Agenda item

INTRODUCTION

 

Lois King, Licensing Officer at the London Borough of Hillingdon, introduced the report and photographs relating to the application for the grant of a new premises licence in respect of Pepe’s Piri Piri, 3 Byron Parade, Uxbridge Road, Uxbridge, UB10 0LZ. An application was made for the provision of late-night refreshment Monday to Sunday from 23.00 hours to 03:00 hours both indoors and outdoors. The opening times sought were Monday to Sunday from 11:00 to 03:00 hours.

 

A background of chronology of events was provided to the Committee. Three representations had been received, one from the Environmental Protection Team as a Responsible Authority and two from Interested Parties.

 

Concerns were raised regarding public nuisance caused by noise and odour, litter, safety of delivery drivers and anti-social behaviour. Mediation was attempted and an offer to amend the operating hours was made by the Applicant. However, this offer was rejected by one of the interested parties, and no response was received from the other party who had objected to the application.

 

The Sub-Committee was invited to determine the application, considering all submissions both verbal and written.

 

APPLICANT

 

Mr Rahim Rashid and Mr Sadiq Gardia, the Applicants, addressed the Sub-Committee.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that when an application for the late-night licence was made, neighbouring premises were reviewed to determine typical operating hours. It was observed that several nearby establishments, including those serving alcohol and offering shisha, were permitted to operate until 2:00 - 4:00 in the morning.

 

Efforts were made to minimise environmental impact by investing £30,000 in ESP systems designed to reduce noise and odour. Additional measures were implemented, such as private waste storage and improved cleanliness around the premises, which were believed to have reduced local disruption.

 

A total of £450,000 was spent on the shop, and although it was acknowledged that financial investment alone should not justify extended hours, the enhancements made were intended to support the application. It was noted that many neighbouring businesses did not have similar ESP systems.

 

The Applicant’s engagement with the Environment Protection Team was limited, as the feedback received was perceived to be subjective. Objective data was submitted and a willingness to renegotiate operating hours was expressed. It was suggested that nearby building works may have affected the noise report and a revised assessment was offered if required.

 

During Member questions, the Applicant was asked whether professional advice and objections from officers and residents would be taken into consideration. A willingness to work with the Council and mitigate concerns was affirmed. It was stated that objective data had been submitted where possible, and that efforts had been made to reduce environmental impact, including the installation of ESP systems and waste management improvements.

 

In response to clarifications about the noise report, the Applicant confirmed that a revised noise report could be provided if needed and the Applicant agreed to accept conditions on the licence if granted. It was emphasised that the intention was to collaborate with the Council and support the community.

 

The effectiveness of the ESP systems in minimising smoke and odour was explained and technical specifications were submitted as part of the addendum bundle.

 

Measures to prevent public nuisance were outlined, including streamlining food preparation to reduce rider waiting times and directing delivery activity to the front of the premises. It was submitted that residents above the premises were also customers and that concerns had been addressed directly when raised. A process for recording and resolving complaints was described.

 

The Applicant acknowledged the Council’s authority to review or revoke the licence if future issues arose and reiterated their commitment to working constructively. Examples were given of past engagement with neighbours to resolve misunderstandings. A flexible approach to operating hours was offered, with earlier closing times proposed for quieter nights.

 

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES

 

Mr Simon Boniface – Environmental Protection Team

 

An objection was raised regarding the premises due to concerns about its kitchen extraction system, which was considered unusual. A site visit was undertaken by the Environmental Protection team officers to inspect the premises, assess its layout and evaluate its proximity to residential properties. During the visit, excessive daytime noise was observed from the kitchen extract system which was found to terminate below residential windows. Smoke and odour were detected and lingered in the courtyard area.

 

The Applicant was spoken to directly and the impacts were shown to them. Advice was given on mitigating the issues and further information was requested. Details were subsequently submitted to the Licensing Authority, not directly to the Environment Protection Team.

 

It was submitted that there were concerns regarding public nuisance due to both noise and odour. The cooking method, involving an open grill, was identified as a contributing factor. Concerns were expressed about the difficulty of mitigating the harm, particularly regarding odour and it was suggested that extending operating hours beyond 23:00 would exacerbate the impact during sensitive times.

 

During Member questions, the Sub-Committee was informed that although no complaints had been received from residents, complaints typically arose after prolonged exposure. Clarification was also provided regarding the technical aspects of the extract fan.

 

Members heard that noise and odour assessments were carried out subjectively, as no formal standards existed for nuisance. It was noted that the Applicant’s noise report appeared to rely on a higher background noise level, which may have led to an underestimation of the overall impact. The current noise levels were assessed as being notably above what is typically considered acceptable.

 

Concerns about patrons and delivery motorcycles were noted as secondary and potentially manageable through conditions.

 

INTERESTED PARTIES

 

Neither Mr Ritesh Pankhania nor Ms Doreen Ellis were in attendance.  The Licensing Sub- Committee noted the representations in the hearing and addendum bundle.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The below key points were noted during the discussion stage of the hearing.

 

-       Concerns were acknowledged regarding a local resident’s experience with a nearby venue, which was not attributed to the Applicant but considered relevant context.

-       It was suggested that mitigation measures be implemented, including signage encouraging respectful behaviour and active management of noise disturbances.

-       Suggestions from the Sub-Committee were welcomed by the Applicant, and a willingness to align with licensing objectives was expressed.

-       The Applicant’s investment in ESP systems was recognised and it was noted that the system exceeded best practice standards.

-       Concerns were raised about the effectiveness of the system due to low-level discharge into a courtyard, which was considered a significant nuisance risk.

-       It was explained that further mitigation might not have been feasible due to the cooking method and extraction limitations.

-       The Applicant was reminded that the hearing focused solely on their premises and not others in the area.

-       A willingness to adjust the system’s capacity was confirmed by the Applicant.

 

CLOSING REMARKS

 

There were no closing remarks.

 

COMMITTEE DELIBERATION

 

All parties were asked to leave the room while the Sub-Committee considered its decision.

 

All parties were invited back to the meeting for the Chair to announce the decision of the Sub-Committee.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

The Sub-Committee listened to all representations made and considered the Responsible Authorities’ recommendations.  In addition, the Sub-Committee welcomed the conditions offered by the Applicant and his willingness to commit to work with the responsible authorities to uphold the licencing objectives at all times.   

 

The Sub-Committee considered all relevant evidence made available to it and in doing so took the following into account: 

 

• Licensing Objectives, Licensing Act 2003 

• Hillingdon's Licensing Policy 

• Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under S.182 of the Licensing Act 2003 

 

THE DECISION

 

 The decision of the Sub-Committee is to GRANT the application for a new premises licence subject to the following conditions:?

?

The Applicant has agreed:

 

a.    That the opening hours between Sunday to Wednesday shall be between 11:00 hours and 02:00 hours;

 

b.    That the opening hours between Thursday to Saturday shall be between 11:00 hours and 03:00 hours; and 

 

c.    To carry out a new noise assessment report which must be submitted to the Licensing Authority no later than six months from the date of this decision. 

 

The premises must also comply with the following conditions:?

 

1. Have a clear dispersal policy that must be made available to authorised council officers on request.

 

2. An incident book shall be kept at the premises and made available to authorised council officers on request which will record any noise complaints received and any incidents of disorder.

 

REASONS 

 

The Sub-Committee recognise that this is a new application for a premises licence for the provision of late-night refreshment Monday to Sunday from 23.00 hours to 03:00 hours and the Applicant’s willingness to work with the Licensing Authority to address the issues raised by the objectors.

 

Apart from the objection of one Responsible Authority (The Environmental Protection Team) and the two interested parties to the application, the Sub-Committee note that there have been no further objections particularly from residents, other Responsible Authorities nor members’ enquiries logged by councillors in respect of this application.

 

The applicant has expressed his willingness to work with the Licensing Authority to deal with the issues raised in the objections. He has agreed to conditions to reduce the opening hours and do a new noise assessment report, to address the concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Team, as the measurements in the one submitted were high due to ongoing building works when it was carried out. 

 

Having considered all the information put before it, the Sub-Committee were satisfied on balance that the Applicant would comply with the licensing objectives.

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

The relevant applicant for the premises licence or any other person who made relevant representations to the application may appeal against the Council’s decision to the Justices Clerk at the Uxbridge Magistrates Court.  Such an appeal may be brought within 21 days of receipt of this Notice of Decision.

 

No decision made by the Council will have effect during the time period within which an appeal may be brought and until such time that any appeal has been determined or abandoned.

 

The Sub-Committee advises as a comfort to residents and a warning to the licensee that the licence may be reviewed and could potentially be revoked if licence conditions are not adhered to and/or if the premises are managed in a manner which does not uphold the licensing objectives

 

The Applicant will be deemed to have received this decision letter, two days after the date on the accompanying letter, which will be posted by 1st class mail.

 

This decision Noice will be circulated to all parties within 5 working days.