The Kensington and Chelsea Licensing Sub-Committee convened to discuss a temporary event notice (TEN) application by Miss Anne Mayher for the Pig & Whistle pub, but ultimately decided to issue a counter notice, effectively denying permission for the licensable activities requested. The primary concern was the prevention of public nuisance, given the pub's history of noise complaints and the potential impact on local residents during the Notting Hill Carnival¹.

Pig & Whistle Temporary Event Notice

The main item under consideration was a temporary event notice submitted by Miss Anne Mayher of the Pig & Whistle, 92-94 Bramley Road, W106UG. The application sought permission to sell alcohol and provide regulated entertainment, including live music, in the pub's garden during the Notting Hill Carnival, specifically between midday and 7pm on 24 and 25 August 2025.

Paul Fellon from the council's licensing team, outlined the application, noting that it had received an objection from Philip Richardson of the Environmental Health Noise and Nuisance Team, based on concerns about public nuisance and safety.

Miss Mayher expressed her frustration, stating that the area is generally noisy during the carnival and that she would comply with all regulations, including having doormen. She also referenced a recent noise complaint, which she said staff addressed immediately by turning down the music.

Councillor Knight asked about noise complaints and a recent review that mentioned music in the garden. Miss Mayher responded that the noise from her pub would not affect anyone, as many residents go away during the carnival. She also mentioned soundproofing measures and a limiter² that had been installed.

Councillor Nair questioned the applicant about public safety measures, given an expected attendance of 150 people each day. Miss Mayher stated that there would be five to six staff members, including doormen, and that the event would be ticket-only with a single entrance and exit.

Councillor Burns, Chair of the Licensing Sub-Committee, sought clarification on entry and exit points, ticket checks, and expected crowd numbers. Miss Mayher explained the security measures and stated that the 150 attendees would be staggered throughout the day.

Noise and Nuisance Concerns

Philip Richardson presented the Environmental Health Noise and Nuisance Team's objection, citing a significant history of involvement with the premises due to numerous complaints about loud music and amplified voices. He referenced an abatement notice³ served in February 2024, following a statutory nuisance investigation, and subsequent fixed penalty notices (FPNs)⁴ issued for breaches of the notice.

On the 25th of May 2024, officers from the noise and nuisance service attended a neighbouring property following a complaint, and observed loud amplified music being emitted from the premises. The level of disturbance was deemed unreasonable and excessive, constituting a statutory nuisance and in breach of the aforementioned abatement notice. Consequently, a fixed penalty notice was served on the 28th of May 2024, affording the operators the opportunity to discharge their liability for this offence.

Mr Richardson acknowledged that sound insulation works had been carried out at the premises but stated that complaints had persisted even after the installation of a noise limiter. He also noted that a prosecution report was being prepared for a breach of the abatement notice that occurred after the limiter was supposedly in use.

In light of the foregoing, the environmental health department lacks confidence in the management's ability to promote, to operate the premises, whether externally or internally, in accordance with the terms of this application, without undermining the licensing objectives and causing a nuisance to local residents. In this department's position, the application ought to be refused.

Councillor Knight questioned Mr Richardson about the RBKC sound monitoring system and whether it could provide reassurance if the licence were granted. Mr Richardson clarified that the noise limiter was installed by the applicant, not the council, and that a nuisance had been witnessed even with the limiter in place.

Councillor Nair reiterated the history of non-compliance with licensing objectives and asked if Mr Richardson lacked confidence that the event could proceed smoothly without disturbing residents. Mr Richardson confirmed this was the case.

During questions from Miss Mayher, she stated that the noise limiters were properly set up in April, after a visit to a local resident's property. She expressed confusion as to why complaints were still being made, despite the measures taken.

Legal Considerations

The council's legal officer reminded the committee that they had to consider whether the event would undermine the licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of public nuisance and public safety. She clarified that even if a noise limiter was in place, the building itself might not be suitable for amplified music if it consistently caused problems for neighbours.

Decision

After a brief private session, Councillor Burns reconvened the meeting and announced that the committee had decided to issue a counter notice, effectively denying permission for the temporary event notice. The decision was based on concerns about public safety and the prevention of public nuisance, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.

Temporary Event Notice for 286 Portobello Road

A separate item on the agenda was a review of a temporary event notice submitted by Mr Dhirendra Magdani for NHC 2025 - Forecourt area, Ground Floor, 286 Portobello Road, W10 5TE, during the Notting Hill Carnival. The application sought permission to sell alcohol for consumption on and off the premises, with a maximum of 15 people in attendance at any one time.

PC Tom Stewart of the Metropolitan Police objected to the TEN, citing concerns about the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. PC Stewart believed that allowing the sale of alcohol on and off the premises would likely increase congestion on Portobello Road, undermining public safety.

Mr Philip Richardson also objected to the TEN on behalf of the Environmental Health Noise and Nuisance team, citing concerns about the prevention of public nuisance and public safety. Mr Richardson believed that the TEN would exacerbate congestion in an already crowded area and that the risk assessment and event management plan provided were inadequate.

The report before the committee outlined the steps that the committee could take, which were: (a) Issue a counter notice if it considers it necessary for the promotion of any of the licensing objectives to do so, (b) Take no action, and allow the notice to have effect,or (c) If the premises has the benefit of a premises licence or club premises certificate impose one or more conditions which are specified on the premises licence or club premises certificate which the committee considers are not inconsistent with the carrying out of the licensable activities under the temporary event notice.