The Kensington and Chelsea Licensing Sub-Committee convened to discuss a temporary event notice (TEN) application for Thai Rice, located at 303 Portobello Road, during the Notting Hill Carnival. Objections were raised by both the police and the council's noise and nuisance team. The committee ultimately decided to issue a counter notice, effectively denying the application.

Temporary Event Notice: Thai Rice, 303 Portobello Road

The sub-committee considered a TEN application from Mr Sakda Sunthornsarathun for the sale of alcohol on and off the premises at Thai Rice, 303 Portobello Road, during the Notting Hill Carnival on 24 and 25 August 2025. The application requested permission to sell alcohol from 11:00 to 19:00, with a maximum of 50 people at any one time. The committee decided to issue a counter notice under Section 105 of the Licensing Act 2003, meaning that the licensable activities requested in the TEN were not approved. The committee felt that allowing the TEN would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives.

The council's licensing officer, Paul Phelan, outlined the details of the application, noting that objections had been received from PC Tom Stewart of the Metropolitan Police, and Mr Philip Richardson, a Principal Environmental Health Officer from the council's noise and nuisance team.

PC Tom Stewart raised concerns about crime, disorder and public safety, citing the location's high footfall and restricted pedestrian access during the carnival. He presented photographic evidence of a substantial bar operating outside Thai Rice during the previous year's carnival, which he said caused congestion. PC Tom Stewart quoted Chief Inspector Dominic Nye, a public order commander, who stated that any activity attracting static crowds in that location would reduce the ability for crowds to flow safely, increasing the risk of crowd density and significant safety consequences.

PC Tom Stewart also noted that the proposed hours of operation fell outside the agreed carnival time limits of 12:00 to 19:00. He suggested that the applicant should only sell alcohol from within the premises, using their existing premises licence, thereby negating the need for a TEN.

When questioned by Cllr Marie-Therese Rossi, Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee, PC Tom Stewart said that the applicant's claim to be able to limit the number of people on the forecourt to 50 was not feasible.

Cllr David Lindsay, Chair of the Pension Board, asked about a condition on the premises licence that Mr Sakda Sunthornsarathun should never be appointed as the designated premises supervisor (DPS). PC Tom Stewart explained that this condition was imposed following an immigration visit where illegal workers were found at the premises. He added that while removing Mr Sakda Sunthornsarathun as DPS was a step in the right direction, it may be more effective if he was not the premises licence holder either.

Mr Julian Trill from the council's noise and nuisance team, spoke in support of Mr Philip Richardson's written objection, emphasising the importance of improving the carnival experience and addressing well-established concerns. He highlighted the narrowness of the Portobello Road at that location, exacerbated by the presence of food stalls and the nearby Virgo International sound system. He said that the proposed bar would further narrow the carriageway, creating an unnecessary impingement on the highway that had not been risk-assessed through the carnival process.

Mr Julian Trill also expressed frustration that the applicant was not present to address the concerns raised or explain how they would manage the operation. He said:

We're looking to improve carnival. We're not looking for the status quo here. We are, uh, trying to address the, um, well established concerns and issues that are raised by looking at each of these, um, applications on a case by case basis, but also looking at the wider picture across the carnival footprint to ensure that these ad hoc. Um, possibly not very well thought out and well developed plans, um, are scrutinized and objected to where we feel that, uh, they are going to, um, not promote the public safety licensing objective, which is absolutely paramount.