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:
          
Eat Lebo, 10A The Broadway, Gunnersbury
Lane, Acton Town,  London W3 8HR
 
APPLICANT:
         Eat
Lebo Acton Ltd
 
TAKE NOTICE THAT ON 01 October 2024
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 Eat Lebo, 10A The Broadway,
Gunnersbury Lane, Acton Town, London W3 8HR was GRANTED,
subject to the conditions and modifications stated below.
 
REASONS:
 
1.            
The Panel convened to determine an application for a Premises
Licence for Eat Lebo, 10A The Broadway,
Gunnersbury Lane, Acton Town, London W3 8HR(“the
Premises”) under the Licensing Act 2003.
 
2.            
The application sought the following hours for licensable
activities:
 

·      
Sale of alcohol:
Sunday to
Thursday 10:00 to 23:30
Friday and
Saturday 10:00 to 00:30
 

·      
Recorded music (indoors)
Sunday to
Thursday 10:00 to 00:00
Friday and
Saturday 10:00 to 01:00
 

·      
Late-night refreshment (indoors &
outdoors):
Sunday to
Thursday 23:00 to 00:00
Friday and
Saturday 23:00 to 01:00
 

·      
Hours premises are open to the
public:
Sunday to
Thursday 10:00 to 00:00
Friday and
Saturday 10:00 to 01:00
 
3.            
The application included proposed conditions on the licence, which
are set out in Section M of the application shown at Appendix
A.
 
4.            
The Premises were not currently licensed, and it are 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 two
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. 
 
7.            
There was no representation from the Licensing Enforcement
Team.
 
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. 
 
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 five
minutes speaking time to the Applicant. 
There were two objectors in attendance who were also given five
minutes each of speaking time.
 
Submissions by the Applicant:
 
11.         
The Applicant explained that he was
the co-owner
of Eat Lebo
Action Limited and that the company had
opened one premises in Ruislip
which had been running successfully. 
The company was now hoping to expand
by opening the premises in question.  The premises would specialise in selling
Lebanese street food which
customers could buy to eat with a glass of
wine/or beer.
 
12.         
The Applicant explained that the premises would not
do any events or parties (ie birthday
or wedding parties). They would not have late night music and would
only have recorded traditional Lebanese music playing indoors
only. 
 
13.         
In terms of seating arrangement, the Applicant
explained that they would have limited seating inside and would
have additional seating out in the courtyard in front of the
premises. 
 
14.         
The Applicant told the Panel that his company had
decided to reduce their timing because they would like to work with
the local community, ensuring they are happy.  The Applicant confirmed the reduced hours which he
was requesting the Panel to consider were as follows:
 
·      
Sale of alcohol:
Sunday to Thursday 12:00 to 22:30pm only with food
Friday and Saturday 12:00 to 23:00
 
·      
Recorded music (indoors)
Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00
Friday to
Saturday 10:00 to 23:30
Sunday 10:00 to 23:00
 
·      
Hours premises are open to the
public:
Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00

Friday to Saturday 10:00 to 23:30

Sunday 10:00 to 23:00
 

15.         
The Applicant asked the Panel to cancel his
application for late night refreshment as it was no longer needed
considering the reduced hours. 
 
16.         
The Applicant assured the Panel that the premises
would train staff at the start of their employment and that
refresher training would be provided for all staff every six months
which would include alcohol, health and safety, ID, hygiene etc. He
also assured the Panel that the premises would put up signage about
noise and provide contact details for residents in the
neighbourhood to contact if they had any concerns about the
premises.  The premises would have CCTV
outside and inside which would operate
24/7 and that they would maintain a logbook for
incidents/reports.
 
17.         
The Applicant explained that his company is trying
to grow as a business. Staff would be trained and would be taught
about everything necessary.
 
18.         
During question time, the Applicant explained the
outdoor area of the premises, namely that the outdoor space had barriers to mark the extent, and the public
could easily identify it.  In terms of
the floorplan/layout, the Applicant explained that the fridge
behind the counter would have beers and alcohol which would not be
on display and that the counter would have food only.
 
19.         
In response to questions by the Panel members, the
Applicant explained that the outdoor area had seating capacity of
24 with 16 seats inside.  He also
confirmed that they would sell cocktails which would be prepared at
the marked area on the map attached with the
application.
 
20.         
In terms of soundproofing, the Applicant confirmed
that the premises was under construction, and it would be
soundproofed.  Furthermore, they would
have a sound limiter on the music and that work to the ceiling had
been done to reduce/minimise noise from the music.  The Applicant assured the Panel that their noise
limiter would be in place so music could not go above the
limit.
 
21.         
In terms of deliveries, the Applicant told the Panel
that some deliveries would arrive early in the morning, but
the majority of delivery suppliers would
come during opening hours and that some of the deliveries would
be at the back of the premises and some to
the front.
 
22.         
The Applicant explained to the Panel that waste
disposal arrangements were in place and that the bins were at the
back of the premises.  Waste would be
collected from the back but he did not
know when the collection would be – they were still liaising
with companies for quotes.
 
23.         
In response to questions by the objector, the
Applicant assured them that there would be no big events and that
they would not apply for special permits ie Temporary Event Notices.  He also assured the objector that
everything would finish by 23:00 and then after that
it would be just clearing up.
 
24.         
With regards to the objector’s question
regarding takeaway orders, the Applicant confirmed that they would
use delivery companies like Deliveroo, Just Eat, Uber Eat etc and
that he could not say how many orders they would have each day but
based on their experience of their premises in Ruislip, it will
probably be 2-3 deliveries at a time (roughly about 65%). In the
Applicant’s view the takeaway order collections by the
delivery man would be quick as they would come by motorbike and
just quickly pick up and go.
 
25.         
In terms of the dimensions and how far the outdoor
eating would be, the Applicant confirmed that it would 760cm in
length and would include the planters and the width was 682.5cm.
The Applicant assured the Panel there would be plenty of space for
the pedestrians to walk on the pavement.
 
Objector’s
submissions:
 
26.         
The first objector explained that she was concerned
with the application as she lives near the premises.  She was particularly worried about noise and the
late hours but acknowledged that the Applicant had confirmed during
the Panel hearing that he was reducing the hours which she welcomed
positively.  However, she invited the
Panel to consider reducing the hours further, namely until 23:00 so
that this premises also had the same hours as other restaurants
nearby/on the parade.  She also
explained that having 24 people sitting outside the premises eating
and drinking would cause noise/disturbance. 
 
27.         
The second objector was a Councillor, who once again
expressed concerns about potential noise the premises would cause.
Some residential properties windows faced the premises. There was a
Persian restaurant with shorter hours which was appropriate for
residential area. Her worry was that it would attract late night
crowding. This business was different as it was heavily takeaway
and would impact more areas. Furthermore, motorcycle delivery could
be very noisy, there was risk of congregation of delivery riders
and that having noise signage outside would not be enough to
control noise levels.
 
Summing up:
 
28.         
The Applicant did not add anything in summing up.
Both objectors however expressed concerns about the
amount of
takeaways and the reduced hours proposed by the Applicant which
they thought should be reduced further to mirror other premises in
the area.
 
Statutory Guidance:
 
29.         
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).”
 
30.         
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:
 
31.         
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:
 
32.         
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.
 
33.         
Therefore, the Licensing Panel unanimously decided to GRANT
the application, in respect of the following:
 
·      
Sale of alcohol:
Sunday to Thursday 12:00 to 22:30pm only with food
Friday and Saturday 12:00 to 23:00
 
·      
Recorded music (indoors)
Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00
Friday to
Saturday 10:00 to 23:30
Sunday 10:00 to 23:00
 
·      
Hours premises are open to the
public:
Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00

Friday to Saturday 10:00 to 23:30

Sunday 10:00 to 23:00
 

34.         
For the avoidance of doubt, the application for Late
Night Refreshment was not relevant for the Panel to consider
because during the Panel hearing the Applicant confirmed that he
was withdrawing it as it was no longer required given the hours the
premises would operate.
 

35.         
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 should be included in the
Premises Licence.  In addition, the
Panel decided that all relevant model conditions, where
appropriate, should apply in addition to the conditions proposed by
the Applicant. 
 

36.         
The Panel noted that the objectors’ main
concern when summing up was about the amount of takeaway and
trading hours.  However, the Panel took
the view that the Applicant was willing to work with the needs of
the local community and so had decided to reduce the hours applied
for significantly.  The Panel took this
positively which would hopefully work better. 
 

37.         
The Panel did not think it was justifiable nor
reasonable to reduce the hours for these premises still further to
be the same as other premises in the area.  The Panel would like 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.
 
 

38.         
Furthermore, the Panel decided that it should not
refuse the application solely based on fears of what might
happen.  It was noted by the Panel that
as it stood there was nothing directly 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 the sale of alcohol.
 

39.         
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. 
 
40.         
The Panel noted that ultimately it was for a licence holder to
ensure they are operating in compliance with their licence and to
propose measures to promote the licensing objectives and tackle any
issues.
 
41.         
The Panel would like to remind all parties 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:
 
42.         
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.