Agenda item

David Butler, 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, 23 Station Road, West Drayton, UB77BT. An application was made for the provision of late-night refreshment Monday to Sunday from 23.00 hours to 02:00 hours. The opening times sought were Monday to Sunday from 11:00 to 02:00 hours.

 

A chronological background of events was presented to the Committee. An application was submitted on 11 August 2025 and sent out for consultation on the same day. Officers visited the venue on 12 August 2025 and the application was advertised in the newspaper on 20 August 2025. A site plan and street map were included in the agenda pack.

 

During the consultation period, one objection was received from an interested party, a local resident, who raised concerns about a potential increase in anti-social behaviour, the safety of their family, noise nuisance and intoxication. The premises in question was not authorised to sell or supply alcohol. No other objections were received from residents or responsible authorities. Mediation was offered.

 

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

 

APPLICANT

Mr Asif Addan, the applicant and Ms Maninder Kaur, the applicant’s representative, addressed the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee was informed that the premises did not sell alcohol and therefore typical alcohol-related nuisance risks did not apply. The applicant brought five years of experience in successfully running similar businesses, which had grown in response to local community demand. The premises had been operating since August 2025 without any complaints or adverse impact and no objections had been raised by responsible authorities. This was presented as evidence of responsible management.

In response to the objection received, it was noted that there was no evidence to suggest an increase in anti-social behaviour. It was emphasised that decisions should be evidence-based rather than assumption-led. Measures in place included a staff training manual, display notices, CCTV footage, and an incident book. The absence of representations from responsible authorities was cited as further reassurance of the applicant’s capability to manage the premises appropriately.

To prevent public nuisance, the applicant agreed to use low-noise vehicles for deliveries. Two parking bays outside the premises provided convenient pick-up options, helping to prevent noise build-up. Staff were trained in food safety, customer service and late-night safety awareness. The operating hours were consistent with other local premises and granting the application would avoid creating an early cut-off in the area. It was reiterated that no objections had been received from any responsible authorities.

It was submitted that the applicant’s operating schedule and additional safeguards to minimise risk and offer reassurance. The Sub-Committee was respectfully asked to grant the application.

During Member questions, the applicant explained that operating hours were based on local demand. Measures to encourage quiet departures included signage, staff training and active monitoring to prevent loitering. All staff would be trained accordingly.

Regarding deliveries, the applicant requested the use of electric vehicles from third party delivery operators. For noisier vehicles, the two parking bays allowed for quick and efficient collections. If parking was unavailable, staff would assist drivers to ensure a swift process. Parking bays were free after 6:30pm and most staff commuted bikes.

The applicant outlined a litter policy in partnership with BIFFA, which included a premium package with three weekly visits and separate bins for recycling, general waste and food waste. Staff regularly cleaned the front of the shop and post-closure cleaning was carried out at both the front and rear of the premises.

It was confirmed that two other individuals involved held premises licences and had completed Level 3 training in health and safety.

INTERESTED PARTIES

 

Mr Hany Abaskharon addressed the Sub-Committee and emphasised the personal impact the premises had on his life. Concerns were expressed that the application would undermine the licensing objectives, particularly due to the presence of his family living above the premises. Noise was already a concern and it was believed that extending the operating hours would lead to further disturbance.

 

It was highlighted that late-night smokers contributed to noise and disruption in the area. In relation to the prevention of crime and disorder, the interested party argued that longer opening hours were likely to attract anti-social behaviour and negatively affect the local community.

 

It was respectfully requested that the application be rejected and a closing time of 12:00 midnight was proposed.

 

In response to a Member’s question regarding the premises and the duration of residence, it was confirmed that the interested party had lived above the shop for 14 years. Concerns were raised about managing individuals outside the premises. The interested party was asked whether any issues had been reported previously, and it was confirmed that since the new owner had taken over in the past month, there had been an increase in noise during current operating hours.

Although the business had only been operating for a month and a half, no formal complaints had been submitted.

 

DISCUSSION

 

During the discussion stage of the hearing, the following key points were noted:

·         With regard to noise levels from local premises, no complaints had been received by the noise team. However, some complaints had been made about broken glass and young people causing intimidation. There had been no formal complaints or communication with the police and although the police had been contacted, no representation was made.

·         When asked whether the proposed licence condition such as signage, CCTV, and a dispersal policy would help mitigate concerns, the interested party acknowledged that these measures could help but would not necessarily prevent issues occurring outside the premises.

·         The applicant shared their previous experience of moving to West Drayton and expressed a commitment to supporting the local community, including students from nearby colleges, with the aim of contributing to the local economy.

·         The applicant stated their intention to operate responsibly and assured the Committee that they did not anticipate any issues.

·         Concerns were raised about the proposed 2am closing time, particularly in relation to the resident living upstairs. Questions were asked about how young people assembling outside the premises would be monitored. The applicant responded that they had a good relationship with the local community and that most customers were regulars.

·         When asked by the Chair to explain the licensing objectives, the applicant was unable to do so. The Chair noted that while the applicant was not expected to recite them, they should have been familiar with them. An urgent training need was identified.

CLOSING REMARKS

 

The interested party reiterated that the business was respected. However concerns were expressed about the impact of the premises’ location and a closing time of 12:00 midnight was requested. No further submissions were made.

 

The applicant stated that the business was solely a food operation and was unlikely to attract intoxicated individuals. It was confirmed that staff training was in place and that they were committed to working with residents, who were welcome to raise complaints if necessary. The applicant assured the Committee that the licensing objectives would be upheld.

 

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 in light of the application for the grant of a premises licence to provide late-night refreshment. 

 

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

 

•           Licensing Objectives, Licensing Act 2003;

•           Guidance issued by the Secretary of State

•           Hillingdon's Licensing Policy

 

THE DECISION

 

The Sub-Committee has decided to GRANT the application for a Premises Licence for the provision of late-night refreshment. The permitted opening hours will be from 23:00 hours to 02:00 hours, Monday to Sunday, with the provision of late-night refreshment allowed until 02:00.

 

Having considered all the information put before it, the Sub-Committee were satisfied that the Applicant would comply with the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee determined that the conditions proposed by Applicant within their operating schedule were to be added to the licence accordingly.

 

Apart from the one objection, the Sub-Committee note that there have been no further objections particularly from other residents, Responsible Authorities nor members’ enquiries logged by councillors in respect of this application.

 

While the Sub-Committee is sympathetic to the concerns raised by the interested party particularly regarding the terminal hours of the premises and issues of noise disturbance it has assessed the application based on its merits and the evidence presented, rather than on assumptions. The Sub-Committee also noted that the issues previously experienced by the interested party occurred under the operation of a different business.

 

The current applicant, who brings five years of experience in the trade, is seeking a licence to provide late-night refreshment, having been in operation for approximately one month. The Sub-Committee welcomed the applicant’s robust operating schedule, which effectively mitigates risks to the public and is supported by the structure of a franchise business model. The Sub-Committee was particularly impressed by the measures already implemented, including clear signage, the use of an incident log, and a comprehensive training policy especially the emphasis on Level 3 public safety training.

 

The Sub-Committee were satisfied on balance that the Applicant would comply with the licensing objective.

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 notice will be circulated to all parties within 5 working days.