIAs or however many recommended by the police on site for event days. Is that correct? So on an event day, if we were to we would have, you know, we risk assess two and typically yes. If it were to run into the late night economy and we were also having licensable activities. So I represent premises where there are festivals, so music festivals, for example, so some of the McDonald's there where, you know, you've got a music festival. Lambeth because it's because it's on my radar and people are dispersing, then there are multiple SIAs because we recognise it's a useful way of marshalling people. So, you know, we do that as a matter of course, both by this franchisee and across the McDonald's estate nationally. Okay, thank you. There's no further questions from myself. Councillor Daly, Councillor Stanton, is there any final questions that you have? Thank you, Chair. Okay, in that case, we move to summing up. So please can participants briefly sum up as, so starting with, sorry, please can the participants sum up as briefly as possible in the following order, starting with Adrian as the licensing officer. Is there anything further you wish to add? Thank you, Chair. No, just a very quick point from earlier on this evening. I think it was mentioned that the premises would have previously been located in the Fulham Broadway cumulative impact zone when we had such a thing. And I've just checked on our system. And I think even then, when we did have a Fulham Broadway cumulative impact area, it would have just been north of that. So it wouldn't have been quite within within that CIP area. So just to make that point. And I think there was another point as well about a representation that was withdrawn, and there was some question mark over whether a representation was withdrawn. I know it's not a major point considering the number of representations, but there was that is correct. There was one representation from a resident that was withdrawn. But yeah, no other points from me. Thank you. Thank you, Adrian. So next move to Jeremy. Jeremy, you do have 57 minutes to sum up, but gravity would be appreciated, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Again, I won't need anything like that time. I start off briefly by echoing, really, Mr. Chandler Mead is opening remarks where he said, representing McDonald's international operator, it's often a mystery to him why there are so many objections with such a totemic economic business. And I think, with respect to him, he really needs to ask himself the question, why are there so many objections? Why would people object unless it was not genuinely having a massive impact on people's lives? There's nobody saying that daytime operation on a retail estate, high street, alongside other cafes and so forth, you know, a useful facility. But where you, they're seeking a late night, early hours operation here, right in the heart of a residential area, it's something entirely different. There's two points of law that I want to correct him on, if I may, or disagree with him, and it's a matter for the committee. No doubt you'll take advice, we've got to hack this for legal advice. And this is important. He suggests I'm wrong in law in saying that the committee can reduce the licence on variation if it so chooses. And he refers to Section 355A of the Act. I'll just go to that quickly. And he quoted it, saying, in this section, the relevant representations mean representations which are about the likely effect of the grant of the grant of the application of the promotion. So he's absolutely right. Of course, if you're objecting, you can't raise an objection and say, I'm going to ignore what they've applied for. I want something different. I effectively want a review of the licence. I want to cut back. That would not be a valid representation. But that subsection refers solely to the representations that can be made. Your decision is dealt with elsewhere. It's dealt with in Section 354, which says effectively that the, effectively, literally, that the steps you can take in your decision are, A, to modify the conditions of the licence, or B, to reject the whole or part of the application. Now, the application for variation is effectively, and in practice, to modify the conditions of the licence. MacDonald will say, our conditions entitle us to open until midnight, seven days a week. So that's the extra hour between 11 o'clock, when we're allowed to, by law anyway, at midnight. And we want to modify those conditions to open later up, to one o'clock, five days a week, and then to 3 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. That's the modification to the conditions that they seek. And in your decision, you can modify the conditions of the licence. It doesn't say that they have to be favourable to the applicant. It doesn't say it can't be any less than the applicant has sought. You can just modify the conditions in any way you want. So, to suggest that you don't have that legal power with respect is wholly wrong. Now, the reason specifically that you can do so here is because of the mountains of evidence that you have before you, initiated absolutely by the applicant lodging this foolish application to extend the licence. But that has released a wave of public concern, protest, anxiety, and yes, anger in some quarters, about the effect of it. And not just about the effect of it, but about the situation that we have at the moment. And to illustrate the point, Charlie Medes refers to the decision of Thwaites. If you have a legal advisor on hand, it's actually, the decision of Thwaites is actually, I mean, it's cited in many places in Paterson's. But it's most conveniently summarised. It happens to be page 694 of this year's edition, 2025 edition. It's also in the online version of Paterson's, which is, you know, the authority for licensing law. And if I can just read out to you the full reference of the case, I'll just go to it quickly, where I had it on my screen, if I may. Let's just pull that up. Yeah. What the entry in Paterson's Licensing Act says is, it's important that the court, and this was on a licensing appeal, that the court, like the licensing authority below, should base its decision upon the evidence, and that's italicised in the note, adduced before it, rather than upon its own untested opinions on the issue. That it may consider are raised by the case. And it then cites Thwaites, which is crowned on the application of Daniel Thwaites' PLC versus World Borough Council Magistrates' Court. And the legal citation is 2008 EWHC 838 Admin for the Administrative Court, and it's also reported elsewhere. And the note says, it concerned an application to the High Court by the owner of the Soho Hotel against the decision of World Borough Council, Magistrates' Court rather, which allowed an appeal by the Soho Massey Conservation Society against the decision by World MBC, as the licensing authority, agreeing to vary and extend the hours of operation of the hotel. In her judgment, Mrs. Justice Black was critical of the manner in which the justices had determined the case, saying, and it then goes on to quote what she said. Now, just pause there briefly, just for a bit of context, which is important. The case was decided in 2008. That was just three years after the 2003 Act came into force, which was August 2005. And you and your colleagues will know that Magistrates had had jurisdiction for licensing for 150 years previously. So there were some courts which felt a little bit aggrieved, I can certainly recall, at losing that jurisdiction and might be inclined, might have been inclined at that time to overstep the mark and interpose their own views. But what Mrs. Justice Black said in quashing the Magistrates' decision was, it would be wrong in my judgment to say that the Magistrates failed to take account of the licensing objectives. At the outset of their reasons, they correctly identified those which were relevant. Similarly, as the interested party submits, whilst they didn't articulate that the curtailment of the hours sought was necessary to promote the objectives, it's implied in their decision that they did take this view. And it can also be inferred from their comment that because of the concept of migration, public nuisance of crime disorder would be an inevitable consequence of leaving the hours as granted by the local authority. However, and this is the important bit, in my view, their approach to what was necessary was coloured by a failure to take proper account of the changed approach to licensing introduced by the Act. So that's the changed approach to licensing with the 2003 Act. Had they had proper regard to the Act and the guidance, they would have approached the matter with a greater reluctance to impose regulation. And would have looked for real evidence that it was required in the circumstances of the case. I'll just repeat that if I may, because it's important. And would have looked for real evidence that it was required in the circumstances of the case. Their conclusion that it was so required on the basis of risk of migration from other premises in the vicinity was not one to which a properly directed bench could have come. The fact that the police did not oppose the hours sought on the spaces should have weighed very heavily with them. Whereas in fact, they appeared to have dismissed the police view because it did not agree with their own. And then the note ends, that's the quote from the case. Quashing the judges, the justice decision, the judge held that they had proceeded without proper evidence and given, this is quotation marks, their own views, excessive weight. And their resultant decision limited the hours of operation of the premises without it having been established that it was necessary to do so to promote the licensing objectives. So that was magistrates. In the Thwaites case, which Mr. Charal and Bede cited, going off on a, sometimes called in law a frolic of their own, because they had their own views irrespective of the evidence. The present case is totally different, because all the evidence, and I don't exclude McDonald's from this, and I'll come to that in a moment when I talk about Mr. Charal and Bede's submissions. But all the evidence has come from the residents here. The residents, from the associations, from the MP, from the people living and experiencing it. And so Thwaites is a perfect authority for demonstrating how either a court or a licensing authority may properly make a decision, provided it ties in the licensing objectives, which the evidence, which it hears. Just moving on then. Generally, in his submission to the applicant, Leo has carefully failed to address in detail the objections which are raised by the hundreds, literally, of residents and their representatives representing many hundreds, if not thousands more. He's chosen instead to take points of law, which with respect suggests he's wrong, and I'll come on to another error he's made in another point of law in a moment. To refer to, rely on, place weight on McDonald's international reputation. He talks about the life story of this franchisee. He's talked about operating schedules, conditions, toilets, five-star food hygiene, defibrillators. He's said that the premises have the ringing endorsement of your offices. It's completely untrue. It doesn't have the ringing endorsement. The fact is that it has no objections. They've stayed out of it because they're not the people who are living the experience of being next door or backing onto these premises 24-7, whether they're open or whether they're preparing food or whatever. And it's not ultimately, in a case like this, it's not down to officers to come up with the evidence. They can do if they wish. They can reserve their position, stay out of it, and say, well, look, I'll leave it to the committee. Residents, if the residents have got a case, put the evidence in. If McDonald's has got a case, put the evidence in, and the committee will decide it on to balance the evidence. To say there's a ringing endorsement is utterly untrue. There's no ringing endorsement from any responsible authority. In fact, there's everything but, because what McDonald's are seeking to do is, again, without overemphasizing it, add an extra 11 nighttime hours a week in the early hours of the morning to premises which are already causing, from every resident from whom you've heard, a horrendous problem. Now, I mentioned there's another point of law, which I'll just touch on briefly, where the area relies on Section 182 guidance, which says quite correctly, licensing act isn't a panacea for every problem in society, for every fault with premises. There are planning laws, there are statutory nuisance laws, quality laws, all sorts of different laws and regulations, some of which are exercised by the council, some not. That's absolutely right. That's absolutely right. But that is not to say that the licensing authority can't or shouldn't have regard to additional impacts which are created as a consequence of a decision that they're invited to make. And the decision that they're invited to make is, we want to trade longer hours, we want to trade in earlier hours of the morning, when, as we all know, and you don't need evidence on this, inevitably, if you're trading, operating at two or three on a Saturday morning, or Saturday into a Sunday morning, you're going to get far more people turning out of the pubs, behaving in an antisocial way. It's far more likely, and you don't need evidence from me or any other person to tell you that you're going to get more litter as a consequence of that. It's wrong to say you can't take that into account in taking the view, if you do take the view, and it's a matter for you on the evidence and your own lived experience, having regard to that evidence, it would be wrong to say you can't draw the conclusion, well, I've heard about the litter, I've seen the pictures of the litter, and I'll come back to that in a moment. And, but I'm not, I'm not, Mr. Chandler-Media says I'm not allowed to take that into account, because that can be dealt with by other statutory powers. That's completely wrong. And the authority for that is another well-known licensing case of buzz bars. And again, I'll go to the authority just if anyone has, and I hope they do, because I edit Paterson's and Leo is also a contributor to it. So we're all, we're all using the same book here. But the, an authority which touches on this point of problems created by licensed premises away from licensed premises is a case of Luminar Leisure and Wakefield Magistrates Court. Citation is 2008 EWHC 1002 admin. It's on page 345 of Paterson's footnote 12 to section 18. And reading that very briefly, that was basically a case where Luminar were looking to open a nightclub earlier in the morning. And there was a suggestion it would create problems in the city, Wakefield city centre further away from the property. And an appeal went to the administrative court, where it was argued on behalf of Luminar, look, it's not right to hold us exactly as Mr. Chandler-Media is seeking to argue here today, tonight. It's not right to hold us responsible for problems away from the premises. So just reading the footnote there very quickly, Luminar operated nightclub called Bus Barn City of Wakefield with a licensed capacity of 1,380 persons. District Council granted new process license with increased capacity of 2,000. Operators arrival venues appealed to Magistrates Court. District Judge allowed their appeal because of the effect which would have, sorry, because of the effect which the increase in the number of people attending such a venue in Westgate would have general crime disorder in the area. Again, similar to here, where it said additional hours would create more litter. So Luminar appealed by case stated against the decision. The questions posed in the case stated were, the first question was whether it was open to the court to take into account evidence of crime and disorder in areas which were beyond Luminar's control. And just going to the point there, as regards the first question on the basis, the weight to be attached to factors such as these was a matter for the decision maker. So district judge in that case, use the licensing authority in this case. Mr. Justice Usley answered the first question. Yes. In other words, they were the decision maker was entitled to take such matters into account. It's all about the evidence. It's all about the evidence. And I'll look to conclude very quickly here now. The evidence before you, as I said at the outset, is overwhelming. Look at the map. It's on page 43 from memory of the agenda. Look at the density of housing all around these premises. Look at the supplementary agenda. Look at the pictures that you see and I think they were lodged today. As they say, a picture tells a thousand words. I mean, they really are impactful. The supplementary agenda C, pages three and four, page 10, pages 47 to 54, they show what it's like having these premises in Haldane Road. A very good point made by residents, which was acknowledged and conceded by McDonald's themselves when they were engaged in discussions with the police about attempting to control the moped delivery drivers and the bike riders who continually park on the double yellow lines, go the wrong way up the one way street. The point is made that because of and this is a feature of the modern economy, which is not isolated to takeaways. It's also very much a feature of private hire vehicles that you order on apps. The moped riders are not employed by McDonald's. Now, that's great from McDonald's point of view, because it means it doesn't have the salary costs. It doesn't have to take holiday. It doesn't have the liability of permanently employing them according to pressure of business and so on. The downside from McDonald's point of view is it doesn't control them. It can't control them as they conceded to the police. And that is why they are going to continue, we all know, to put their vehicles on the double yellow lines to block the street, to drive the wrong way up and so forth. Leo has the cheek, but he makes the point to the committee, the evidence from the objectives doesn't match the passion. That is an astonishing submission to make from the applicant here, who is the one who is not producing the evidence, who is not able to demonstrate that what it seeks will not have a massive impact. All the evidence, the vast bulk of the evidence, specific evidence is coming from the objectors who are, to an extent, disinterested. If there was not a problem, you wouldn't get those representations. Obviously, we all know that McDonald's will have a substantial commercial interest. They will no doubt be paying for lawyers and all the rest of it because they stand to make a substantial commercial gain if the application is granted. And there's no criticism at all for that. One assumes that's the case. That doesn't apply to the objectors. The objectors, I'm sure, could all be doing better things tonight, as could yourselves on the committee determining this application. They've got no financial interest. They are here because they feel they need to be here because there is a real problem. So, to say that the objectors' evidence doesn't match the passion is, again, somewhat ludicrous. I would say, I wouldn't wish to mention by name any of the objectors because they've all spoken very eloquently and very feelingly and tellingly about their lived experience, as was the phrase used, I think, of the situation as it exists at the moment. And I would simply ask the committee to consider that when it is determining the application to extend that by many hours throughout the week and especially on the weekend. I'd invite it to, well, take any one of the decisions that I've mentioned in my submissions. And best of all to make the hours revert to those for appropriate for a residential area. But if not, certainly to refuse the application. Thank you very much, Sharon. Thank you, Jeremy. The next resident or the next speaker I'm going to call on is. Sorry. So I'm going to call on local residents to speak next. So, Tony, you have up to three minutes to sum up, if you wish. Tony, boys. Can you hear me now? I can indeed, yes. Thank heavens. Yes, no, to sum up. It's been fantastic. As Jeremy said, it represents the panic and the scared nature of all the people in the area, not just the idea that it would be extended, but how it is now. So actually, I do very much support him. You know, if you guys can roll the clock back, make life better and show that, you know, you are people who are living up to the standards of the committee and helping to enforce making people's life safe, more tolerable, better, better human behavior in their local neighborhoods. So please, please, please, please bear those people in mind. You know, as Jeremy said, we haven't come here for fun. Nobody's paying us. We really, really care about the place that we live in. So, yes, please, please do. Thank you, Tony. Astrid, similarly, you have up to three minutes. Hi, thank you. I don't have much to say beyond what Jeremy has already expressed. I just need to tell you, no, I don't feel safe when I look at the lights in the middle of the night of McDonald's. It will make me feel safer. Astrid, please address any comments to the committee specifically. Comments should not be directed to any other member of the committee. That's all I needed to say. I don't feel safe. And please consider those situations. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Matt. Matt Lowen. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Just to reiterate, to reaffirm, these are real life examples, real life threats and intimidation that we all experience from the customers. Unfortunately, McDonald's in this location attracts week in, week out, and something needs to change. Thank you. Next is Oliver. Yeah, I'd just like to reiterate exactly the same thing. The attempts to essentially discredit us this evening are astonishing. If anyone would like to come down to the road on any night of the week and see what's going on, it's completely true. And all of the matters we've spoken about are completely relevant to the licensing act, which is different to how it's been proposed from McDonald's. So thanks to all. And thank you. Next is Simon Jones. Simon. Simon, you're on mute if you're intending to speak. Okay, I'm going to keep moving. Lucy, Lucy Taylor, if you wish to speak. Again, you've simply up to three minutes. Yes, thank you. I don't need three minutes. Basically, I can't believe what was said about McDonald's being a safe haven. For me, my safe haven is my home. I don't really mind about lose or anything. And so please, I all I'm saying is I reiterate everything everybody says. But so please, this should be rejected. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Chloe and Greg. Yeah, I think to sum up, I think I echo a lot for people who said what's been said tonight is frankly insulting on some parts. You know, we've heard that residents issues don't relate to the premises or its conjecture from us. Well, we see patrons come out of McDonald's and delivery drivers engaging in crime disorder and public nuisance. And I think extending the license will only make this worse and, you know, happen all throughout the night. The fact that we've also heard that McDonald's says it engages in a community engagement and wants to take on views of local residents. Well, in the four years we've lived here and we have gone into McDonald's to make our complaints to be clear as well. We've heard nothing from McDonald's and there's been complete radio silence from them since they applied for this license. I may be being slightly emotional here, but I'm begging you not to grant this license tonight. I'm begging you for my children who are woken up by people outside. Please really don't make the wrong decision for local residents this evening. Thank you, Chloe. Next, I'm calling on councillor Lydia Painter and councillor, you similarly have up to three minutes to speak. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the professional representations made on behalf of the licensee this evening, who's gone to great lengths to explain the operational side of McDonald's late-night openings, at least as they should work on paper. We heard a lot about how McDonald's intends to operate. Their lawyer's job is to get licenses approved. My job as a councillor is to represent my residents. And I've heard a lot from them directly about how McDonald's actually operates under their current license and enough to believe that the application for extended opening hours should be rejected. First, drivers are causing a nuisance at best, criminal behaviour at worst. The so-called anxieties and shoveling concerns have been glossed over as venting. But the very real harassment of women and girls by the applicants' delivery drivers and customers is not something I can gloss over. As the council's lead member for women and girls, I argue that men, including the applicants, lawyers and perhaps council officers, who have failed to recommend that the committee turn down this application, simply do not understand the sheer level of harassment that women and girls face every single day. Secondly, litter. Yes, the packaging is on paper, recyclable, but once covered in sauce, screwed up and thrown in someone's front garden, it can't be recycled and it's still litter. The on paper litter picking is nice in theory, but it doesn't solve the problem in practice. Thirdly, it's a hotspot for crime. Crime that's committed by McDonald's own customers. Again, the mitigating factors or conditions sound good on paper, but this premises is already a hub for crime, and the licensee has failed to stop it. We know that drug deals are taking place on their premises, spilling out onto the streets of our borough and harming our residents. Longer hours mean more cash for McDonald's, more business for drug dealers, but more pain for residents. Why will extra opening hours suddenly mean McDonald's can address any of these issues of public nuisance, litter, crime? I would argue it means more crime and disorder, more nuisance, and a greater danger to public safety. By engaging lawyers, I believe the applicant has hoodwinked licensing officers into believing that this vision upholds the licensing objectives. In fact, the opposite is already untrue. I am disappointed that council officers have not recommended that the application be rejected. This is a failure to our residents, who I am here to represent to this committee. I implore the committee to remember that they too represent residents. They don't represent house officers, they don't represent delivery drivers, and they certainly don't represent McDonald's as a corporate operation. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Next, I call on Jasper Davis, speaking on behalf of Ben Coleman, MP. Jasper, similarly, you have three minutes to speak. Thank you, Chair. On Ben's behalf, I would just like to reiterate the sentiments of what the residents have expressed this evening and echo what Ben Coleman put in his written statement, objecting to the application as it stands. Residents are already having to cope with excessive noise, anti-social behavior, rubbish on streets and in gardens, disruption from delivery drivers that are already using this branch. So extending the licensing hours to permit the branch to stay open all day and night long and into the early hours of the morning under this amended application would considerably increase the detriment to local residents and prevent further challenges. I present further challenges to the local police and the council's law enforcement team. From what I've seen this evening, and what I'll be feeding back to Ben is that the sentiment of residents has been expressed very clearly. It's been very strong, and I know that Ben would like to echo those thoughts and feelings. As residents tonight have made clear, despite what we've heard from McDonald this evening, we're still encouraging the licensing committee to object to this. Thank you. Thank you, Jasper. You're on mute, Patrick. Sorry about that. Thank you, Jasper. I'm going to call on Sandra next, and Sandra, you have up to nine minutes to speak. Sandra, are you still with us this evening? Chair, I can't see Sandra in the meeting. Okay, that's fine. In that case, we will move to Eleanor next. Eleanor, you have up to six minutes for any summations you wish to make. Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure if my video is back now on. I beg the committee to consider the wellbeing of residents given that there is already an antisocial behaviour and crime issue on Paul Dome Road, and particularly as a female. McDonald's extending their hours will only perpetuate the situation and extend it into the night. It feels wholly unsympathetic and unwarranted for the applicant belittle residents' experiences as anxiety. What McDonald's don't seem to be appreciating is that residents are living with the here and now. We've heard a lot about what McDonald's intend to do internally about their customers, but not a lot about what they're going to do for us externally. When youths disperse from McDonald's with their food, shakes, and then torment us. This is an hour problem, and I'm astounded and slightly insulted that my real crime numbers, 1099 calls, 35 emails to let in the last year have been downplayed to anxiety. I also ask how the committee would feel if it was their mother that was threatened with a knife by a youth eating a McDonald's on their front steps within their boundary. McDonald's put this application in with no consultation with local residents. To give us three days' notice on a Friday before a bank holiday Monday to invite residents to come and chat about this application is disingenuous. I cannot implore you as a committee enough to support the local residents in having a peaceful, restful enjoyment of their homes. These are our homes. It's our mental health, our lives. McDonald's hours should be reduced, not bloody extended. Thank you, Eleanor. I'm now going to call on Councillor Trey Campbell-Simon. Councillor Campbell-Simon, you've up to three minutes for any final summations you wish to make. Thank you, Chair and committee, for holding this meeting tonight. I'm not going to say too much because I feel like the residents have fully addressed the issues here. I would just like to mention a couple of points in that, you know, regularly drivers idle outside McDonald's in the hope of getting orders from McDonald's. So how the delivery apps work is that the nearer you are to the restaurant, the more likely you are to get to get the job. And, you know, I know that from prior knowledge, but that's also been confirmed by numerous delivery drivers around McDonald's and, you know, a big company like McDonald's, there's always going to be orders. I just wanted to pick up on something that the applicant's lawyer had stated, and he stated a number of times in his representation about that, you know, his McDonald's were offered payment to open up toilet facilities. That's not, that's not, that's not, and I don't want him to mislead, that's only mislead the committee on that point. All reputable businesses or, you know, businesses in the local area that have accessible toilets were offered that same incentive. So to individually act like to the committee that McDonald's were just singled out because they're such a well run business and, you know, they don't have any antisocial behaviour and crime and disorder and littering. That they were just picked out because of what such a well run business is, is intimacy in the committee. I, you know, the final point I'm going to make is that McDonald's we've heard are going to, you know, all on this meeting, we've heard they're going to implement so many things to tackle the issues. Where was these things before? Where was the six monthly residence meetings, engagement meetings that's now being brought down to three? Where was the additional bin, you know, collection or you've been bins that they're promising now that they're going to implement? Where was any of these measures? Why would they not implement it beforehand? It's only because they have a licensing application. And can I just remind the committee? And finally, I'm just going to sign off on this. McDonald's applied for the original application for McDonald's was for a 24 hour licence. They've then had to reduce it because the police were not comfortable with them operating 24 hours and they've had to agree to the police's recommendation for timings. So what does that say? There must be some issues. And you can see by the amount of residents that are on this call tonight when they clearly have better things to be doing with that evening at quarter to 11 o'clock at night. You know, there is there is complaints. We've had hundreds of just over 100 objections to this licence. And, you know, I implore the committee, you know, to, you know, reject this licence out of hand and even explore potential reduction hours. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. So we'll now hear from Sarah Chambers. Sarah, you have up to six minutes for any summations you wish to make. Thank you, Councillor. I won't be six minutes. I think most points have already been covered. As many residents have just pointed out, and Mr. Phillips has pointed out, a lot of the defence of the McDonald's application, a lot of the points don't really stack up. Wi-Fi, turning off the Wi-Fi late at night. But most people have enough data on their package. Classical music doesn't really matter if you're wearing earpods. A lot of the crux of their defence is everything that's happening within the McDonald's. But they're ignoring what happens immediately outside the premises as people step outside. That is the impact on the whole entire neighbourhood. The applicant's barrister talks about the police statistics. He basically implies that they're irrelevant. I don't think that police statistics are irrelevant. You know, they're published on the website, and I actually have a list in front of me, a redacted list, an anonymised list of all the crimes that have taken place in McDonald's in the last nine months. It's slightly disingenuous to say that there have been no crimes at the premises. I've got the list. They were given to me by Inspector Hayes. And, you know, just generally the belittling of residents' experiences, that there isn't enough evidence. I don't know what people expect. They expect the residents of Haldane Road and Tourney Road to be walking down their streets wearing body-worn video in order to record this, to upload this, to upload this. I think that's thoroughly unreasonable, to be honest. And I think that that the committee should thoroughly reject the application and should, in fact, consider reducing the hours. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. So next up, I have John. And John, you have up to 30 minutes for your summations. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Well, as has been said before, a lot has been said that is very good and I will try to avoid repetition. But I think there are some features of tonight which are really worth focusing on. One is the size and scale of objections, 166 or whatever it was, objections, plus huge numbers represented by organisations. This is not the usual noise of local opposition. This is not some sort of emotional outpouring without any factual or empirical reference point. This is a 330 plus, I don't know the total number of pages. I'm going to put it closer to 400 pages in the agenda packs of detailed, immediate, real life experiences of real people. That is, I think, the evidence that everyone, and I'm sure the committee will, have huge regard to. When you, I was part slightly amazed by the applicant's submission, because when you stand at the front door of McDonald's, you look straight ahead, you've got Halford, you look to your left, you've got Haldane, you look up to your, you know, over your shoulder up. You've got three floors of residential properties and then you walk 20 steps down the road and you've got Tournai. It is undeniably, inescapably residential and the residential nature and the fact that it is relevant that what happens away from the premises to me seems inescapably linked and critical. And I didn't really hear that addressed at all. I got the impression from the legal representative that we're not, it's not our responsibility. We do everything we can on the site. We're very good at it. We're, uh, highest standards ever improving. Fantastic. But the second it's down the road, not our business. And by the way, do you know what? Times are changing. Way more deliveries. It's just a sign of the times. It kind of felt, and apologies, this is slightly emotive language, but it felt when you scratched away this at the surface, a little bit superficial. Um, and listening to Mr Phillips, who I thought his summation was excellent. And we certainly fully supported. Um, we just thought probably wasn't good enough. Yes, we heard about Abel's story. Well, you know, I'm sure there are plenty of people on this call who have got similar stories and started from somewhere and did well for themselves. That doesn't justify non-policy hours. Um, we heard about defibrillators and toilets. And I think this is a point Mr Phillips made extremely well. Um, but we're talking about the four licensing objections, the prevention of arms of children, prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder. Those things, all that nice stuff, the noise around it, you know, um, it, it, it doesn't go to those principal issues. And we have to focus on the four, uh, key objectives. I think at various points, um, the representative said there were no crime, you know, concerns with crime disorder. My jaw dropped when I think what he said was, um, you know, bad practice if you accept statistics. Um, but they didn't offer any evidence to challenge the statistics. And Sarah Chambers has just quite rightly said what the source is and where it's available. And I don't see any challenge to the metropolitan police statistics. I don't see any challenge that says this is not the living reality today of what we face when we step outside our front doors. Um, so I was worried by the fact that there was no reference. There was a lot of nice stuff and it was, you know, in some sense is great to hear. I am skeptical that it's relevant to the four licensing objectives. I did. There was one moment of lightness. I think somebody said at some point that the McDonald's operates a sunrise to sunset, uh, policy. And I quickly checked sunset was at 21 04 tonight. And if you could close, for example, after 10 by 10, that would be great. And I quite like to align closing times to sunset, but I'm not sure that's quite what the, uh, applicant, uh, um, was getting at. And obviously no one needs to be told that you don't get sunset after midnight, which is, uh, the hours that they are trying to achieve. Um, the one thing I will take direct issue with, again, this is slightly under the applicant's umbrella of, we can't control it. We talked about you're only notified of an order at certain points. You know, no one sits around. Well, you know, boy, oh boy, I'm sorry. On Tornay road. They sit around, uh, Shorrods road. They sit around Haldane road. They sit around Halford road. They sit around day in day out for more years than I can care to mention. And it's not that they are monastically quiet and studying for the open university. Okay. They're not, they're quite, you know, they're tired. They're working really hard. Okay. Their friends are there. They need to eat. They need to do all those other normal things, but they're happening on residential roads, uh, at very late at night. Okay. And that is the thing that personally, I think we should be guarding against. Um, in one sense to reject this application is not difficult. Um, the, the nature of it is one and the issues here is one that the committee has met before. I fully accept, but no previous decision of the committee is binding on this committee. I think, um, Mr. Phillips may have alluded to that. Um, but in previous recent hearings, there are examples of the committee rejecting non-policy hours. It happened this year in Popeyes and Wendy's. It happened last year in Morley's and the year before that in Papa John's. Now, again, I absolutely stress. I am not, there is no member of the committee who must look at those decisions and must bow down to them. That is not the process. Every case must be adjudged on its facts. Um, but the committee has consistently and coherently dealt with non-policy hours. And I, on behalf of those I'm speaking for, would completely urge you to do that again and be consistent and explain the support for those policy hours. Um, it, when you come to your decision. I personally don't think there's anything exceptional about this particular application that would in any way justify you to depart from the policy. Um, uh, but I obviously, that is a decision, um, for, for, for you to make. Um, couple of things again, I'm going, yes. Um, I'll, you know, hands up. I met with Mr. Campos in December about the extractor noise issue. That's the only time we've met, but we have exchanged emails all to do with the extractor issue. Let's just remember the history to this. The planning application for the certificate of lawfulness started sometime last year. Okay. They could have in the preparation. They knew they were going to do it. They could have in the preparation come and found me. He's got my number and my email, but they didn't. They got the certificate of lawfulness. Did they contact anyone? As far as I'm aware, no, they didn't. They then clearly took a decision, probably all as part of a coordinated effort to apply for licensing. Did they reach out again? We had ongoing discussions about the extractor fan, but nothing was ever mentioned. Uh, a little bit like the, um, the fact that these issues weren't raised when, um, there was an attendance at Mr. Coleman's surgery. But they've had massive and plenty of opportunities, uh, to engage with the residents. And what slightly galls me, if I can use that language, is that there's some reference about using tens. Well, if I understand tens correctly, and I know Mr. Overton will rightly put me straight here. If I don't, I think you can only object within three days and only the police authority or the environmental health organization can object. So yet again, they've chosen a process that cuts out residents. They haven't engaged with residents. They're not always engaging with residents. And lo and behold, their strategy going forward is to rely on tens. Uh, just seems to me to be not the right approach. If I can use relatively, uh, polite language. Um, the other point I will just pick up on is that somewhere in the policy guidance, there's a reference to applicants needing to make a case for how they would not increase further problems for residents. Listening tonight, I don't think the applicant has discharged that obligation to make that case. Obviously that is a decision, the committee, not, um, a decision, uh, for, for, for, for me. Actually, when I read the policy, I, I think this case is the epitome. It is the paradigm of exactly what the policy is trying to protect. It's saying, yes, we always have to balance all these operators. They're very successful businesses. We've got a really tight space. We've got the North end road, which is mixed use. And we are in a dense, dense jungle of residential, um, vicinity. Um, and if there is one example of what this policy is trying to protect, this is not a site, which is like the ones with site and six lanes of the eight to one seven. We're next door to what used to be the repair factory. It's on a, it's a retail park, semi-industrial site. This is slap bang within touching distance, toe to toe, cheek by jowl. You cannot move for residents. And that distinguishes, I say that distinguishes this case. And it's why if this case isn't protected, then God help us all. Cause I'm not sure I can think of a case that would be, but again, I'm not a licensing expert. And I appreciate that saying things like that is probably meat and drink to Mr. Phillips and, um, to the, uh, applicants representative. Um, so coming to the end, because I know I've definitely got to come to the end. I was a little bit surprised when Mr. Campos said that none of these issues have been raised with me. So either his lawyers, he's pays his lawyers to read 400 pages, but they haven't brought it to his attention, or he's not actually bothered to read the application. Well, do you know what? Is that good enough? Is that the standard we really expect from people who benefit from trading in a fantastic place in a great North End road that has been partially regenerated? And as someone said earlier, is a great place within restaurants and loads of other amenities. Is that really what we or the local authority expects of a responsible person in the community? Yeah. I was surprised. I put it no higher than that, that he said, none of it's raised with me. I read the 400 pages and I got all of that stuff. So it was, it was, it was there for me, for me, um, uh, to, to, to, to see. Um, and none of that stuff was new, by the way, you know, it's been around for a long time. So maybe tonight is a slight outpouring because it really is the touch point for, for, for many of us. So where does that get us? Well, first of all, thank you. Thank you to the committee and thank you to everyone on this who has made a fabulous effort. It is really late. We've all worked extremely hard. We've all given up a massive amount of personal time. I utterly thank you. I'm really pleased that we can do this process and we have this process. First of all, what I would say is I think the application is ill-advised for all the reasons we've heard. I think it's ill-informed about the area. Mr. Campos doesn't, is telling me there are massive issues he's never even heard of. Well, actually for the director of the company that is the franchisee, he is the mind. He drives that. He sets the culture. He sets the standard, but he said, no one's ever raised those issues with him. Please, my submission is, for God's sake, don't make it worse. But I also agree with Mr. Phillips that this is an opportunity to make it better and better for a huge number of people. Therefore, I would ask the committee to find that they reject the application and reduce ours. I personally have hugely benefited from listening to everybody as well as the legal advisors. And on that basis, quickly checking my notes, and I'm sure everyone wants me to shut up. I'll stop. Thank you, John, for your summation. Next, I have Catherine Langham. And Catherine, you have up to six minutes to make your summation. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to pick up Leo on a couple of points. He asserted that McDonald's always responds to complaints. In the agenda C, pages 43, 45, and 46, some of these letters are to Hammersmith and Fulham. But there's one particular problem, which was with an oil spillage, a serious oil spillage of fat, basically, into the street. The manager, when approached, was extremely rude. My daughter contacted. She actually wrote to Paul Pomeroy, who was CEO of McDonald's at the time, got very little response. Other occasions she's emailed him about various problems, very little response. I don't know whether Abel's contact was freely available, but she certainly wasn't aware of them. So, going on to the trialing body cams, why is it that this particular branch has been chosen? Presumably because there is a problem that needs to be addressed. So, they, Mr. Leo states that they have space for couriers within the premises, but there is no parking. If McDonald's is going to effectively become an overnight delivery hub, surely they need premises where there is parking for the delivery drivers. I know this isn't the issue tonight, but in my view, this premises isn't suitable for the purpose. They also state that women may be able to seek safe haven within McDonald's, but how do they get home? Are the staff going to accompany them to their front door, or are they going to have to, at some point, take the plunge and hope for the best? So, Macdonald's, he, Leo also said that Macdonald's isn't responsible for what goes on down the street, but they are a contributor to the crime disorder, and extending the hours will make everything worse. Therefore, I must ask you to please refuse this application. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Moving along, the next person I have on my list is Charlotte, and Charlotte, you have up to 15 minutes for any summations you wish to make. Yes, thank you. I just like to make very clear that when I was in McDonald's several times and spoke to. The most senior manager, she explained to me in great detail about this toilet issue. And as you know, you can buy keys for these toilets online. And one of the reasons that they have an SIA person often in the afternoon is because of the toilet. I mean, it becomes a public toilet as, as the barrister said, and they have huge problems with drugs, which are crime. They have huge problem with kids going in and locking themselves in and God knows what, et cetera. So it's, it's a real risk and it's, it's, it's not in control and there's not much that they can do about it because they've signed up to have a public toilet. Well, they need to have a public toilet, whatever it is, but it's an unresolved issue. And I, I think that, that McDonald's, you know, really needs to know what they're talking about before they start hailing how wonderful they are in the community with, with a troublesome toilet. Um, it's very clear to me that Mr. Campos, I don't think he had the link to, to the agenda, which is very difficult for us. I feel very, very insulted really by, by this whole process tonight. We have people telling us that everything we say is, is rubbish. It's, it can't be upheld in court. There's no evidence here tonight. What, what are people here for? Excuse me. You know, we are here because we are Fulham and we are here together. We are Fulham together and we are determined to make sure that the four license objectives are upheld within the context of your policy, which gives you huge room to look at other things other than just the objectives. And that a few, a few conditions have been added that sort of, you know, tuck in with the objectives and then it's all okay. No, it's not okay. Counselors. It's not. And we're very glad that Ben Coleman made our, our MP, excuse me, Ben Coleman made, made a rep for his 85,000 constituents in the part of his constituency, which is Fulham. So it's Fulham and, and Chelsea, as most people know. Uh, and we're very pleased that he sent somebody here tonight to, to represent him. And I hope the counselors listened very carefully to all of that. Um, in, in conclusion, I would just say that tonight is the night to make the right decision for Fulham, for your constituents, for your residents, for us, for us together. I believe that McDonald's owes a huge apology to Eleanor and her mother tonight. She has been insulted in a way that is absolutely abhorrible. I, I'm embarrassed that, that she has sat, had to sit through this and be told that everything that she presented was not worthwhile. Very unfair, very unfair, very unfair, very wrong. Which brings me to my next point. Please do not make a wrong decision tonight. Please make a decision for Hammersmith and Fulham. This night is going to be remembered for a long time. It will make headlines very soon. And we hope that it doesn't continue to make headlines. We hope this is a starting point for the committee to start really embracing that policy. It's the Bible of, of the way that you need to operate for your constituents. We, we can't fall all into the Thames together. You know, we're here. We are. We choose to be here in global city. But the wonderful thing about London is it's full of neighborhoods. It's full of residential neighborhoods. That's why people come here. That's why they like it. That's why they visit here. That's why tourists bring in money here. All of these things. They do have to do with the licensing objectives. The licensing objectives aren't in some glass jar somewhere. They're part and parcel of a community of land, of human beings, of pets. Everything is who we are. And we are Fulham together. Thank you. Thank you, Charlotte. We've now heard all the summations from the objectors. As 189 minutes were allocated for summations from the objectors, the same amount of time is being allocated to the applicant for any summations they wish to make. And of course, brevity would be appreciated. So, Leo, if I believe it's going to be yourself or whoever. It will be. It will be me. Yes. It will not take 189 minutes. I'm already clearly very unpopular. I will start with as follows. I'm sure you and your colleagues will entirely disregard and join me in criticising Councillor Lydia Painter, who has suggested that I, or indeed the applicant, is here to hoodwink anyone. We have attended here in good faith, with an open mind, having read all the representations. We are nonetheless here to engage with a legal regime. Mr Phillips may describe and commend to you the matters you've heard which have been made feelingly, but feelingly is not good evidence. Counselor Daly, in asking questions, may raise the concern that I'm speaking and asking you to focus about evidence. I do so advisedly, because this is an evidence-based regime. Mr Phillips talks about the nature of protest, anxiety, and anger, all of which are feelingly legitimate, but not helpful in the licensing context. Mr Phillips relates to, and refers you to Thwaites, a case that was decided on untested opinions. The section 182 guidance, at paragraph 9.12, warns the responsible authorities, and I think it applies equally to local residents. They should be able to withstand the scrutiny to which they are subjected. The hearings regulations entitle me to ask questions of other parties. Your internal procedures make it clear that you, sir, don't allow the other parties to question each other. The hearings regulations allow me to cross-examine other parties with your permission. Of course, your internal hearings procedures don't allow for questioning. So, the onus to provide scrutiny is by you and your colleagues. So, it's quite surprising that one councillor has one question. Only one councillor engages with, I think, a small handful of local residents. And I'm really left wondering, what scrutiny have you and your colleagues engaged with the evidence? Or have you fallen into the trap that Mr Phillips warns you against, which is not to rely on untested opinions. He commends to you their feelings, their protests, their anxiety and their anger. I'm going to make myself unpopular and invite you to focus on real and actual evidence. And I'm going to warn you the dangers of relying on untested opinions. When a senior councillor, who I think expressed herself as being part of the Cabinet, refers to known drug dealers, strong, powerful, emotive language. Well, McDonald's have operated here since 1978. Show me the evidence for the known drug dealers. It's not been presented to you. So, you're in very dangerous waters. I appreciate you have to be diplomatic. I don't know why McDonald's and its golden arches attracts this high level of representations. It's not uncommon. And I've dealt with it many times. I'm surprised to hear criticism for focusing on the operating schedule, on conditions, on what we're practically doing to promote the licensing objectives. Surely that should be the point. An operator has arrived with his application and said to you, Sir, I can promote the licensing objectives. That application has been scrutinised by your responsible authorities, who haven't condemned it. The police experts on crime and disorder, who are responsible for being worried about drugs, sexual assault, knife crime, antisocial behaviour, and the whole corn copia of concerns that you've raised. It's gone through the safer neighbourhoods team, a licensing sergeant, and I don't know who else, and have said, just scale it back a bit. Think about a couple of conditions. And we'll support you even in the event that you propose to apply for Thames. That's the balance. That's the scrutiny that you need to engage with. Comments have been made on the operating schedule, but there's been no attempt made to question the quality of our CCTV, our record keeping, our staff training, our staff safe system, our commitment to SIA, our commitment to facilities for the local community, and so on. All of which are part of the array of what the licensing objective engages. All they've said is, no, I don't want it. Shut it down. Problems happen far away from McDonald's. At best, the evidence amounts to people who eat McDonald's in this area are allegedly associated with crime and disorder. Eating a burger doesn't make you a criminal. Shopping from McDonald's doesn't make you a criminal. There may be other factors that do, but actually eating a burger doesn't. So the real focus must be on what are we doing? Are we committed to cleaning up the streets? Yes. Are we committed to engagement? Yes. Are we committed to proactive working to find solutions to challenges? Yes. Can we be trusted to do so? Yes. Because we're already trusted to do so. We're a director of the bid. We cooperate with the local authority on a number of initiatives. We work with the McDonald's nationally to pilot schemes. Not because there's a particular problem in your area, but because we are a particularly good franchisee of particularly good experience. So we're always looking for innovative ways to work with the community, the responsible authorities, and McDonald's corporately to find solutions to promote the licensing objectives. None of that has actually been criticised before you. So, sir, I would invite you to listen sympathetically. Congratulate everyone who's been here for a very thorough hearing, but nonetheless provide serious scrutiny to the untested opinions and anxieties in the face of a very clear evidence-based operating schedule that seems to be commended and is acceptable and is free from actual criticism because the criticism happens quite far away. We can be a partner to the responsible authorities and to the local communities to find for solutions. Sir, I don't propose to go any further other than to point out that there were significant new submissions made in summations that were allowed, but I'm not going to answer them given that we're now at nearly half past 11. I thank you for your patience and I commend the application to you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Leo. We've now heard from both the objectors and the applicant as well as the licensing officers, so we're going to move now on to deliberations. So the committee will retire to deliberate in a separate meeting room. You are welcome to remain in the meeting to hear the committee's decision. However, this may take some time. If you do not want to wait, a summary decision will be published on the council's website tomorrow. So could I ask members of the committee to turn off the video, mute their microphones, and to join me in the private team meeting for deliberations. All right. Thank you, everybody, for waiting. I will now read the summary decision of the committee. So the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham summary decision of the licensing committee on the 28th of May 25. So I'm unmuted. Yes, I'm unmuted. For McDonald's 312 to 314, North End Road, London, SW6, 1 and G, the premises. The committee has considered an application for a variation of the existing premises license under the licensing act of 2003. The application as follows. One, the varying the hours of the provision of late night refreshment, both indoors and outdoors, Sunday to Thursday, 5 a.m. to 1 a.m. And Friday to Saturday, 5 a.m. to 3 a.m. with 1 s.i.a. on duty from midnight to 3 a.m. Very sorry to varying the opening hours. The premises is open to the public proposed opening hours of Sunday to Thursday, 5 a.m. to 1 a.m. And Friday and Saturday, 5 a.m. to 3 a.m. In summary, the committee has decided after taking into account all of the individual circumstances of this case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives to reject the application. A copy of the committee's full decision, including its reasons will be sent to the parties forthwith if the applicant or any person who has made a relevant representation is unhappy with the decision. They are entitled to appeal to a magistrates court within 21 days of the date of the notification of the full decision. So I'd like to thank everybody for participating in tonight's meeting and wish you a very good morning.