Decision

Notification of decision following a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing to determine an application for a premises licence under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003

PREMISES:   The Manor Kitchen, Boston Manor Park, Boston Manor Road, Brentford TW8 9JU

APPLICANT:  Good Apples Ltd

TAKE NOTICE THATON 9 June 2026 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 as follows:

REASONS:

1)         The Licensing Panel convened in person on 9 June 2026 to determine an application for a premises licence for Good Apples Ltd - The Manor Kitchen, Boston Manor Park, Boston Manor Road, Brentford TW8 9JU (the “Premises”) made under the Licensing Act 2003. The Premises were not currently licensed and are located within Boston Manor Park.

2)         The Applicant applied for the following licensable activities:

·       Live Music – Indoors & Outdoors

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 20:00

·       Recorded Music – Indoors & Outdoors

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 22:00

·       Supply of alcohol for consumption on & off the premises

Monday to Sunday 11:30 to 22:00

·       The opening hours of the premises:

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 22:00

3)    The hearing was held in person before a three Member Licensing Panel. All Members of the Licensing Panel were in attendance throughout the hearing, and during deliberation which took place in a closed session. The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:

·       Written and oral representations made by all the parties

·       The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to promote the Licensing Objectives

·       The Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (the “Statutory Guidance”)

·       Hounslow Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (the “Council’s Policy”)

·       The Human Rights Act 1998

4)         A copy of the Application was attached as Appendix A of the agenda pack.

5)         During the consultation process, one representation was received from a local resident (the “Objector”) who was concerned that the sale of alcohol may attract/further exacerbate issues of antisocial behaviour as well as a concern about noise nuisance from the proposed playing of music. The Police and Licensing Enforcement were shown to be in communication with the Applicant and came to an agreement on proposed conditions which could be added to the Licence if the Panel were minded to grant the Application. The Applicant subsequently agreed these proposed conditions along with the suggested amendment to the proposed hours to allow for a 30-minute drinking up period. Therefore, the sale of alcohol was instead proposed until 21:30 instead of the applied for 22:00. The email trail between the parties and the agreed conditions are set out at Appendix C of the Agenda.

6)         The Applicant company was represented by a director (the “Applicant”) whilst the single Objector also attended the hearing.

7)         The Applicant explained that this was an Application for a café located in Boston Manor House which they had been running for one year. They had always had an ambition to obtain an alcohol licence and to add live music to the Premises and were said to be encouraged by staff at Manor House to do so in order to support weddings that take place there. The Applicant stated that they were not looking to turn the Premises into a pub and as an example, would look to put on classical live jazz music on Sundays.

8)         In response to questions from the Panel, the Applicant explained that they operated another café within the park which was not licensed, as well as other café premises elsewhere. The Applicant director who was present at the hearing stated that he worked at the Premises, including in the kitchen, but also undertook responsibilities outside of their businesses. The Panel queried whether the Applicant had discussed the proposals with the Council and the Parks team. The Applicant confirmed he had been in discussions with the Police and Licensing Enforcement as reflected within Appendix C. The Applicant further stated that they had been in communication with the Council’s culture team and had corresponded with the Parks team, although from his understanding the proposed Application fell outside the Parks team’s direct remit. The Applicant indicated that they were not aware of any reason why the Parks team had not made representations in respect of the Application.

9)         In referring to the Objector’s concerns, the Applicant was asked how they proposed to prevent alcohol being displaced to other parts of the park and to prevent issues arising from this. The Applicant referred to discussions and guidance from the Police and Licensing Enforcement and explained that each alcohol sale could be recorded through the till system and accordingly tracked by CCTV if necessary. Whilst the Applicant acknowledged there were existing issues within the park relating to alcohol and drug use, particularly around certain bench areas, they hoped that the presence of staff and customers associated with the Premises may assist in deterring such behaviour and improve the overall environment.

10)      In further questioning the Panel asked whether it would be possible for only alcohol to be purchased for takeaway. The Applicant confirmed this would be possible but that this was unlikely because they were not operating as a supermarket. As per one of the conditions set out within those agreed by the Police and Licensing Enforcement, they intended to use polycarbonate cups for alcohol served both externally in the courtyard and for takeaway. Using these cups, a deposit scheme would be implemented whereby customers would pay a £1 deposit, refundable upon return of the container and so encouraging them to return the cup. The Applicant added that donation points may be introduced in conjunction with the Parks team and that similar schemes had been successful in other locations.

11)      The Applicant outlined further measures to prevent antisocial behaviour, including the implementation of a Challenge 25 policy, and emphasised that staff had been instructed to request identification where there was any doubt as to age. The Applicant also stated that staff would undertake litter picks within the immediate vicinity of the Premises. The Applicant added that their other café in the park would usually do a litter pick at 5pm when that café closed and so any remaining litter left to be picked up should be limited for this Premises.

12)      In relation to staffing numbers, the Applicant confirmed they usually had four members of staff but this would increase by two on days where they proposed to do alcohol off sales. The Panel also queried whether a requirement to add a door supervisor would cause undue hardship on the business. The Applicant confirmed it would, explaining that they had previously used a door supervisor on occasion of festivals and this had been very costly. In response to questions about management of the Premises the Applicant confirmed that one of the other managers was the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor (“DPS”) but that the intention was for it to be varied to the Applicant director present at the hearing as they now held the relevant qualifications. The Applicant acknowledged the Panel’s concern as to whether they would be able to effectively manage multiple premises while acting as DPS, noting the requirement for the DPS to be readily contactable and to exercise effective control over the sale of alcohol, including responsibility for authorising alcohol sales and promoting the licensing objectives, the Applicant indicated that they would take this on board for consideration.

13)      The Panel noted that the Applicant had applied for hours later than those being discussed and from those indicated within the supporting information of the Application. The Applicant acknowledged this and stated that the Application was to allow for flexibility and for occasions where weddings were taking place but that in practice the Premises would not have the budget to operate consistently beyond 7pm. The Applicant also stated that they had been in communication with the Objector and had agreed, and was willing to accept, a reduction in the hours to 20:00 hours for the outdoor areas and 20:30 hours for the internal areas, with a 30-minute drinking-up period thereafter.

14)      In response to questions regarding the security of the Premises, the Applicant confirmed they had a policy in place to limit cash on site but that there were very few cash transactions in any case. Whilst the Premises did not have a telephone number, all staff carried mobile phones and could make calls in the case of emergencies. There was also said to be no signal issues within the park area where the Premises is situated. In relation to CCTV, the Applicant confirmed that the current CCTV covered all indoor areas but that there was no external CCTV presently installed. The Applicant stated that, if the licence were granted, external CCTV would be added to cover the area outside the Premises in accordance with the condition proposed by the Police and the Licensing Enforcement team, noting that installation may be more complex due to the listed status of the building. The Applicant also highlighted that if required, the Council’s culture team could be contacted to access the park CCTV, however, they recognised this would not meet the requirement in the Police and Licensing Enforcement’s proposed condition of the footage being made available immediately upon request when needed. 

15)      Questions were also raised around events and festivals in the area. The Applicant explained that their licence allowed them to provide hospitality (i.e. food and drink) but that they did not have a right to sublet or hire out the Premises. In relation to events put on by Boston Manor House, the Applicant stated that they were not the exclusive catering provider, although they may be approached to provide services in the first instance, however, where specialised catering is required, the Applicant indicated that alternative providers may be recommended. The Applicant was unable to confirm whether Boston Manor House had its own provision for alcohol at events. Specific reference was made to the J2 festival which takes place nearby, however, the Applicant confirmed they no longer planned to open on those days and if they did, they would not serve alcohol. The Applicant noted that the café’s operation on that day in the previous year generated only a small amount of income and was therefore not commercially viable.

16)      In response to concerns regarding noise, the Applicant clarified that they were not intending to amplify music, except potentially in circumstances where weather conditions, such as strong wind, made this necessary.

17)      The Objector confirmed that she had spoken with the Applicant and indicated that the nature of the Application differed from what she had initially anticipated. Whilst she expressed general concerns regarding the misuse of alcohol and drugs within the park, which she stated had been an ongoing issue, she acknowledged that such activity tended to occur in areas further down in the park away from the Premises. She further stated that she had not observed any issues arising from the operation of the café and indicated that she would be willing to visit on occasion. Notwithstanding this, the Objector maintained her representation, emphasising that it remained important for her concerns to be formally noted.

18)      Whilst the Applicant confirmed they were aware of the Public Space Protection Order (“PSPO”), they acknowledged that they had not given it much thought as to how it may integrate with the proposed operations of the business.

19)      The Panel had regard to the Statutory Guidance, in particular paragraph 2.1, which provides that licensing authorities should look to the Police as the main source of advice on matters relating to the prevention of crime and disorder. The Panel noted that the Police had engaged with the Applicant and agreed a set of conditions and that no objection had otherwise been received from the Police and therefore gave appropriate weight to this.

20)      The Panel further had regard to paragraph 2.8 of the Statutory Guidance, which highlights the responsibility of licence holders to ensure the safety of those using their premises.

21)      In relation to the prevention of public nuisance, the Panel had particular regard to the Statutory Guidance, recognising the need to consider the impact of licensable activities on persons living and working in the vicinity of the Premises, particularly during more sensitive evening periods. The Panel was also alert to the risk of disturbance within the park environment and to the requirement that any conditions imposed be appropriate, proportionate and tailored to the circumstances of the Premises.

22)      The Panel also had regard to paragraphs 1.17 and 2.23 of the Statutory Guidance, noting that the existence of other regulatory regimes does not remove the need for the Licensing Authority to act preventatively where appropriate, including in the context of the borough-wide PSPO.

23)      The Panel further considered the Council’s Policy, noting that applications must be determined on their own merits and with a view to promoting the licensing objectives. In addition, the Panel noted the Council’s Policy position in relation to off-sales of alcohol, which recognises that such sales are more likely to contribute to public nuisance and anti-social behaviour, including street drinking and littering. The Panel considered this to be directly relevant to the Application given the park setting of the Premises and therefore gave this appropriate weight in its determination.

Decision

24)      The Panel took on board the Applicant’s comments regarding the initial agreed conditions with the Police and Licensing Enforcement and the concerns raised by the Objector.

25)      The Panel was satisfied that the Premises would operate primarily as a café and that the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to that use. In reaching this view, the Panel had regard to the Applicant’s operating schedule and the Application itself, which confirmed that the Premises would not operate as a bar or vertical drinking establishment, but as a food-led, family-oriented venue within Boston Manor Park. The Panel considered it appropriate and proportionate to secure this position by way of a condition requiring alcohol to be ancillary to food, so as to ensure that the operation of the Premises remains consistent with that described to the Panel and to promote the licensing objectives. The Panel also noted that no large-scale events or late-night entertainment were proposed as part of the Application.

26)      The Panel observed that no Responsible Authorities submitted an objection to the Application and that conditions had been agreed with the Police and Licensing Enforcement. The Panel considered these conditions, subject to some amendments to be appropriate and proportionate in promoting the licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety which were concerns in the objection raised.

27)      However, the Panel identified that the principal issue arising from the representation was the potential for public nuisance, together with the risk of anti-social behaviour associated with alcohol consumption within the wider park environment. In this respect, the Panel had particular regard to the borough-wide PSPO relating to alcohol consumption, which seeks to address issues of street drinking, anti-social behaviour and associated nuisance within public spaces, including parks. The Panel was aware of the fact that the Application expressly sought to permit off-sales for consumption “within the surrounding park grounds”, which would extend alcohol use beyond the Premises and into areas outside the control of the licence holder.

28)      The Panel considered that the proposed off-sales would not be capable of effective supervision or control once alcohol left the Premises. The Panel was concerned that this would increase the likelihood of alcohol being consumed within the wider park environment in a manner that may give rise to intervention by authorised officers under the PSPO and could exacerbate existing issues of crime and disorder. The Panel also had particular regard to the risk that alcohol could be purchased without accompanying food and taken to other areas of the park beyond the control of the licence holder.

29)      Whilst the Panel acknowledged that the PSPO does not impose a blanket prohibition on alcohol consumption, it allows authorised officers to require persons to cease drinking and surrender alcohol where it is deemed necessary. The Panel therefore considered that permitting off-sales would risk undermining the practical effectiveness and intention of the PSPO by facilitating alcohol consumption in public areas within the vicinity of the Premises.

30)      The Panel therefore drew a distinction between the on-sales, which could be appropriately controlled and supervised within the Premises; and off-sales, which would enable alcohol to be consumed within the wider park where controls could not reasonably be exercised or become more difficult to deal with.

31)      Drawing these matters together, the Panel concluded that permitting off-sales would give rise to a real risk of public nuisance and anti-social behaviour within the vicinity of the Premises. In particular, the Panel was satisfied that such sales would be likely to result in noise disturbance, littering and potential conflict with enforcement activity under the PSPO.

32)      The Panel carefully considered whether the imposition of conditions would be sufficient to address the concerns identified, but concluded that no reasonable or proportionate conditions would adequately mitigate the risks, given the open nature of the park setting and the lack of control once alcohol leaves the Premises. The Panel therefore determined that it was appropriate to refuse the off-sales element of the application in order to promote the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. This approach also ensures that the Premises operates in a manner consistent with its café-style use and minimises the risk of disturbance to nearby residents, particularly during more sensitive evening periods. Accordingly, the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises is excluded from the grant of the licence.

33)      The Panel noted that the proposed hours fell within the Council’s Policy regarding core hours and were therefore generally considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. It also noted that the hours were consistent with those agreed by the Applicant at the hearing and reflected a reduction from those originally sought within the Application. The Panel took account of the Applicant’s submissions regarding the typical operation of the Premises, including earlier closing times outside of peak seasonal periods, and considered that this supported the conclusion that the Premises would operate in a manner consistent with its café-style use. The Panel was satisfied that limiting alcohol sales to 20:30 hours, together with a 30-minute drinking-up period with a closing time of 21:00 hours, was proportionate and consistent with the nature of the Premises, its location within a public park and would assist in promoting the prevention of public nuisance, particularly during the more sensitive evening period.

34)      In respect of regulated entertainment, the Panel noted that much of the proposed live and recorded music would fall within deregulated entertainment, provided it took place within the statutory parameters. In particular, where live or recorded music was ancillary to the supply of alcohol, such activity may not require authorisation under the licence. In this context, the Panel considered that imposing a more restrictive terminal hour for outdoor music than for the sale of alcohol would not be necessary in order to promote the licensing objectives. The Panel noted that the Application details that any live music would be limited to small-scale, such as acoustic or lightly amplified music within the courtyard area, which would support the café environment. The Panel was satisfied that allowing such activity until 20:30 hours, consistent with the overall operation of the Premises, would not undermine the licensing objectives. The Panel also noted that the Application stated that recorded music would be limited to background playlists and would be monitored to ensure that it remained at a level that would not cause nuisance to nearby residents or other park users.

35)      However, in order to ensure the prevention of any public nuisance, in particular in relation to noise arising from the proposed playing of music from the Premises, and having regard to its location within a public park and proximity to residential properties, the Panel determined that it was appropriate to impose a condition requiring that any music played outside does not cause a nuisance to local residents or other users of the park.

36)      The Panel was therefore satisfied that the application would not undermine the licensing objectives and that the conditions proposed in the Application, together with those agreed with the Police and Licensing Enforcement and the matters discussed at the hearing would assist in addressing the concerns raised and help promote the licensing objectives.

37)      In considering the conditions against those set out in the Council’s Policy, the Panel decided to retain the conditions as proposed and agreed with the Police and Licensing Enforcement. Where similar conditions were proposed, including in relation to CCTV, the Panel preferred the version put forward by the Police and Licensing Enforcement, as it was more robust, including a provision for 24-hour CCTV recording, and had in any event been agreed by the Applicant. The Panel also amended the polycarbonate container condition to clarify that it applied to drinks consumed in the outside area, ensuring the condition was clear and enforceable. The Panel further amended the litter patrol condition to add ‘shall be undertaken’ to ensure a clearer and more enforceable condition.

38)      The Panel determined to amend the incident log condition by combining elements of the Council’s Policy model condition and that proposed by the Police and Licensing Enforcement. In doing so, the Panel included provisions to log all refusals of alcohol sales, any issues arising from deliveries and added a requirement for management to regularly review the log to ensure it is properly maintained by staff. The Panel adopted the Council’s version as the primary wording, as it was considered clearer and more comprehensive.

39)      The Panel noted that a number of measures were proposed within the Application which were more appropriately characterised as general operating procedures rather than matters requiring formal conditions. The Panel considered that it was not necessary to convert these into enforceable conditions. However, the Panel took these measures into account when assessing the overall management and operation of the Premises and in concluding that, when taken together with the conditions imposed, the licensing objectives would be promoted. The Panel would nevertheless expect these operating procedures to be adhered to and to form part of the effective management of the Premises in the conduct of licensable activities.

40)      The Panel considered the need for security or a door supervisor on the Premises but concluded that a formal condition would be disproportionate. The Panel would nevertheless expect the Premises Licence Holder to assess the need for such measures and deploy SIA registered staff where appropriate. The Panel also noted that, during the hearing, there was discussion regarding the potential for regular communication between the Premises Licence Holder and local residents, including the possibility of periodic meetings to address any issues arising. The Applicant indicated their willingness to engage in such an arrangement. While the Panel did not consider it necessary to impose this as a formal condition, it would nevertheless expect the Premises Licence Holder to give due regard to this approach as part of the effective and responsible management of the Premises.

41)      In reaching its decision, the Panel has balanced the rights of the Applicant to carry on a lawful business with the need to promote the licensing objectives and is satisfied that this outcome is appropriate and proportionate. Overall, the Panel was satisfied that granting the Application in part, with reduced hours, the exclusion of off-sales and the imposition of targeted conditions, represented a proportionate and appropriate response in order to promote the licensing objectives.

42)      Having taken all the representations into account, the statutory provisions and the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Licensing Policy, the Panel decided to GRANT the Application in part, with the exclusion of the supply for alcohol off the premises, for a premises licence with the following conditions:

·       Live Music – Indoors & Outdoors

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 20:30

·       Recorded Music – Indoors & Outdoors

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 20:30

·       Supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises

Monday to Sunday 11:30 to 20:30

·       The opening hours of the premises:

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 21:00

Additional Conditions to licence:

1. Appropriate signage will be displayed, in a prominent position, informing customers they are being recorded on CCTV.
2. The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system which records 24 hours a day. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light conditions. All CCTV recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days and all recordings will be stamped with the correct date and time. Viewing of recordings shall be made available, subject to Data Protection legislation, immediately upon the request of Police or an authorised council officer.
3. A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises are open. This staff member must be able to provide a police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the minimum of delay when requested.
4. An incident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of the Hounslow Council or the Police. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and will record the following:

(a) all crimes reported to the venue

(b) all ejections of patrons

(c) any complaints received concerning crime and disorder

(d) any incidents of disorder

(e) all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons

(f) any faults in the CCTV system

(g) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

(h) all refused sales

(i) any issues with the delivery service

Management shall regularly check the book to ensure all staff are using it.

1. A Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall operate at the premises. Signage shall be displayed advising customers that the scheme is in place. All staff authorised to sell alcohol will be trained in the Challenge 25 scheme and this training will be documented to include the date the training was given, the name of the person who gave the training, the person who received the training and signatures by both trainer and trainee.
2. All staff responsible for selling alcohol shall receive regular training in the Licensing Act 2003. Written records of this training shall be retained and made available to police and council officers with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.
3. Regular litter patrols shall be undertaken to ensure no litter is left within the park area from the premises.
4. Polycarbonate containers shall be used for drinks consumed within the outside area.
5. Alcohol shall not be sold, supplied, or consumed on the premises otherwise than to persons who are taking substantial table meals and that the consumption of alcohol by such persons is ancillary to taking such meals. Supply of alcohol shall be by waiter/waitress service only.
6. Any music played outside shall not be played to a level to cause a nuisance to the local residents and other users of the park.

43)      The Panel would like to remind the Applicant that a breach of the licence times and conditions could result in a review of the premises licence, and potential modification of the conditions and even a revocation of the premises licence.

Right to Appeal

44)      Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee 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.