The Kensington and Chelsea Licensing Sub-Committee convened to discuss a temporary event notice (TEN) application for the ground floor of 359 Portobello Road, London, during the Notting Hill Carnival. The committee ultimately decided to issue a counter notice, effectively denying the applicant permission to sell alcohol at the premises during the event, citing concerns about crime, disorder and public safety.

Temporary Event Notice: 359 Portobello Road

The primary focus of the meeting was a temporary event notice submitted by William Rogerson for the sale of alcohol off the premises at 359 Portobello Road during the Notting Hill Carnival on Sunday 24 and Monday 25 August 2025. The proposed hours of operation were midday to 7pm, with a maximum of 12 people allowed on the premises at any one time.

Decision: The committee decided to issue a counter notice under Section 105 of the Licensing Act 2003, meaning the application was not approved.

Arguments against the application focused on the potential for increased crime and disorder, as well as public safety concerns due to overcrowding and congestion. PC Janelle Caldinez of the Metropolitan Police, and Philip Richardson, a principal environmental health officer for noise and nuisance, submitted objections to the TEN.

Key points raised during the discussion included:

• Location and Congestion: The premises' proximity to the Faraday Road sound system, an area known for heavy congestion during the carnival, was a major concern. Objectors argued that allowing alcohol sales at this location could exacerbate congestion, create bottlenecks, and increase the risk of public safety incidents.
• Risk Assessment and Event Management Plan: Concerns were raised about the lack of a detailed risk assessment and event management plan. Objectors argued that the application did not adequately address how potential risks, such as overcrowding and antisocial behaviour, would be managed.
• Applicant's Presence: While William Rogerson stated he would be present during the event, initial documentation indicated he would not be. This discrepancy raised concerns about the experience and competence of those overseeing operations.
• Street Trading: The Metropolitan Police raised concerns that the proposed activity might amount to unauthorised street trading, as alcohol could be sold onto the public highway, which is against council policy.
• Insurance: Questions were raised about whether the premises' insurance covered the sale of alcohol during the carnival.
• Consultation with Authorities: Concerns were raised that William Rogerson had not liaised with the carnival committee or the police prior to submitting the TEN.
• Licensing Objectives: Objectors argued that the TEN did not demonstrate how the licensing objectives¹ of preventing crime and disorder, ensuring public safety, preventing public nuisance, and protecting children from harm would be upheld.

William Rogerson, the premises user, stated that he had successfully run similar events in previous years without any issues, and that he would have security personnel in place to manage crowds and ensure safety. He also clarified that alcohol would be sold inside the shop, not on the street.

Despite William Rogerson's assurances, the committee ultimately sided with the objectors, determining that allowing the TEN would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives.

Background Information

Paul Phelan from the council's licensing team, outlined the application, noting objections from the Metropolitan Police and the Environmental Health Department. He confirmed there was no record of a temporary event notice for the premises in 2024.

Premises User Submission

William Rogerson, the premises user, explained that he had submitted a risk assessment and event plan. He stated that he had run similar events for the past two years at a neighbouring property and that they had been successful and safe, with good relations with the police. He proposed limiting entry to four people at a time, with a security guard managing crowds.

Questions from the Committee

Councillor Dori Schmetterling noted that the risk assessment was not well-presented and difficult to read. She questioned the queue management plan and the location of the bar relative to the door. Councillor Linda Wade asked about previous events and proximity to the current site, as well as security arrangements and liaison with the carnival committee.

Police Submission

Horain Henry, the Police's Legal Advisor, objected to the application on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. He argued that the premises had no history of trading alcohol, and the application did not address how risks would be mitigated. He raised concerns about potential congestion and bottlenecks on the pavement, as well as the risk of harm to children. He also questioned the validity of the insurance coverage for licensable activities.

Environmental Health Submission

Mac McIlroy from Environmental Health echoed the police's concerns about crowd safety and the potential for a bottleneck. He stated that the event management plan lacked detail and did not provide confidence that the key licensing objectives would be upheld.