Content

Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to
determine an application for the variation of a premises licence
under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003
 
PREMISES:  
Farfesh, 1 Spur Road, Isleworth TW7
5BD
 
APPLICANT:  Mr Mjd Alkazzaz
  
TAKE NOTICE
THATON 21 June
2023 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
variation of a Premises Licence for Farfesh, 1
Spur Road, Isleworth TW7 5BD was GRANTED subject to the
modifications and conditions stated below. 
 
REASONS:
 
The
Panel convened to determine an application by Mr Mjd Alkazzaz
(“the Applicant”) for Farfesh, 1 Spur Road, Isleworth TW7
5BD (“the
“Premises”) for the variation of a Premises
Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.  
 
The
Applicant proposed the
following:
 

(a) 
Live music indoors:
Friday and Saturday 23:00 to
01:00
Seasonal variation for Christmas and New Year 23:00 to
02:00
 

(b) 
Recorded music indoors:
Monday to Thursday 09:00 to
23:00
Friday and Saturday 09:00 to
01:00
Sunday 10:00 to 22:30
Seasonal variation for Christmas and New Year 23:00 to
02:00
 

(c) 
Late-night refreshment
indoors:
Friday and Saturday 23:00 to 01:00
Seasonal variation for Christmas and New Year 23:00 to
02:00
 

(d) 
Hours premises are open to the public
Monday to Thursday 09:00 to 23:00
Friday and Saturday 09:00 to 01:00
Sunday 10:00 to 22:30
Seasonal variation for Christmas and New Year 23:00 to
02:00
 
With regards to the seasonal variation, the
Applicant proposed that these will be by way of Temporary Event
Notice applications.  
 
The Applicant also proposed to
remove conditions 2, 4, 5 and 6 from Appendix 2 of the current
licence. 
 
A copy of the application and an updated floor plan is attached as Appendix A of
the agenda pack.
 
 
The Premises were currently
licensed.  A copy of the current
Premises Licences is attached as Appendix B to the
agenda pack. 
 
The measures proposed in the
application are listed in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.6 (inclusive) of the
agenda pack and will be attached as conditions to any variation of
licence as may be granted.  
 
The Premises are situated in an
area of mainly commercial and residential properties.  The Premises are located within the Cumulative
Impact Policy (“CIP”) area for Hounslow and North
Isleworth.
 
As part of the consultation
process the Authority received two representations, namely
from:
 

Environmental Protections - Objecting to the application because
of the number of noise complaints they had received.  It should be noted that Environmental Protection
were not objecting to the hours the Premises are open to the
public; and 

 

Licensing
Enforcement - Objecting to the removal of conditions 2, 5 and 6.
Regarding condition 4, the Licensing Enforcement suggested
rewording that condition for clarity. It should be noted that the
Licensing Enforcement were not objecting to the variation of the
licensable activities and/or the hours the Premises are open to the
public.

 
The written representations are
shown as Appendix C of the agenda pack.  All written objections were considered by the
Panel before the hearing.
 
There were no representations
and/or objections to the application from the police. 
 
A copy of the report and all
representations received were sent to the Applicant prior to the
hearing of the application to vary. 
 
The application was heard at an
in-person meeting. The Panel consisted of three
members.  All members of the Licensing
Panel were in attendance throughout the hearing, and during
deliberation which took place separately in a closed
session. 
 
The Licensing Panel carefully
considered all the relevant information including:
 

·      
Written and Oral representations by all the
parties

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

·      
The guidance issued under section 182 of the
Licensing Act 2003

·      
Relevant parts of the licensing hearing
regulations

·      
Hounslow Council’s licensing policy including
the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy

·      
The Human Rights Act 1998
 
During the Licensing Panel
hearing the facts giving rise to the application for the variation
of the Premises Licence were set out by the licensing officer and
were agreed by all the parties in attendance.
 
The Applicant attended the
hearing with his brother (who is also the Designated Premises
Supervisor (DPS)) to assist him to address the Panel and put
forward submissions and ask questions. 
The Applicant explained that he understood English but preferred
the DPS to speak on his behalf.
The Environmental Protection
officer and the Licensing Enforcement officer were both in
attendance throughout the hearing.
 
During the hearing the
Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that they had no objection
to the variation of hours for the licensable
activities.  He also explained that
conditions 2, 5 and 6 were no longer in issue because the Applicant
was complying with them.  The Applicant
confirmed this to be correct.
 
Regarding condition 4, the
Licensing Enforcement Officer suggested it be rephrased rather than
removed.  The Licensing Enforcement
officer suggested Condition 4 was amended so that it read as
follows:
 

Security Industry Authority (SIA) licensed door
supervisors shall be on duty at the weekends at peak times and
during extended hours (00:00hrs to 02:00hrs).  It is the responsibility of the DPS to risk assess
the need for SIA staff at all other times.
 
The Applicant confirmed that he
was happy with the proposed amendment to condition 4. 
 
In response to the
Chair’s question relating to condition 11A (proof of age),
the Licensing Enforcement Officer clarified that condition 11A was
a standard condition and that it did not apply to the Premises in
question because the Premises did not offer/serve
alcohol.
 
The Environmental Protection
Officer explained to the Panel that he was objecting to the
extension of hours for the licensable activities and that his
objection was based on the licensing objectives, namely that it was
for the Prevention of Public Nuisance. He referred to the high
number of complaints received prior to the application to vary the
Premises Licence and that they all were concerning music being
played loud. He drew the Panel’s attention to condition 7 of
the Premises Licence which relates to noise and submitted to the
Panel that the Premises were in breach of that
condition.  It was noted by the Panel
that despite the high number of noise complaints and alleged breach
of licensing conditions, the Premises were not called in for a
review. 
 
The Environmental Protection
Officer confirmed to the Panel that he had no objection to the
extension of the hours the Premises would be open to the
public.  When asked by the Panel members
to clarify why the Premises could remain open but could not give
any services (such as serve food) to customers, the Environmental
Protection Officer explained that it was to allow customers to
finish their meal and drink at a more reasonable pace rather than
being rushed out soon after they had their orders. He considered
that the extra hour would alleviate and minimise the potential risk
of noise complaints. The Environmental Protection Officer further
clarified to the Panel that some of the complaints were relating to
people leaving the Premises and that in his view the noise level
should be less of a problem if the opening hours were
extended.
 
The Applicant asked the
Environmental Protection Officer to confirm how many witnesses
complained; where the complaints were coming from; and who the
complainants were. The Panel intervened and directed that the
details of the complainants including names and/or addresses should
not be disclosed due to data protection. The Environmental
Protection Officer therefore only responded partly to the
Applicant’s question, namely to
confirm that there were 10 individual complaints and they included
6 complaints by phone call to the out of hours team.
 
The Environmental Protection
Officer then went on to explain that from the complaints received
it seemed that on at least three occasions noise was witnessed
emanating from the Premises.  On another
occasion officers attending at the Premises following a complaint
made to the out of hours team had to ask the Premises to reduce the
noise/music and the Premises complied with this. He then went on to
explain that officers from the noise control team visited the
premises at midnight, 00:30, etc.
 
During the hearing the
Applicant and the DPS addressed the Panel and explained that if
they received complaints, they always took them seriously and
followed what the law required of them. The Applicant drew to the
attention of the Panel that their neighbour directly above the
Premises had never complained about music being too loud or any
other noise.  The Applicant and the DPS
went on to emphasise that they suspected that the complaints were
being made to the Council by one household (a neighbour living
across from the Premises) and they believed that one complainant
and his spouse did not enjoy Arabic music or may have something
against Arabic music being played.  In
support of this, the Applicant went on to give an example of an
incident during which the alleged complainant came to the Premises
and had categorically asked them to turn off the music upon being
told that it was Arabic music that was being played at the
Premises. 
 
In support of their
application, the Applicant went to explain that their customers
were happy with the service the Premises were providing and that
there was a need/demand for extended hours, over the weekend
especially. 
 
The DPS informed the Panel that
the Premises did not serve alcohol and as such, there were no
drunken customers or drink related noise nuisance at the
Premises.  The staff routinely asked
their customers to leave the Premises quietly.  The Applicant emphasised and asked the Panel to
consider if the complainants were experiencing noise nuisance from
the inside of their homes/their properties.  If not, then he asked how could the neighbours complain that they experienced
noise nuisance or suffering from it.
 
The Applicant went on to
explain that they needed the extension of hours because since the
Premises had started trading it had been quiet and that fewer
people came to the Premises at the weekend because they closed
early. As such, an extension of hours would benefit by meeting
customer needs and demands. 
Furthermore, the extension of hours would mean that they could
generate more revenue which would assist the Premises to meet the
high cost of living; pay increased energy bills; pay salaries; and
survive as a business.
 
The Applicant highlighted that
if customers came just before midnight, they did not have enough
time to eat, in that they order their food and by the time it was
ready they had to leave without eating it which was not helping to
achieve customer satisfaction and/or needs.
 
The Applicant submitted that
they were improving the local area by bringing good people to the
area and were generating business not just for themselves but for
the local area too.  Furthermore, the
extended hours were being sought just for the weekend and not
throughout the week or on working days. 
 
In response to questions asked
by Panel members, the Applicant clarified that if the extended
hours were granted, they would continue to take orders for food
until 12:30am and that the kitchen would not take orders after
12:30am but the Premises would stay open until 1:00am. The Panel
then asked if the kitchen would have enough time to prepare the
food if the last order was taken at 12:30am and if customers would
have enough time to eat their food once served to leave the
Premises on time.  The Applicant’s
response was that customers would have 30 minutes after the last
order was taken at 12:30am as the Premises would close at 1:00am
and that the music would switch off at 1:00am as well.
 
The Chair asked the Applicant
to confirm if they intended to change their start time for Monday
to Saturday to 9:00am because their current licence allowed them to
open at 8:00am.  The Applicant’s
response was that they did not want a start time of 8:00am and that
they were sure they wanted to change it to 9:00am.
 
The Chair also sought
confirmation of when insulation and noise/sound limiter were
fitted, to which the Licensing Enforcement Officer confirmed that
it was installed on 10 February 2023.
 
The Chair asked the
Environmental Protection Officer to confirm if the noise complaints
came from ten separate complainants or if they were made by the
same individual to which the Officer confirmed they were
mixed.  In relation to condition 7 (no
noise emanating from the property) the Chair if the neighbour
and/or officers heard the loud music being played from outside
complainants’ properties.  The
Officer confirmed the noise being heard coming from the Premises
and that audible noise/music was heard from outside the Premises
even though the door of the Premises were closed.
 
The Chair asked for
confirmation of whether complaints of noise/loud music were
received after the insulation and noise limiter were installed and
the Officer advised that complaints were made after February 2023
and some before, and that officers from the noise control team took
videos during their visits and witnessed music being played loud,
with noise emanating from the Premises. 
Furthermore, the complaints received went on to state that
noise/music was still being heard outside of business
hours.
 
The Chair asked the Applicant
to confirm if they intended to apply for seasonal variation by TENS
application to which the Applicant confirmed that they
were.
 
When asked by the Panel if the
Applicant was aware that the Premises were within the
Council’s CIP area, the Applicant said he did not know
that. 
 
In summing up, Licensing
Enforcement Officer confirmed that he had no objection to the
extension of hours for the licensable activities. However, the
Enforcement Protection Officer expressed concerns that if the
extended hours for the licensable activities were granted, this
would cause further noise nuisance and would be detrimental to
neighbours/residents. 
 
It should be
noted that when asked, the Applicant did not want to add anything
to his summing up.
 
When considering whether to
grant the apply to vary the hours for licensable activities the
Panel was concerned that the noise/loud music were being played
after business hours and that the noise level did not reduce and/or
change even after the Premises had insulation and noise limiters
fitted in February 2023. 
 
Whilst the Panel understood and
was aware that the cost of living, particularly energy bills, had
increased significantly, it could not outweigh the number of
complaints received and the fact that the Premises were in breach
of its licensing condition to ensure no noise was generated on the
Premises to give rise to a nuisance.
 
The Panel was concerned that
the Applicant (as the Premises Licence Holder) and/or his DPS had
no knowledge of the Borough’s CIP and what the policy
required them to do.  In this context,
it was noted by the Panel that the Applicant did not go on to
explain nor demonstrate what measures the Applicant had put in
place to mitigate any identified risk that may undermine the
promotion of the licensing objectives. 
Furthermore, that the Applicant did not provide evidence as
to how their application will not harm the licensing objectives.
The Panel was therefore not persuaded that the
Applicant would comply with the requirements of the CIP.
 
Whilst it appeared to the Panel that the
Applicant’s key purpose was to provide a better service to
their customers by offering extended hours, it was not satisfied
that their planning would allow customers to have their meal and
finish in time before the Premises closed. 
 
The Panel noted that the noise complaints
related to the loud music and that it seemed it was not caused by
customers.  The Panel was also not
satisfied that the Premises would not cause noise nuisance because
complaints were received even after the insulation and noise
limiters had been fitted and the Premises should be able to control
the level of music. 
 
The Panel was very concerned that the Premises
continued to play loud music even though they were aware that:
 

(a) 
The noise control team had received several complaints of
noise/music being played loud;

(b) 
The playing of music was causing nuisance and/or disturbance to
others; and

(c)  
The noise generated by the premises was a breach of their licensing
condition.
 
In reaching its decision, the
Panel noted that there were no objections to the application to
vary from residents and/or the police.   Furthermore, the Licensing Enforcement Team
also had no objection to the extension of hours for licensable
activities.  The Panel took on board
that the Applicant was happy to accept the proposed rewording of
condition.
 
The Statutory Guidance states that:
 

“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.

 

             
………

 

2.19 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.”
 
In relation to
‘public nuisance’, this is given
a broad meaning and the Statutory Guidance states:
 

“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.
 
The Panel also took on board
that licensed premises can adversely impact
upon communities through public nuisances that arise from their
operation and that there was a need to maintain and protect the
amenity of residents and businesses from the potential consequence
of the operation of a licensed premises whilst balancing this with
the recognition of the valuable cultural, social and economic importance that such premises
provide. 
Furthermore, that ‘public nuisance’
includes issues such as noise, light, odour, litter and anti-social behaviour, where these
matters impact upon those living, working or otherwise engaged in
normal activity in a particular area.
 
In determining whether to grant
the variation sought, the Panel was mindful of the fact that the
applicant had to demonstrate in their operating schedule that
suitable and sufficient measures had been identified and would be
implemented and maintained to prevent public nuisance, relevant to
the individual style and characteristics of their Premises and
events.  Also, when addressing the issue
of the prevention of public nuisance, the applicant had to
demonstrate to the licensing authority that those factors, which
impact upon the likelihood of public nuisance, had been
considered.  Unfortunately, the
applicant failed to satisfy the Panel of this and failed to
persuade the Panel that they would have effective control measures to prevent public nuisance in the
future.
 
In relation to the core hours,
the current licensing policy 2020 – 2025 states that the
hours for licensable activity will generally be authorised
subject to the Applicant demonstrating that they understand the
area where the Premises are located and that they would promote the
four licensing objectives.  The core
hours are:
 
· Monday
to Thursday 09:00 to 23:00
· Friday
and Saturday 09:00 to 00:00
· Sunday
10:00 to 22:30
 
Furthermore, the current policy
goes on to state that:
 
“Hours may be more restrictive dependent on the
character of the area and if the individual circumstances require
it. Later hours may be considered where the applicant has
identified any risk that may undermine the promotion of the
licensing objectives and has put in place robust measures to
mitigate those risks. It should be noted that this policy does not
apply to those who are making an application within a Cumulative
Impact Area (see section 3) unless they have been able to
demonstrate that the proposed activity or operation of the premises
will not add to the cumulative impact that is already being
experienced.”
 
The Panel noted that the
Licensing Enforcement Team were also not opposing the application
for the extension of hours for licensable activities. 
 
The Panel was satisfied with
the evidence provided by the Enforcement Protection Team in
relation to why the licensable activities hours should not be
granted and had given weight to the evidence provided in writing as
well during oral submissions at the hearing.
 
The Panel was of the view that
the Applicant failed to demonstrate that he had knowledge and
understanding of the core hours and the policy surrounding the
Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy. 
 
Overall, the Panel was of the
view that during the presentation of the application the Applicant
had not been clear about what procedures the Premises had in place
to manage noise nuisance.   The
Applicant’s only response was that they would ensure
customers were not noisy and left the Premises quietly, and so it
appeared to the Panel that the applicant had completely missed the
fact that the primary issue was that they were playing loud music
which was causing nuisance to others and that they were therefore
in breach of their licensing condition.
 
The Panel acknowledged that the
Applicant had agreed to the rephrasing of condition 4 as proposed
by the Licensing Enforcement Team.
 
Decision
 
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 partially GRANT the
application for variation of the current Premises Licence as
follows:
 

(a) 
Hours premises are open to the public
Monday to Thursday
09:00 to 23:00
Friday and Saturday
09:00 to 01:00
Sunday 10:00 to
22:30
 

(b) 
Late-night refreshment indoors
Friday and Saturday
23:00 to 01:00
 
The Panel has agreed that the wording of
condition 4 should be rephrased so that it reads as follows:
 

“Security Industry Authority (SIA) licensed door supervisors
shall be on duty at the weekends at peak times and during extended
hours (00:00hrs to 01:00hrs).  It is the responsibility of the
DPS to risk assess the need for SIA staff at all other
times.”
 
For the avoidance of doubt, the Panel
REFUSED to extend the hours for the following licensable
activities:
 

(a) 
Live music indoors

(b) 
Recorded music indoors
 
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
 
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.