Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: December 22, 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:    KSMV Properties Ltd, of 299-303 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick, W4 4HH (“the Premises”)   APPLICANT: KSMV Properties Ltd (“the Applicant”)   TAKE NOTICE THATON 22 December 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:   REASONS:   1)           The Panel convened to determine an application for the variation of a premises licence for KSMV Properties Ltd, of 299-303 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick, W4 4HH, made under the Licensing Act 2003.   2)           The Premises were currently licensed for the following activities and hours:   (a)        Supply of alcohol (on the premises) Sunday to Thursday 09.00 to 00.30 Friday and Saturday 09.00 to 01.00   (b)        Live and recorded music indoors Sunday to Thursday 23.00 to 00.00 Friday and Saturday 23.00 to 01.00   (c)        Late-night refreshment indoors Sunday to Thursday 23.00 to 00.30 Friday and Saturday 23.00 to 01.00   (d)        The opening hours of the premises Sunday to Thursday 09.00 to 01.00 Friday and Saturday 09.00 to 01.30   Note this is in relation to both the ground floor and the basement level.   The application sought to extend the licensable hours as follows:   (a)        Supply of alcohol (on the premises): Friday and Saturday, and the eve of a public holiday, 09.00 to 02.00   (b)        Live and recorded music indoors Friday and Saturday, and the eve of a public holiday 23.00 to 02.00   (c)        Late-night refreshment indoors Friday, Saturday and the eve of a public holiday 23.00 to 02.00   (d)        The opening hours of the premises Sunday to Thursday 09.00 to 01.00 Friday and Saturday 09.00 to 02.30   3)           A copy of the application was attached as Appendix A (pages 11 to 22) of the agenda pack. The application was to extend the licensable activities on both the ground floor and the basement level.   4)           The Premises are situated in an area of mixed commercial and residential properties.   5)           The hearing was held in-person. 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.   6)           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 new guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Statutory Guidance”) ·        Hounslow Council’s licensing policy 2020 – 2025 (“the Council’s Policy”) ·        The Human Rights Act 1998   7)           The measures and conditions the Applicant proposed were set out and contained in the current licence at pages 23-31 of the agenda pack.     8)           As part of the consultation process, the Authority received one representation from a responsible authority being from the Senior Principal Regulatory Officer in environmental health. There was an objection received from the ward Councillor and three members of the public (the “Objectors”). The objections are contained at pages 32-59 of the agenda pack at Appendix B-D. There was a representation of support by a ward councillor contained at Appendix E (page 60).   9)           The Environmental Health Authority had raised issues of waste management and noise complaints from the property.   10)       A copy of the report and all representations received were sent to the Applicant.   11)       During the Licensing Panel hearing, the facts giving rise to the application for the grant of a variation to a premises licence were set out by the licensing officer and were agreed by all the parties in attendance.   12)       The Applicant was represented by Mr Gibson (the “Agent”).    Submissions by the Applicant   13)       The agent submitted that this was a simple application asking for an extra hour of licensable activities at the weekend and the eve of any public holiday. The panel were referred to the new statutory s182 guidance and in particular paragraph 1.18. They placed heavy reliance on the government message to support the hospitality industry. They stated that there were various amounts of hearsay evidence before the panel today, which should not be taken into account, as an evidence-based decision needed to be made, based on the hour extension asked for. They had, prior to the hearing, requested to see the complaints made, but were told that they cannot be disclosed due to GDPR. To this end, they had tried to obtain the information to note the concerns.   14)       In response to questions regarding the Premises it was confirmed that the current licence allowed music on both the ground floor and the basement level, and the extension was sought for both floors. It was confirmed that the restaurant usually closes at 10 am; it was not proposed that food would be regularly served late, unless it was requested at an event. The applicant accepted that his waste management had not been robust, and he had underestimated the amount of waste that would be produced by the business. He confirmed, as of that day, the alleyway was clear behind the business and waste management was under control with an increase in the bins required.   15)       Questions regarding the management of customers leaving the premises were put to the Applicant, and it was confirmed that two security personnel (SIA) were employed to monitor the door on ground level and the door at basement level, to ensure no congregation occurs and people exit smoothly. It was confirmed that the fire doors at the back were not used, except to throw rubbish out (before 23.00). The applicant was aware that both doors being open allowed more noise emission, so they monitor this as best they can. They further have a noise curtain to limit noise escaping at the ground floor level. It was confirmed that a neighbour had contacted them with noise complaints, and they have worked with that person to reduce issues.   16)       On questioning, the Applicant confirmed that enforcement officers visited the property in November 2025 regarding excessive noise complaints, so they were aware of issues. It was clear that the basement door had a two-door buffer and insulation, and it was suggested by the applicant they only use that door for exit if it would assist with noise and they close the street level door.   Submissions by the Objectors   17)       The principal regulatory officer for environmental health submitted that there were issues with excessive noise and an increase in complaints being received by the Council. The premises had been inspected and there was concern about emitting noise into the streets surrounding the ground-level floor. It was felt that the ground floor did not have significant measures in place. As this was raised, the agent confirmed his client is prepared to withdraw the variation application to relate to the ground level, and the application then only relates to the basement. The Panel were grateful for this sensible approach.   18)       The Regulatory officer confirmed that it had taken a lot of time for the waste management issues to be resolved, which seemed to be accepted by the Applicant. The ward councillor asked for confirmation that fines had been issued to the business regarding a lack of waste management, which was confirmed (more than one fine, but exact numbers were unavailable). The Applicant stated they had not been able to predict the business waste output, and it had been trial and error on their part, but they were confident it was under control now and accepted this was the business's responsibility.   19)       On questioning it was confirmed that there were 8 noise complaints made since September 2025.    20)       The panel asked how condition 18 was being implemented regarding acceptable noise levels being set by environmental health. The officer responded to confirm this had been discussed, but they awaited the business to confirm the agreed level had been locked off on the control panel, and no one could adjust it. This panel was currently behind the bar. Evidence was yet to be provided of the noise level being locked.   21)       It was suggested that condition 14 of the licence was being breached in that more than five people were being allowed to smoke outdoors. There was no evidence presented, barr the hearsay evidence of the ward councillor, whose residents had reported this to her.   22)       Representations were made by the ward councillor emphasising that the inactions of the Applicant spoke volumes, in lack of waste management, vermin presence, lack of complying with conditions already set, making the potential of further public nuisance high, with the 1 hour proposed extension. It was stated that residents in hr ward felt a lack of confidence in the business to comply with the licence conditions already set. There was some suggestion residents did not feel confident to approach the business to make complaints, for fear. The licensing objective are not being meet and resident lives are being impacted. The Councillor put forward that no extension should be granted, and the business should prove it can operate within the scope of the licence already granted, before any extensions are agreed.    Summing Up   23)       In summing up, the regulatory officer confirmed they want waste controlled, confirmation that the noise limiter panel was locked, and noise levels cannot be changed, and the extra hour only applies to the basement level.   24)       The ward Councillor confirmed she sought a refusal of the variation of the application until this business can prove it will comply with licence conditions, for her residents. She indicated confidence in the management of these Premises, at the current time was low.   25)       The Agent highlighted they have conceded the hour extension would only apply to the basement and not the street level. Waste management was under control, and a noise report was to be sent to environmental health.   Statutory Guidance   26)       The Panel considered the Statutory Guidance in relation to public nuisance which states:   “Public Nuisance   2.25      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.   2.27      Beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises, these are matters for the personal responsibility of individuals under the law. An individual who engages in antisocial 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.   27)       It was noted there was insufficient evidence regarding any public safety aspects and crime and disorder. The police had not made any representations.   The panel also took into account paragraph 1.18 of the guidance and similar provisions in the Hounslow statement of licensing policy.   1.18 When making licensing decisions, all licensing authorities should consider the need to   promote growth and deliver economic benefits   Decision   28)       Having taken all the representations into account, the Panel were satisfied that the Applicant will comply with the licensing objectives for the variation sought. This decision was made with some reservation as despite specific evidence not being presented, it is clear there have been complaints lodged to the environmental health team and the local ward councillor.   29)       There are licence conditions already in place, and the Panel considered these to be sufficient to mitigate any public nuisance issues. The Panel expect the Applicant to continue ensuring conditions are met to better promote the general operation of the Premises and the licensing objectives. The Panel expects the Applicant to address their mind to the implementation of conditions 8, 14, 17 and 18 to a high standard. The Panel noted the Applicant’s offer to allow patrons to exit only from the basement level exit. The Panel have decided to impose no additional condition to deal with this but leave the decision to the Applicant to best manage the Premises and use this option if needed to reduce any noise and disruption to neighbouring properties. It is expected that the Applicant will work to ensure disruption is kept to a minimum in as much as is in their control. The Panel has been reassured that waste management is now under control, so expect no issues to arise regarding waste from the premises.   30)       The Panel considered that the additional hour being requested within the basement, may assist the applicant in dispersal of patrons at the end of the night, where a staggering may occur due to the later opening hours, in turn promoting the licensing objectives. This will be seen, in the coming months, when we are expecting the environmental health officers to continue in their work of monitoring the noise levels and all responsible authorities to ensure the licensing conditions are adhered to.   31)       The Licensing Panel has therefore decided to GRANT the application for a variation of the premises licence with the following modifications:   (a)        Supply of alcohol (on the premises): Ground floor – Friday & Saturday 23.00 to 01.00 Basement -Friday & Saturday and the eve of a public holiday 09.00 to 02.00   (b)        Live and recorded music indoors Ground floor – Friday & Saturday 23.00 to 01.00 Basement - Friday and Saturday, and the eve of a public holiday, 23.00 to 02.00   (c)        Late-night refreshment indoors Ground floor – Friday and Saturday 23.00 to 01.00 Basement - Friday and Saturday, and the eve of a public holiday 23.00 to 02.00   (d)        The opening hours of the premises Sunday to Thursday 09.00 to 01.00 Friday and Saturday 09.00 to 02.30     Right to Appeal   32)       Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee 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.