The Licensing Sub-Committee of Hammersmith and Fulham Council met on 30 September 2025 to discuss a premises licence variation for Gourmet Hound and a new premises licence for 512 Fulham Road. The committee granted the variation for Gourmet Hound, subject to conditions proposed by the police and committee, and also granted the new premises licence for 512 Fulham Road, subject to amended conditions.

Gourmet Hound, 345 Fulham Palace Road

The committee considered an application for a variation of the premises licence for Gourmet Hound, 345 Fulham Palace Road. The committee decided to grant the application with the following changes:

• Expansion of the red line of licensable activity to include outside the premises building, as per the proposed premises licence plan.
• The supply of alcohol off the premises Monday to Sunday, 8am to 11pm.
• The supply of alcohol on the premises from 8am to 11pm inside the building and 8am to 10pm outside the building.
• Hours open to the public, 7am to 11pm.
• Addition of conditions proposed by the police and agreed by the applicant.
• Addition of the following condition proposed by the committee: A responsible member of staff shall organise and accommodate meetings to discuss the operation of the premises with residents at least once per calendar year. The meeting shall be advertised at least 14 days before its due date by letter to residents and residents associations in the locality as well as to the licensing authority.

The application had sought to expand the red line of licensable activity to include the area outside the premises, and to allow the supply of alcohol on and off the premises between 8am and 11pm, seven days a week.

Matt Tucker, Interim Licensing Policy and Administration Team Leader, told the committee that the application had received three representations, two from local residents and one from the council’s noise team. The noise team representation had since been conciliated¹. Kazim Akredi spoke on behalf of Amelia Waldoch, a local resident who objected to the application. Mr Akredi read out a statement from Ms Waldoch, raising concerns about:

• Drunkenness and antisocial behaviour
• Public order
• Personal safety
• Public nuisance, including noise and litter
• The impact on children, given the proximity of Fulham Cross Academy.

Jason Van Praag, one of the founding partners of Palace Daly LLP, the licensee trading as Gourmet Hound, addressed the committee. He explained that Gourmet Hound is a family business run and owned by local residents, established in 2022. He stated that the business's mission was to positively impact the local community by adding something interesting and different as a retail business. He added that the application for an on-licence was a continuation of this, to meet the requirements of local customers.

Mr Van Praag also told the committee that the business had taken advice from the Metropolitan Police and the noise and nuisance team, and had adopted their recommendations. He said that the business had an off-licence since 2022 and had not had any issues or complaints.

Councillor Jacolyn Daly, Chair of Housing and Homelessness PAC, asked Mr Akredi how the proposed licence would affect the quality of life of residents, particularly in terms of noise, safety and sleep disruption. Mr Akredi said that the flats above the premises were not soundproofed and that there was an expected significant rise in the level of noise that would be heard within those flats. He added that Ms Waldoch was concerned about her personal safety when returning to the building in the evenings.

Councillor Daly also asked about current noise levels and any nuisance or disorder on match days. Mr Akredi said that there were currently no issues with noise and that Ms Waldoch had never felt unsafe on a match day.

Councillor Dominic Stanton, Opposition Whip, asked Mr Van Praag how he had considered the residential nature of the area in his schedule, and about keeping residents safe, particularly females, in the evenings. Mr Van Praag said that the business was not a busy nightclub, but a deli, coffee shop and specialty grocer. He added that he had taken advice from the Metropolitan Police about match day issues and late-night issues after 10pm, and had agreed to bring people inside and not have people outside after that time.

Mr Van Praag also told the committee that the business was committed to ensuring that the shop was attractive and kept in good shape, and that stringent procedures would be put in place to make sure that there was no antisocial behaviour. He said that the business was not targeting football fans, and that it would risk assess situations on match days and voluntarily reduce service if necessary.

Councillor Stanton asked about off-sales, particularly late at night, and delivery riders. Mr Van Praag said that the business used Deliveroo, but that it was not very active and mainly for food. He added that the shop would be fully staffed through to closing and that there would be more staff on the premises.

Councillor Stanton also raised the comments about the bins outside the flats being mistaken for public bins. Mr Akredi said that the bins were directly opposite the flat entrance and that they were often mistaken for public bins, with people throwing litter towards them or in them.

Councillor Alexander asked Mr Tucker about the investigation by the environmental noise team. Mr Tucker said that the noise team had initially raised some concerns, but that the applicant had made some changes to their application, including agreeing conditions with the police. He added that the noise team was content with the conditions and had withdrawn their representation.

Councillor Alexander also asked if there was a record of noise complaints about the premises. Mr Tucker said that he was unaware of any previous issues and that there was no recorded enforcement activity at the premises.

Councillor Alexander asked Mr Van Praag about the new concept and new experience that the business was offering. Mr Van Praag said that the business was looking to add something to the community, employ local people and provide a nice place with good specialty food products and wine.

Councillor Alexander also asked about delivery drivers. Mr Van Praag said that delivery drivers had to wait outside, on the outdoor area, and that this system had worked pretty well.

Councillor Stanton asked if there had been any direct communication between Ms Waldoch and the business. Mr Van Praag said that he did not recognise the name Amelia, but that he would happily engage with her if there was an issue.

Councillor Daly asked if the restaurant would be serving food indoors and outdoors, but only alcohol indoors. Mr Emmanuel Mpoza, the Council's legal officer, said that alcohol could be served outside, as long as the sale took place inside.

Councillor Daly asked if there were any limitations on what time customers could be outside drinking. Mr Mpoza said that the tables and chairs licence would limit the timing, and that it would be no later than 9 or 10pm.

512 Fulham Road, London, SW6 5NJ

The committee considered an application for a new premises licence for 512 Fulham Road. The committee decided to grant the application as follows:

• Late night refreshment indoors only Thursday to Sunday 11pm to midnight.
• The sale of alcohol on and off the premises Sunday to Wednesday 9am to 11pm, and Thursday to Saturday 9am to midnight.
• The opening hours of the premises are as follows: Sunday to Wednesday 7am to 11pm, and Thursday to Saturday 7am to midnight.
• The licence is subject to any mandatory conditions.
• The licence is subject to the conditions proposed by the applicant as amended by the committee.
• The licence is subject to the conditions proposed by the police and agreed by the applicant.

The application was for a new premises licence for late night refreshment and for the sale of alcohol on and off the premises.

Mr Tucker told the committee that the application had attracted two residential objections, but that one had since been withdrawn following communication between the applicant and the objectors. He added that the remaining objector had not indicated that they wished to withdraw their representation.

Bobby Naikum, Kativa Legal, representing the applicant, told the committee that the responsible authorities had raised concerns when the application was first submitted. He said that the police had highlighted risks around crime and disorder, particularly linked to Chelsea football matches², vertical drinking³ etc, and that environmental health had also raised some issues. Mr Naikum said that his client had responded constructively and had entered into detailed discussions with the police and various authorities. As a result, the hours were reduced and additional conditions had been agreed. He added that the applicant had accepted every condition the police requested.

Councillor Daly asked Mr Naikum what measures had been put in place to prevent public nuisance from delivery riders, late night refreshment and alcohol sales, and for match day risks when Chelsea are playing. Mr Naikum said that conditions had been agreed with the police regarding match days, including suspending off-sales pre-kickoff, no glass bottles outside and no promotions. He added that all delivery riders had a dedicated seating area at the back of the premises and that there would not be any delivery riders loitering at the front of the premises.

Mr Naikum also said that the measures suggested by environmental health were satisfactory and that a number of conditions had been agreed with the police and environmental health to address crime and disorder, public nuisance and concerns for match days.

Councillor Daly asked if football fans would be on the premises on match days. Mr Naikum said that there would be some football fans on the premises, but that alcohol would only be ancillary to food and that there would be no vertical drinking.

Councillor Daly asked how the outside space would be used. Mr Naikum said that the back was a fire exit and that there was a seating area at the back, but that it was not open to the public and was mainly for delivery riders and staff. He added that there was a tables and chairs licence for two to three tables at the front and that there would be table service.

Mr Tucker clarified that the premises licence plan included the fabric of the building only, not outside.

Councillor Alexander asked if the pavement outside was adopted by the council and maintained as a public area. Mr Tucker confirmed that it was.

Councillor Daly asked if the restaurant would be serving food indoors and outdoors, but only alcohol indoors. Mr Naikum said that alcohol could be served outside, as long as the sale took place inside and that there was table service only.

Councillor Daly asked if there were any limitations on what time customers could be outside drinking. Mr Naikum said that the tables and chairs licence would set a timing and that it would be no later than 9 or 10pm.