Legal Blunder Caused Rendezvous Licensing Fiasco

Panel's decision overruled after check on legislation

Rendezvour Restaurant on Chiswick High Road. Picture: Google Streetview

May 21, 2023

There has been fury from local councillors and nearby residents after a Licensing Panel’s decision to restrict the playing of music at a restaurant was overturned.

It has now emerged that the reason the licensing arrangement for the Rendezvous Restaurant proposed by councillors was changed was that legal advice was later provided that it was not possible to restrict the playing of music once a licence had been granted to serve alcohol.

The panel which was chaired by Cllr Richard Foote with councillors Gabriella Giles and Amy Croft sat on 25 April. It heard submissions from nearby residents, Cllr John Todd and borough Licensing Officers about the application from the restaurant and bar near the junction with Prebend Gardens at 18-20 Chiswick High Road.

Following the discussions, the councillors determined that a licence to serve alcohol should be granted with hours consistent with those granted to other establishments on the High Road but no music was to be played after 9pm. The business was granted a licence to operate for the standard hours for restaurants and bars on the High Road which will allow it to stay open until 11.30pm Monday to Thursday, midnight on Friday and 11pm on Sunday with last orders a half hour before closing.

The Panel had heard evidence from residents and councillor officers about persistent complaints about noise coming from the premises including allegations that noise limiters installed to deal with the issue had been tampered with.

However, after a decision notice was issued giving the Panel’s decision, a revised notice was sent out on 5 May by Hounslow Council stating that permission had only been refused for dancing rather than music at the premises.

It subsequently emerged that the licensing department had become concerned that it was not within the Panel’s power to restrict music having granted a licence. This was despite an officer being present when the panel met who was supposed to advise councillors on legal matters relating to their decisions. Cllr Todd said that he was not notified of the reasons for the change in the decision and did not initially receive a response when he requested an explanation.

One of the residents wrote to the Licensing Department afterwards saying, “It looks as though the legal parameters were only investigated after the fact. I am sure you will see, though perhaps not accept publicly, that this is unacceptable. We made our submissions and took time to attend the hearing (supported by Councillor Todd, who came on his way back from holiday) because we believed that the panel consisted of experts in licensing and nuisance who would make a genuine assessment of the suffering we have endured for four years and take appropriate action. Fifteen local people attended this hearing too and we put our case firmly that the actions of Rendezvous are causing mental health problems for some of us (and we can provide evidence), key workers are being subjected to excessive noise, putting patient safety at risk, and a child cannot sleep before midnight at weekends. At the hearing, there was a lawyer who insisted on following a fair process. Can you please confirm that he was an expert in licensing law too? If not, why was he there and, if he is not an expert, who was the expert, because the very least we are entitled to is the presence of someone official who could preside over the evidence and come to a conclusion which both helps resolve the issue and that it is done in a legally binding way?”

Residents of nearby Ross House, who also attended the meeting to make the Panel aware of the ‘unbearable’ noise disturbance they say they suffer from, intend to continue to press Hounslow Council on the matter.

The minutes of the meeting state, “The Panel noted this guidance and the comments in the authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and noted the representations from local residents and the Licensing Enforcement Team which the Applicant had agreed to accept that addressed the issues of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The Panel also noted that the Applicant indicated that he wanted to work with local residents to address the issues with noise at the Premises. The Panel considered that it was necessary to amend condition 3 of the conditions proposed by the Licensing Enforcement Officer so as to allow the Applicant to operate air conditioning units during the opening hours of the Premises and to add an additional condition restricting the Premises from playing live or recorded music after 21:00 and preventing the Premises disposing of bottles between 22:00 and 8:00.”

However, in the subsequent decision notice it is stated, “Having taken all the representations into account, the proposed conditions proposed by the Licensing Enforcement Team and accepted by the Applicant, the statutory provisions and the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Licensing Policy, the Panel considered that the application, with the conditions agreed between the Applicant and the Licensing Enforcement Team, were sufficient to satisfy the Licensing Panel’s concerns over compliance with the licensing objectives.”

It continues, “The issued Decision is in accordance with the legal position, which is that a licence is not required for live or recorded music between the hours of 08.00-23.00, on any day when the premises is authorised to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, provided that the audience does not exceed 500.”

Although additional measures have been put in place in attempt to limit noise from the premises, residents say that previous agreements have not been adhered to and noise limiters have been removed. Licensing officers say there will be restricted access to the noise limiter which will be set at a level agreed by the Environmental Health Service and that windows and doors must be closed after 10pm with a phone number provided for residents to contact the manager.

Some residents now say they are considering further legal action to challenge the decision.