Content

Notification of
decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to determine an
application for a premises licence under section 17 of the
Licensing Act 2003
 
PREMISES:
          
Chicken Cottage, 12 Chiswick High Road, London W4 1TH
 
APPLICANT:
         Mr
Thamotharampillai Sivathasan
 
TAKE NOTICE THAT ON 27 February 2025
following a hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub
Committee (the “Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”),
 
HOUNSLOW COUNCIL, as the Licensing
Authority for the Premises RESOLVED that:
 
the application for the grant of the premises
licence for Chicken Cottage, 12 Chiswick High Road, London W4 1TH
was GRANTED, subject to the conditions and modifications
stated below.
 
REASONS:
 
1.            
The Panel convened to determine an application for a
premises licence for Chicken Cottage, 12 Chiswick High Road, London
W4 1TH (“the Premises”) under the Licensing Act
2003.
 
2.            
The application sought the following hours for
licensable activities:
 

·      
Late-night refreshment:
Sunday to
Thursday 23:00 to 02:00
Friday and
Saturday 23:00 to 04:00
 

·      
Hours premises are open to the
public:
Sunday to
Thursday 11:00 to 02:00
Friday and
Saturday 11:00 to 04:00
 
3.            
The application included proposed conditions on the
licence, which are set out in Section M of the application shown at
Appendix A of the agenda pack (pages 11 to 21). In addition
to this, the Applicant indicated that he had agreed conditions with
the Police – see details Appendix C of the agenda pack
(pages 34 to 37)
 
4.            
The Premises were not currently licensed, and it is
situated in an area of mixed commercial and residential
properties.
 
5.            
The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the
relevant information including:
 
·      
Written representations made by all the
parties
·      
The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to
promote the Licensing Objectives
·      
The guidance issued under section 182 of the
Licensing Act 2003
·      
Hounslow Council’s licensing policy
·      
The Human Rights Act 1998
 
6.            
As part of the consultation process the authority
received 16 representations against the application.  The representations raised concerns over possible
increase in crime and disorder and public nuisance. Copies of the
representations are attached as Appendix B of the agenda
pack (pages 22 to 33). 
 
7.            
There was no representation from the Licensing
Enforcement Team or any other Responsible Authorities.
 
8.            
The Police did not make representations but had been
in contact with the Applicant and agreed conditions with the
Applicant prior to the Panel hearing.  A
copy of the agreed conditions and correspondence with the Police
are attached as Appendix C of the agenda pack (pages 34 to
37). 
 
9.            
During the Licensing Panel hearing the facts giving
rise to the application for the grant of a premises licence were
set out by the licensing officer and were agreed by the
Applicant.
 
10.         
The Applicant attended and the Chair allowed a total
of 5 minutes speaking time to the Applicant.  There were 3 objectors in attendance who were also
given 5 minutes each of speaking time.
 
Submissions by the Applicant:
 
11.         
The Applicant’s agent, Mr Siva Shankar
(“the agent”) addressed the Panel through the Licensing
Panel hearing.
 
12.         
At the start of the Licensing Panel hearing the
Applicant, through his agent the Applicant confirmed that he wanted
to reduce the hours originally applied for. The agent explained to
the Panel that the Applicant had decided to reduce the hours
because he would like to work with the local community, ensuring
they were happy.  The agent confirmed
that the reduced hours which the Applicant was requesting the Panel
to consider were as follows:
 

·      
Late-night refreshment:
Sunday to
Thursday 23:00 to 01:00
Friday and
Saturday 23:00 to 02:00
 

·      
Hours premises are open to the
public:
Sunday to
Thursday 11:00 to 01:00
Friday and
Saturday 11:00 to 02:00
 
13.         
The agent went on to explain the background to the
application and that the Applicant purchased the business from its
previous owners, who operated as “Chicken
Valley.”  The Premises would offer
takeaway and delivery service.  In terms
of delivery after 23:00pm, the agent explained that only bikes and
electric vehicles would be used and the same condition would be
agreed with their partner deliver services, such as Deliveroo or
Just Eat. The agent assured the Panel that the Premises would not
use scooters or petrol engined vehicles to avoid late night noise
disturbance and that they would ensure all delivery drivers waited
inside the Premises when collecting deliveries and that the
Premises had space inside for drivers to wait.  The agent emphasised that this would avoid
noise.
 
14.         
The agent explained that the Applicant was
experienced in the type of work the Premises was trading in and
that there was a need for the late-night refreshment licence due to
demand for it in the area.
 
15.         
The agent drew to the Panel’s attention that
none of the responsible authorities had objected to the application
and that the police were in support of the application too.
Accordingly, the Applicant had agreed conditions with the police.
The Premises would ensure that they had an incident book and would
install CCTV. The Premises would have two shifts a day and would
have a manager for each shift. Furthermore, the Applicant usually
went to the Premises every day as well.
 
16.         
The agent acknowledged the concerns raised by the
objectors and assured the Panel that the Applicant did not want to
upset the residents and that taking their concerns into account,
the Applicant had decided to reduce the hours applied for even
though as it stood the police had agreed to the hours as stated on
the application. 
 
17.         
The Applicant wanted to address the Panel in
relation to the lighting for the signboard, but the Chair asked the
agent/Applicant not to raise this issue as it was a planning
matter. The legal adviser reminded the Panel that no submissions in
relation to this issue could be made by Applicant and/or the
objectors.
 
18.         
With regards to waste/rubbish, the agent told the
Panel that all their bags/wrappings had their name on and so they
knew what was theirs and would take responsibility to collect
rubbish and dispose of them.  
 
19.         
In terms of residents contacting the Premises about
any concerns or issues, the agent confirmed that they were happy to
share their contact email address with residents.
 
20.         
During question time, the agent confirmed that the
Premises had indoor seating for up to 20 persons.
 
21.         
In response to the Panel’s question as to why
the Applicant was seeking to increase their trading hours, the
agent explained that previous owner had a licence till 02:00am and
that the Applicant’s business plan was made with those hours
in mind. Furthermore, the Applicant thought there was a demand for
late night refreshments in the area. 
The agent also went on to submit to the Panel that licensing
objectives did not ask for reasons as to why a Premises wanted
longer trading hours.
 
22.         
In terms of how the extended hours would benefit the
residents or community, the agent simply said that there was a need
for their products and for delivery service and that people were
using the delivery service. 
 
23.         
Referring to the objections, the agent told the
Panel that they had provided their email address for residents to
contact if they hadany concerns or complaints but to date, they had
not received any written/email complaints or any verbal
complaints.
 
24.         
When the Panel asked why the Applicant had not
engaged with the objectors before the Licensing Panel hearing, the
agent explained that the Applicant had
put out a notice on the premises and in a local
newspaper and that was how people had seen the advertisement about
their application for a licence and that this had triggered the
concerns.
 
25.         
During question time, the agent assured the Panel
that people would not gather outside the Premises because they did
not need to stand outside as the Premises had indoor seating, even
for those who wanted to collect a takeaway. Furthermore, even with
delivery, the drivers could wait inside the Premises. The agent
explained that the Premises had not had an overflow of customers,
and they did not gather outside the Premises. Furthermore, as the
Premises would use electric vehicles or push bikes for their
deliveries, there would be no noise from delivery drivers
either.  The agent assured the Panel
that there should be no issues with noise nuisance after 23:00pm
and that the Applicant believed there were enough
safeguards.
 
26.         
During question time by the objectors, the Panel
felt there was repetition in questions by the objectors and that
the exchange of questions got a little heated at times and so the
Applicant and his agent might have been made to be feel it was like
a cross-examination situation.
 
27.         
Furthermore, the objectors were making submissions
during question time even though repeatedly reminded by the Chair
and the legal adviser that they should save the submissions for
later and simply ask questions to the Applicant or his agent. This
might have muddled the answers given by the agent and caused a loss
of time in progressing the proceedings on to the next
stage.
 
Objectors’ submissions:
 
28.         
There were 3 objectors in attendance at the
Licensing Panel hearing and they all shared the same concerns,
namely over the late night refreshment hours and even though they
welcomed the Applicant confirming during the hearing that he was
further reducing the hours applied for, they were still concerned
the Premises would not comply with the licensable hours if the
Panel were to grant the licence.
 
29.         
In explaining their reasons for objecting to the
application, the objectors explained that they had witnessed the
Premises trading late at night and that this was prior to making
their application for a licence for late night
refreshment.   The objectors also
referred to having in the possession video recordings/footage of
the Premises trading late night (well beyond 23:00pm). When asked
by the Panel members, the objectors told the Panel that they had
not sent the video recordings to the Licensing Team in support of
their objectives and/or disclosed copies to the Applicant prior to
the Licensing Panel hearing.
 
30.         
The objectors also told the Panel that previously
the Premises’ website stated their trading hours to be till
02:00am and that this was prior to their application for late night
refreshments. However, the Panel noted that no evidence in support
(such as screenshot of the website page with the alleged operating
hours) was submitted by the objectors.
 
31.         
The objectors also expressed that the Applicant
could not be trusted because he allowed the Premises to trade late
at night without a licence. Furthermore, there was no guarantee
that the Premises would abide by the licensable activity hours and
in fact, they feared that the Premises would trade over and above
the hours granted.
 
32.         
The objectors collectively were of the view that
shorter late-night refreshments hours would be better, and they
invited the Panel to consider granting until 23:30pm
only. 
 
 
Summing up:
 
33.         
The Applicant did not add anything significant in
summing up but the agent for the
Applicant reminded the Panel that none of the responsible
authorities were in attendance at the Licensing Panel hearing and
this was crucial for the Panel to consider, because this suggested
that they had no concerns about the application.  In any event, none of the responsible authorities
made representations, objecting to the grant of a licence and/or
against the application. Furthermore, the police were supportive of
the application, in that the police agreed conditions and in fact
supported the hours the Applicant originally applied
for.
 
34.         
The objectors did not add anything in addition at
the summing up stage.
 
Statutory Guidance:
 
35.         
The Panel considered the Statutory Guidance which
states:
 
“2.1         
Licensing authorities should look to the police as the main source
of advice on crime and disorder. They should also seek to involve
the local Community Safety Partnership (CSP).”
 
36.         
Furthermore, the Statutory Guidance states the
following:
 
“Public Nuisance
 

2.15      The 2003 Act enables licensing
authorities and responsible authorities, through representations,
to consider what constitutes public nuisance and what is
appropriate to prevent it in terms of conditions attached to
specific premises licences and club premises certificates. It is
therefore important that in considering the promotion of this
licensing objective, licensing authorities and responsible
authorities focus on the effect of the licensable activities at the
specific premises on persons living and working (including those
carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be
disproportionate and unreasonable. The issues will mainly concern
noise nuisance, light pollution, noxious smells and
litter.

……..

 

2.16      Public nuisance
is given a statutory meaning in many pieces of legislation. It is
however not narrowly defined in the 2003 Act and retains its broad
common law meaning. It may include in appropriate circumstances the
reduction of the living and working amenity and environment of
other persons living and working in the area of the licensed
premises. Public nuisance may also arise as a result of the adverse
effects of artificial light, dust, odour and insects or where its
effect is prejudicial to health.

…….
 

2.19      Where applications have given
rise to representations, any appropriate conditions should normally
focus on the most sensitive periods. For example, the most
sensitive period for people being disturbed by unreasonably loud
music is at night and into the early morning when residents in
adjacent properties may be attempting to go to sleep or are
sleeping. This is why there is still a need for a licence for
performances of live music between 11 pm and 8 am. In certain
circumstances, conditions relating to noise emanating from the
premises may also be appropriate to address any disturbance
anticipated as customers enter and leave.”

……

           

2.21      Beyond the
immediate area surrounding the premises, these are matters for the
personal responsibility of individuals under the law. An individual
who engages in anti-social behaviour is accountable in their own
right. However, it would be perfectly reasonable for a licensing
authority to impose a condition, following relevant
representations, that requires the licence holder or club to place
signs at the exits from the building encouraging patrons to be
quiet until they leave the area, or that, if they wish to smoke, to
do so at designated places on the premises instead of outside, and
to respect the rights of people living nearby to a peaceful
night.
 

The Council’s Licensing Policy 2020-2025:
 
37.         
The Council’s Statement Licensing Policy
2020-2025 (“the Policy”) states the
following:
 
“54.
Each of the four licensing objectives are of equal importance and
therefore each needs to be considered with equal weight.
 
55. The
Council expects applicants to risk assess their proposals and put
forward measures aimed at promoting the licensing
objectives.
 
LP2 The
Four Licensing Objectives
 
1.   
Prevention of Crime and Disorder
Whether
the proposal includes satisfactory measures to mitigate any risk of
the proposed operation making an unacceptable contribution to
levels of crime and disorder in the locality.
2.   
Public Safety
Whether
the necessary and satisfactory risk assessments have been
undertaken, the management procedures put in place and the relevant
certification produced to demonstrate that the public will be kept
safe both within and in close proximity to the premises.
 
3.   
Prevention of Public Nuisance
Whether
the applicant has addressed the potential for nuisance arising from
the characteristics and style of the proposed activity and
identified the appropriate steps to reduce the risk of public
nuisance occurring.
 
4.   
Protection of Children form Harm
Whether
the applicant has identified and addressed any risks with the aim
of protecting children from harm when on the premises or in close
proximity to the premises.”
 
Decision:
 
38.         
Having taken all the representations into account,
the conditions recommended by the Police, the statutory provisions
and the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing
Act 2003 and the Council’s Licensing Policy, by majority the
Panel were satisfied that the Applicant would comply with the
licensing objectives.
 
39.         
The Licensing Panel unanimously decided to
GRANT the application as follows:
 

·      
Late-night refreshment:
Sunday to
Thursday 23:00 to 00:00
Friday and
Saturday 23:00 to 00:00
 

·      
Hours premises are open to the
public:
Sunday to
Thursday 11:00 to 00:00
Friday and
Saturday 11:00 to 00:00
 

40.         
In terms of conditions, the Panel considered all the
conditions as proposed by the Applicant in section M of their
application and agreed that these conditions should be added to
licence, along with the conditions agreed with the
Police.
 

41.         
In addition, the Panel decided that the following
model conditions shall apply to the licence:
 

·      
1, 2, 21, 24, 34, 42, 49, 65 and 92
 

42.         
The Panel noted that the objectors’ main
concern were the hours the Premises would trade and if the Premises
would abide with the hours as per the Premises licence and they
feared the Premises would operate outside of the hours allowed, in
breach of the Premises licence. However, the Panel could not
speculate, nor could they base their decision on what
‘might’ happen in the future. In reaching its
decision to grant the licence, the Panel considered the
Applicant’s decision to reduce the hours applied for on
grounds that he said he considered the residents’ concerns
and a willingness to work with the needs of the local
community.
 

43.         
Whilst the Panel took the Applicant’s decision
to reduce the hours positively, when deciding what hours to grant
the Panel decided to further reduce the hours based on the
representations presented by the objectors. The Panel took the view
that a fair balance had to be drawn between the concerns of the
objectors over the late-night trading hours and the
Applicant’s business plan to offer later night refreshments
and business needs.
 

44.         
More importantly, the Panel took the view that the
Applicant’s response to why they needed the long extended
late night refreshment hours were not persuasive and it seemed to
the Panel that the Applicant had not put much thought into the
practicalities of how he would tackle any incidents occurring at
the Premises including customer complaints and/or manage a crowd
gathering outside of the Premises late at night.  However, the Panel appreciated that it could not
pre-judge that the Premises would not be able to manage these and
so the Premises had to be given the opportunity to show that it
could successfully run the trade and promote the licensing
objectives.
 
45.         
Having said that, the Panel were of the view that it
was for a licence holder to ensure they are operating in compliance
with their licence and to have measures in place to promote the
licensing objectives and tackle any issues.
 

46.         
The Panel took on board the Applicant’s
response and that the conditions, as proposed by the Police, were
to be attached to the licence to meet the licensing objectives and
were enforceable. 
 

47.         
Overall, the Panel did not think it was justifiable
nor reasonable to reject the application for late-night refreshment
completely because there was a lack of evidence to support the
representations made by the objectors. 
 

48.         
For example, during the Licensing Panel hearing the
objectors referred to (but did not show) video recordings/footage
showing the Premises trading outside of permissible hours. The
Panel noted that the objectors did not submit copies of the alleged
video recordings/footage before the Licensing Panel hearing for the
Panel to consider them, nor were they disclosed to the Applicant in
advance of the Panel hearing. The Panel therefore decided that they
had to disregard the possibility that there might be potential
video evidence against the Premises.
 
49.         
Also, the Panel noted that the objectors did not
submit any evidence in support (such as screenshot of the website
page with the alleged operating hours). As such, the Panel could
not give any weight to the assertion that the Premises were trading
late at night without a licence. The Panel could not reject the
application based on an assertion that lacked evidence in
support.
 

50.         
The Panel were also mindful of that fact that
interests of justice and fairness would require the video
recordings/footage to be disclosed to the Applicant prior to the
Licensing Panel hearing to consider and that it would be wrong to
surprise the Applicant with incriminating evidence during the
hearing.  
 

51.         
During the Licensing Panel hearing the objectors
also referred to other premises in the area trading shorter hours
in comparison to the hours the Applicant was seeking for the
Premises. They suggested that the late-night refreshment hours
ought to be till 23:30pm. The Panel decided not to adopt the hours
as suggested by the objectors because it was for the Panel to
decide what hours to grant and what would be reasonable.
 

52.         
The Panel wished to make it clear that each
application must be considered based on its own merits and not
based on what other premises in the area have for licensable
activities including late-night refreshment hours.
 
53.         
Furthermore, the Panel decided that it should not
refuse the application solely based on fears of what might
happen.
 
54.         
As a general point, the Panel noted that as it stood
there was nothing linked to the premises in question to support
claims that any existing problems in the area would get worse
if the premises were granted a licence for
late night refreshment.
 
55.         
With regards to the contact details, the Panel
decided that the Premises should provide a contact name together
with a phone number and email address to local residents - the
Panel was informed that the agent shared these details with the
objectors straight after the Licensing Panel hearing.
 
56.         
The Panel would like to remind that a
breach of the licence including the conditions set out above could
result in a review of the conditions and even a revocation of the
premises licence.
 
Right
to Appeal:
 
57.         
Any party aggrieved with the decision of the
Licensing Panel on one or more grounds set out in schedule 5 of
Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the local Magistrate’s Court
within 21 days of notification of this decision.