Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report. Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

The applicant then addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant.

The licensing responsible authority officer addressed the sub-committee. Members had no questions for the officer.

The environmental protection officer addressed the sub-committee. Members had no questions for the officer.

All parties were given up to five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 10.32am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 11.10am and the chair advised everyone present of the sub-committee’s decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made West London Foods Ltd to vary the premises licence under S34 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asGerman Doner Kebab, 222-224 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JXis refused as follows:

Reasons

The licensing sub-committee convened to determine the variation to the premises licence in respect of the premises, German Doner Kebab, 222-224 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JX. The variation related to the provision of late night refreshment and the opening hours only.

The licensing officer explained that the premises is situated within a cumulative impact area and that objections from licensing and environmental protection, in their capacity as responsible authorities, remained outstanding. He added that a local councillor had also objected to the application and that objection also remained.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the parties.

The applicant stated that the premises had been operating in accordance with licensing and planning conditions once issues were identified and adjusted, and that they had previously used temporary event notices to trade late. The applicant emphasised that there had been no complaints associated with the premises.

The purpose of the application was to extend hours in order to participate in the late night economy. The applicant stated that after 11pm the operation would be delivery only, with no public access for takeaway, and that a staff member or door supervisor would restrict entry. The applicant also stated that they could work with delivery platforms to request bicycles or electric vehicles during the final hour and ensure engines were not left idling. They further confirmed that, if the licence variation were granted, a planning application would be submitted to align the hours.

The licensing authority objected on the basis that the hours sought exceeded the council’s statement of licensing policy recommended hours. It was noted that the existing licence already exceeded policy and the application sought to extend those hours further. The authority also highlighted that the proposed hours would effectively allow near continuous trading on certain days.

The environmental protection authority supported the policy objection and emphasised that the current licence already exceeded recommended hours. They noted the mismatch between planning and licensing hours and raised concern about the potential for public nuisance if the hours were further extended. While acknowledging that there had been no significant complaints and that the premises appeared to be well run, they stressed the importance of adhering to policy to avoid setting a precedent.

During questioning, members asked how a delivery only operation would be enforced. The applicant responded that no members of the public would be permitted to enter the premises after the specified time and that a staff member or door supervisor would control access, allowing only delivery drivers collecting pre-ordered food. Members also asked how the type of delivery vehicles would be controlled. The applicant responded that they had authority from delivery platforms to request bikes or bicycles during that final hour, although larger orders above a specified value might require a car. The applicant stated that in such cases vehicles could be required to turn off engines while waiting.

Members asked about seating and use of the premises. The applicant confirmed that seating capacity existed but that dine in service ceased at 11pm and after that time the operation would be delivery only. Questions were also raised about the relationship between planning and licensing permissions. The applicant confirmed they were now operating within planning hours and had instructed a planning agent to submit an application to vary planning permission if the licence variation succeeded.

After each party was invited to sum up their submissions, the sub-committee retired to determine the application. In its deliberation, the sub-committee was mindful to recognise that planning and licensing are two separate regimes and therefore did not take the planning conflicts into account. It went on to consider the applicant’s oral evidence, the licensing officer’s report, the submissions made by the responsible authorities and all written representations.

The sub-committee noted that the existing licence already exceeded the statement of licensing policy and that the further extension sought would exacerbate that position.

The sub-committee had significant concerns that the hours sought would extend late night refreshment to 03:00 on Fridays and Saturdays and noted that, under the variation, the premises could trade until the early hours of the morning and then resume later that morning at 05:00 without the need for a licence. This would in effect create a business that could operate for twenty-three hours a day.

Whilst the sub-committee had regard to the applicant’s wish to remain competitive within the night-time economy and acknowledged the absence of complaints, it considered that the hours applied for were unreasonable in light of policy and its location within the cumulative impact area.

In reaching its decision, the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations including the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and National Licensing Policy Framework (November 2025), its equality duties and the four licensing objectives, and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal rights

The applicant may appeal against any decision: 

a.  To impose conditions on the licence

b.  To exclude a licensable activity or refuse to specify a person as premises supervisor.

Any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application who desire to contend that:

a.  The  licence ought not to be been granted; or

b.  That on granting the licence, the licensing authority ought to have imposed different or additional conditions to the licence, or ought to have modified them in a different way

may appeal against the decision.

Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates’ Court for the area in which the premises are situated. Any appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.