The Licensing Sub-Committee of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea met on Tuesday 28 July 2026 to consider a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for What a Week at 252 Portobello Road, London, W11 1LL. The committee decided to issue a counter notice, refusing the TEN, on the grounds that allowing the event would undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.

Temporary Event Notice for What a Week Refused

The Licensing Sub-Committee refused a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for What a Week , located at 252 Portobello Road, London, W11 1LL, which had sought permission to sell alcohol off the premises on Sunday 30 August and Monday 31 August 2026, during Notting Hill Carnival. The decision to refuse the TEN was made because the committee determined that granting it would undermine the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder and ensuring public safety. A written summary of the decision will be provided within five working days, with a full determination to follow.

The Metropolitan Police lodged an objection to the TEN, citing concerns about public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder. PC Jinelle Caldinez, representing the Metropolitan Police, explained that the premises' location on the Portobello Road parade route, combined with the sale of alcohol from a non-carnival-organised venue, could lead to queues, crowd build-up, and bottlenecks. This, she argued, would impede the safe movement of people and emergency services, particularly given the already intense congestion during Notting Hill Carnival. The police also noted that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated how the proposed activity would support the licensing objectives, nor had they provided sufficient detail on crowd and queue management, stewarding, or security arrangements. Furthermore, the police raised concerns that selling alcohol into the public highway from the premises might require a street trading licence, and any unauthorised trading would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder objective.

Mr. Guney Yesildag, the applicant and premises user, argued that he had provided all requested documentation and had received initial approval from PC Mark Perry of the Metropolitan Police. He expressed confusion as to why his application was considered risky when other establishments in the area operated similarly. He proposed serving from a table just inside the Tavistock Road entrance, with a maximum of three customers inside at any time, and two security personnel managing the queue and entrance. He also stated that alcohol would only be served in shatterproof plastic cups, and contactless payment would be used to speed up transactions.

However, PC Caldinez clarified that the initial email from the police indicated no objection based on the undertakings given at that time, but that a formal review of the submitted application was still necessary. She stressed that the police's primary concern was that customers should be brought fully inside the premises to be managed, rather than being served at a table near the entrance, which would push the pressure onto the street and create a bottleneck. She stated that while two SIA-qualified door staff would help manage the queue, the fundamental issue was the proposed serving method, which differed from what was discussed and agreed upon prior to the application.

The committee members, Councillor Greg Hammond (Chair), Councillor Walaa Idris, and Councillor Nadia Nail, questioned Mr. Yesildag and PC Caldinez extensively. Councillor Nail specifically asked about litter dispersal plans and measures to prevent crowd congregation outside. Mr. Yesildag indicated that while waste within the immediate vicinity would be managed, he could not control litter once customers left the area. He also believed the side road location would prevent significant crowd build-up. PC Caldinez countered that Tavistock Road would be busy due to its connection to Portobello Road, and that managing large queues with only a few security personnel would be extremely difficult, potentially creating more problems than it solved.

The committee also discussed potential conditions that could be applied from the existing premises licence, should the TEN have been granted. These included mandatory conditions such as age verification, provision of free water, and responsible promotions, as well as conditions related to CCTV, staff training, and a zero-tolerance policy to drug use. However, both the police and the applicant acknowledged that these conditions, while generally useful, would not fully mitigate the core concerns raised regarding crowd management and public safety in this specific context.

Ultimately, the committee's decision to issue a counter notice was based on the belief that the proposed arrangements for What a Week would undermine the licensing objectives, particularly in the context of the high-risk environment of Notting Hill Carnival. The applicant was informed that they could not amend their application during the hearing and would need to consult with the police if they wished to submit a further TEN.