Decision Maker: Licensing Panel

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: February 27, 2025

Purpose:

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.