Decision Maker: Licensing Panel

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: June 17, 2025

Purpose:

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:    Il Bebo’s Restaurant, 62 Staines Road, Hounslow TW3 3LZ   APPLICANT:  Mr Muneeb Quadir    TAKE NOTICE THAT on Tuesday 17th June 2025following 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 the variation of a premises licence for Il Bebo’s Restaurant, 62 Staines Road, Hounslow TW3 3LZ, as follows:   Recorded Music Monday to Thursday 11:00hours to 01:30hours Friday and Saturday 11:00hours to 02:00hours Sunday 11:00hours to 00:00hours   Performance of Dance Monday to Thursday 11:00hours to 01:30hours Friday and Saturday 11:00hours to 02:00hours Sunday 11:00hours to 00:00hours   Late Night Refreshment Monday to Thursday 11:00hours to 01:30hours Friday and Saturday 11:00hours to 02:00hours Sunday 11:00hours to 00:00hours   Supply of Alcohol Monday to Thursday 11:00hours to 01:30hours Friday and Saturday 11:00hours to 02:00hours Sunday 11:00hours to 00:00hours   Hours Premises are open to the Public: Monday to Thursday 11:00hours to 02:00hours Friday and Saturday 11:00hours to 02:30hours Sunday 11:00hours to 00:30hours   Non-standard hours New Years Eve: from the end of permitted hours on New Years Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Years Day     Conditions:   1)             That 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 was 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 upon the request of the Police or authorised council officer as soon as possible and during opening hours.   2)             That 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 must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer with copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.   3)             That 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 with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.   4)             That 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 had to be 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 g)             any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service. h)             any refused sales of alcohol   5)             That notices would be prominently displayedat all exits requestingpatrons to respectthe needs of local residentsand businessesand leavethe area quietly.   6)             That a Challenge 25 proofof age schemewould operate at the premises. Signagewould be displayedadvising customers that the scheme wasin place. All staffauthorised to sell alcoholwould be trained in the Challenge25 scheme and thistraining would be documented to include thedate the training was given, the nameof the person who gave the training, theperson who received the training andsignatures by bothtrainer and trainee. 7)             That the licence holder would actively participate in any local pub watch or retail watch scheme that was in effect.   8)             That no deliveries would take place between 21:00 and 06:00 hours.   9)             That no collections, including refuse and recyclable food waste, would take place between 00:00 and 06:00 hours.   10)         That all regulated entertainment in the outside area would cease by 00:00 Monday to Sunday, save for the playing of background music only.    11)         That thee supply of alcohol for consumption at the premises had to be to a person seated and primarily for the purposes of taking a table meal there and for consumptionby such a person asancillary to their meal. 12)         That alcohol consumed outside the premises building would only be consumed by patrons seated at tables.   13)         That the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises had to be to a person seated and served by waiter/waitress service.   14)         That a minimum of one Security Industry Authority (SIA) registereddoor supervisor would be on duty on the premises between the hours of 21.00hrs until half an hourafter closing on Friday and Saturday. 15)         That where SIA registered door supervisors were used at the premises, a record had to be kept of their SIA registration number and the dates and times when they were on duty 16)         That staff ould regularly monitor the area out the front of the premises in relation to keeping it clear of litter and to ensure customers were not causing a nuisance to neighbouring premises. 17)         That when SIA door staff were on duty they would monitor customers as they left the premises and would make sure the dispersal wass peaceful and quiet. 18)         That last entry to the premises would be 01:00 on Sunday to Thursday and 01:30 on Friday and Saturday. 19)         That a copy of the premises’ dispersal policy and noise management plan would be provided to the Licensing Authority prior to the opening of the business.  A copy of the premises’ noise assessment was to be provided to the Licensing Authority no later than 3 months after opening the business.       Reasons     1.           The Panel convened in person to determine an application by Mr Muneeb Quadir (the “Applicant”) for a variation of a premises licence for Il Bebo’s Restaurant, 62 Staines Road, Hounslow TW3 3LZ (the “Premises”) under the Licensing Act 2003.    2.           The Premises were currently licensed as shown by the Premises Licence in Appendix B of the Agenda papers, and were located in an area near the main High Street and with a mix of commercial and residential properties.   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.           Both of the objectors were present, and the Applicant was represented by Counsel, Mr Charalambides, and by his Licensing Agent.   5.           In making its decision the Panel noted that the Premises was in the Authority’s cumulative impact zone, which creates a rebuttable presumption that a premises licence would not be granted where valid representations were received, as they were in this case. The Panel noted that there was no representations from the Police and no representations about crime and disorder or public nuisance currently associated with the Premises.  However there was concern that the extension of the proposed licencing hours and opening hours, potentially going into the early hours of the morning, increased the risk of public nuisance and crime and disorder. The Applicant’s Counsel informed the Panel that the Premises would be a food led business, which would also have shisha and be serving alcohol and there were existing conditions in place whereby alcohol could only be served to customers seated at a table and ancillary to a meal.  Therefore, the Premises would not be operating as a bar.   6.           The Panel listened to the objections of Mr Ahmed, who did not think any extension of hours would be appropriate due to the increased risk of public nuisance and crime and disorder, noting there was a block opposite that had been converted from office space to residential accommodation, and to nearby incidents of crime, disorder and ASB.  In his representations Mr Hennessy also thought the application should be rejected but that in the event the Panel considered otherwise he had put forward alternative proposed hours and conditions.  When pressed by the Panel at the hearing, Mr Ahmed indicated he was more likely to fall on the side of Mr Hennessy proposed hours rather than the Applicant’s.   7.           Whilst Applicant’s Counsel noted that the council’s master plan referred to making the town centre a vibrant 24-hour hub, this did not negate the Licensing Authority's duty to ensure any premises licence application was determined in accordance with its legal obligations.   8.           The Panel listened to Applicant’s Counsel’s explanation that the Applicant was agreeable to the licensing conditions proposed in Mr Hennessy's representation, save for the proposed opening and licensing hours and save for condition 10, which required the use of the external area to be closed at midnight Monday to Sunday.   9.           The Premises were currently closed for refurbishment and were due to reopen in and around August 2025 as a Lebanese, food-led establishment.  It was also clarified that the outdoor areas referred to in the application referred to the structure at the front of the Premises, which extended beyond the building located above the Premises, and that the area marked as “external seating” on the existing Premises plan was actually an internal covered area. The Panel was informed that a revised plan would be sent to the Council once the refurbishment had been completed.   10.       The Panel was informed how the outdoor seating area had large windows and a retractable roof, but that various acoustic measures had been put in place to minimise the dispersal of sound outside the Premises such as the use of sound deadening materials and directional speakers, and that the Premises had a noise limiter and that staff would also be monitoring the sound levels emanating from the Premises to avoid disturbance.  The Panel was informed that similar measures had been taken in other premises run by the Applicant, some of which were in residential areas, and so far there had been no noise complaints made against them.  The Panel was also told that the Applicant would be prepared to accept a condition restricting the playing of regulated entertainment in the outdoor area from midnight Monday to Sunday, save for the playing of background music only.  In addition, the Panel took into account the Applicant’s offer to provide the licensing authority with a noise management plan prior to the Premises reopening and also supply a noise assessment report within three months after opening.  This was in addition to providing the licencing authority with a copy of a dispersal policy prior to reopening the Premises.   11.       In relation to the issue of crime and disorder, the Panel took into account that the existing conditions required the use of a SIA door supervisor from 21:00 hours until half an hour after closing on Friday and Saturday and again noted there were no representations about crime and disorder issues associated with the Premises. The Panel also noted the explanation given by Applicant’s Counsel about a serious crime and disorder issue at an associated venue in Brent.   12.       The Panel also took into account the Applicant’s proposed condition for a last entry time for the Premises of 01:30 on Friday and Saturday and 01:00 hours for the rest of the week, which the Applicant stated would allow for a maximum capacity at 01:00, or 01:30 depending on the day, followed by a gradually dispersion of customers after this time.  With the Premises only allowing alcohol to be consumed at a sit-down table and with a meal, this would prevent people seeking to enter the Premises only to drink alcohol.  The Panel considered this was a sensible condition to include on any licence in order to reduce the risk of public nuisance and crime and disorder.   13.       Taking all of these issues into account, the Panel was minded to agree that these particular Premises, with the conditions regarding how alcohol could be consumed, with last entry times, the use of SIA staff and the restriction of regulated entertainment in the outdoor area from midnight, were unlikely to add to the cumulative impact in the area. However, the Panel considered that the proposed licensing hours and opening hours, extending until 03:00 on Friday and Saturday and 02:00 on all other days, including Sunday, were excessive, given these were very sensitive times. The Panel considered that the hours proposed by Mr Hennessy ought to be preferredin order to reduce the risk of public nuisance.  These hours included the termination of licensing activities at midnight on Sundays, with the Premises to close 30 minutes thereafter. In this situation, a last entry time of 01:00 on Sundays would appear to be irrelevant, but the Panel is including this in the event that any non-standard hours fall on a Sunday.   14.       Furthermore, given the acoustic measures that were proposed, the lack of representations about noise and disorder from the Premises and the Applicant’s offer of conditions to provide the licencing authority with its noise management plan and its noise assessment report, the Panel was minded to agree the Applicant’s submission not to accept condition 10 in Mr Hennessy's proposed replacement conditions, namely to close the external area at midnight. Instead, that condition 10 would be replaced with the Applicant’s proposed condition to cease all regulated entertainment in the external area by midnight Monday to Sunday, save for the playing of background music only.   15.       Mr Hennessy's proposed conditions sought to replace the existing conditions on the premises licence, although his proposed conditions did not include retaining the existing condition 8 which required staff to regularly monitor the front of the Premises to keep it clear of litter and to ensure customers were not causing a nuisance to neighbouring premises. The Panel was of the view this was an important condition for the prevention of public nuisance and should be retained. Furthermore, the existing conditions required the keeping of a refusal's book at condition 12 and the Panel considered the proposed incident log in his proposed condition 3 should be amended to include any refused sales of alcohol.   16.       The application also included a proposed condition for SIA door staff to monitor customers as they leave the Premises to make sure their dispersal was peaceful and quiet and the Panel considered this condition should be retained.   17.       The Applicant’s hours for seasonal variations on New Year's Eve was not specifically discussed at the hearing, nor was it specifically raised by either of the objectors, although it could be implied that the general objection to the application may suggest they were not in favour of this seasonal variation.  However, the Panel decided to accept the seasonal variation.   18.       For these reasons, the Panel decided to grant the application to vary the premises licence as amended and with the licence conditions set out at the beginning of this Decision.  For the avoidance of doubt, these licence conditions are to replace the conditions set out in Annex 2 of the existing Premises Licence.   Right to Appeal   19.       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.