Decision Maker: Licensing Panel

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: May 22, 2025

Purpose:

Content: Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to determine an application for the grant of a premises licence under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 PREMISES: Pure in the Park Ltd, Gunnersbury Park, Popes Lane, London W5 4NH APPLICANT: Pure in the Park Ltd (Company number 16212912) TAKE NOTICE THAT on Thursday 22nd May 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 as follows: Decision To Grant with amendments, the application for a new premises licence for Pure in the Park Ltd, Gunnersbury Park, Popes Lane, London as follows: Supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 22:00 Hours of opening Monday to Sunday: 07:00 to 23:00 Conditions: 1)     Appropriate signage would be displayed, in a prominent position, informing customers they were being recorded on CCTV.    2)     The premises would install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Hounslow Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points would be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system would continually record whilst the premises were open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remained on the premises. All recordings would be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings would be made available immediately upon the request of Police or an authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.   3)     A staff member from the premises who was conversant with the operation of the CCTV system would be on the premises at all times when the premises were open. This staff member would also be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.   4)     All staff responsible for selling alcohol would receive regular training in the Licensing Act 2003. Written records of this training would be retained and made available to Police and Council officers on request.   5)     An incident log would be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of the Hounslow Council or the Police. It must have been completed within 24 hours of the incident and would 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, searching equipment or scanning equipment g)     any refusal of the sale of alcohol h)     any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service. 6)     Notices would be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.   7)     A Challenge 25 proof of age scheme would be operated at the premises. Signage would be displayed advising customers that the scheme was in place. All staff authorised to sell alcohol would be trained in the Challenge 25 scheme, and this training would 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.   8)     Customers would not be permitted to remove from the premises and or boarders any alcoholic drinks supplied by the premises in open containers.   9)     No alcohol would be supplied if the CCTV equipment was inoperative for any reason.   10)Extra litter bins would be situated around the outside of the premises to control litter, and staff would regularly check and clear the outside tables and outside area to make sure the area is clean and tidy at all times. Reasons 1.     The Panel convened in person to determine an application by Pure in the Park Ltd (Company number 16212912) (the “Applicant”) for a new premises licence for Pure in the Park Ltd, Gunnersbury Park, Popes Lane, London W5 4NH (the “Premises”) under the Licensing Act 2003. 2.     The Premises were not currently licensed and were located in Gunnersbury Park. During the hearing it was noted there was an issue over the correct postcode for the Premises, and it was agreed that it may be more appropriate to use the postcode “W5 4NH”, which was the postcode for Gunnersbury Park Museum, which was adjacent to the Premises. If this postcode is changed in the future, the Applicant must inform the Licensing Authority of the same as soon as possible, and no later than 2 weeks after confirmation of the same. 3.     In making its decision, the Panel considered all the relevant information including: ·        Written and Oral representations 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 (the “Statutory Guidance”) ·        Hounslow Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2020-2025 (the “Council’s Policy”) ·        The Human Rights Act 1998 4.     The Panel reviewed the conditions proposed in the application and those conditions agreed between the Applicant and the Police, shown at Appendix C, that seek to address the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm, and public safety. The conditions agreed with the Police mirrored a number of the conditions proposed in the application, but where there was a duplication, the Police conditions were preferred as the wording was clearer and more concise. The Panel notes that the conditions would also prevent any alcohol being provided if the CCTV were inoperable for any reason. 5.     In relation to the concerns raised by the objectors, these primarily related to public nuisance and crime, and disorder. Whilst welcoming the return of a café, they were concerned that the Premises would act like a pub; they considered the opening hours and licensing hours were excessive for a park in a residential area, and they were concerned about how the Premises may affect current issues of anti-social behaviour and littering in the park. 6.     Mr Lynn appeared on behalf of the Applicant, and the objector did not attend. Prior to the meeting, the Applicant had provided the Panel with a further copy of the licence plan that more clearly set out the perimeter of the proposed licensable area. This showed the licensable area included an area with some outside tables, all of which were confirmed to be within the curtilage of the Premises area and the responsibility of the Applicant. 7.     In relation to the proposed opening and licensing hours, there was no objection to these hours by the Police, who are a Responsible Authority with expertise in crime and disorder. The Premises are yet to open and at the hearing, Mr Lynn presented the Panel with their anticipated seasonal opening hours, which were considerably less than the hours presented in the application. Mr Lynn stated they intended to operate as a café and had asked for the longer opening and licensing hours as they had been liaising with Gunnersbury Museum, which also ran various clubs and events, and they had wanted the flexibility to work with the museum and its visitors when they were holding events. Mr Lynn stated the Applicant was happy to be flexible with the licensing hours and would be planning to stop serving alcohol an hour before closing. As for the supply of alcohol, they were intending to provide a mix of beers and wine, and perhaps some cocktails. Given this situation, the fact that the park was currently open 24 hours a day, the existing issues with ASB and the Applicant’s flexibility for their licensing hours, the Panel considered a later licensing start time of 12.00pm and a slightly earlier termination time of 10:00pm would be appropriate to ensure the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance and upheld. 8.     With regards to the concern about litter, the application was for on-sales of alcohol only, and so customers are not permitted to purchase alcohol to consume off the premises. Whilst the Applicant was not responsible for litter caused by others elsewhere in the park, the Panel considered it is sensible to ensure the Premises did not contribute to any litter issues and acknowledged that the application included a condition to place further bins around the Premises and to regularly check and clear the outside tables to ensure the area was clean and tidy at all times. The Panel considered that this was a suitable and proportionate condition to minimise any litter issues arising from the Premises in compliance with the public nuisance objective, however the Panel considered this proposed condition should be amended to make it clear that the requirement was to check and clear the outside tables and the outside area generally given that items could be more easily knocked over or blown around in external areas. 9.     The application also included a condition not to play ”loud music” at any time and for the outside seating area to have different closing times during the summer and winter months. The term “loud” was highly subjective and therefore could not be clarified except by prescribing a decibel level, and as the Premises were yet to open, there were no representations on this issue. At the hearing, Mr Lynn informed the Panel that they only intended to play background music at the Premises, and if that was the case, then the Panel would not expect any music to be loud or to require any additional conditions. Furthermore, certain types of entertainment were deregulated, and conditions on the same would only be applied in the event of a review. With all this in mind, the Panel did not consider it appropriate to retain the proposed “loud music” condition at this stage, but if this became a nuisance, a Review could be applied for to consider the issue. 10.As for the outside seating area, with the Premises in a park, they were not adjacent to residential premises where the sound of people sitting outside could cause public nuisance, although it is recognised that there will be other people using the park who would not want to be disturbed. The Panel did not consider it necessary, at the time, to retain the proposed condition about closing the outside seating areas at certain prescribed times during summer or winter. Given the Applicant’s proposed opening hours were considerably less than the applied-for hours, this would naturally result in the external areas being closed earlier. Again, if this were to become an issue a party would be entitled to bring a Review. 11.Regarding the potential for customers causing anti-social behaviour or noise nuisance in the area due to drinking alcohol, paragraph 2.22 of the Statutory Guidance made it clear that individuals were responsible for their own behaviour when they were beyond the immediate area of the premises, although it would be reasonable to require premises to have signs encouraging customers to be quiet until they leave the area. Such a condition has been agreed with the Police. 12.For these reasons, the Panel decided to grant the licence with the hours and conditions as set out in this Decision. Right to Appeal 13.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.