The Licensing Sub-Committee of Kensington and Chelsea Council was scheduled to consider an application for a premises licence for Azteca, located at 329 King's Road, London, SW3 5ES. The meeting's agenda focused solely on this application, with no other items scheduled for discussion.

Application for Premises Licence at Azteca

The primary item scheduled for discussion was an application by Sloane Stanley Estate Limited for a grant of a premises licence for Azteca, located at 329 King's Road, London, SW3 5ES. This application sought a shadow licence, meaning it was intended to mirror the terms of the existing premises licence held by Azteca (Chelsea) Limited. The existing licence permits the sale by retail of alcohol on the premises, the provision of late-night refreshments indoors, and the playing of recorded music indoors. The proposed new licence sought to replicate these activities and their associated hours.

The report pack indicated that the applicant, Sloane Stanley Estate Limited, stated the application was made on behalf of the landlord to shadow the tenant licence and was based on the exact same terms as the granted licence numbered LICPR/07/023727. The applicant also stated that the steps volunteered to promote the licensing objectives were the same as those for the existing licence, covering general promotion of all four licensing objectives, prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance, and protection of children from harm.

However, the licensing authority had received one representation opposing the application from a resident living above the premises. This representation, detailed in Appendix D of the reports pack, raised concerns about ongoing noise disturbances linked to the premises. These disturbances were attributed to amplified music played late in the evening, as well as customers and staff congregating outside the premises during opening hours and upon closing at 00:30. The resident stated that these noise issues had significantly impacted their family's quality of life, preventing them from opening windows due to noise and smoke from staff smoking areas. The resident also expressed concern that a shadow licence could allow these issues to persist or worsen without proper scrutiny, potentially undermining enforcement.

The report also noted that, at the time of writing, no noise or nuisance complaints had been received by the council in the preceding 24 months. A Planning Officer's email, included as Appendix E, confirmed that there were no planning restrictions or conditions that the Sub-Committee needed to be aware of and that the proposed application was in accordance with the planning history of the site.

The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider the application and determine whether to grant it, modify its conditions, refuse to specify a designated premises supervisor, or reject the application entirely, all with a view to promoting the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. The committee was to have regard to its own Statement of Licensing Policy and the Secretary of State's Guidance.