Agenda item

Co-Operative, 108 Westbourne Grove, London, W2 5RU (“The Premises”)

18/04834/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – Off Sales

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 23:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Co-operative Group Food Ltd for a new premises licence in respect of Co-Operative, 108 Westbourne Grove, London, W2 5RU.

The Licensing Officer introduced the application to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Arnot, representing the applicant, explained that it was planned for the Premises to open as a Co-Op convenience store in October 2018. Formerly it traded as a Carluccio’s and the licence for that operation was still in place. It currently permitted the sale and consumption of alcohol on the Premises from 08:00 to 00:00 hours Monday to Saturday and 11:00 until 22:30 on Sundays. These hours were beyond what the applicant was seeking for the new operation. A restaurant style condition was attached to the existing licence but this only applied after 23:00 hours. Mr Arnot confirmed that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application before it the existing licence would be surrendered in exchange.

The Sub-Committee was advised by Mr Arnot that the Premises would trade as a busy convenience store where it was hoped to also provide an alcohol offer. Alcohol sales would only account for approximately 15% of turnover, the Premises was not a dedicated off-licence and alcohol sales were ancillary to its function as a convenience store. The applicant was very experienced and was aware of how to build up good relations with local residents and the responsible authorities. A Risk Manager was in place to help resolve any potential issues which might arise and details were provided of the extensive training staff received in alcohol sales. Other safeguards included the installation of CCTV at the Premises both internally and externally, requiring all tills to have age prompts and ensuring all beer and wine displays were located at the rear of the property to try and prevent shoplifting. The store would also have three personal licence holders which meant it was unlikely that there would be a shift where one was not present. The applicant was very community minded and details of how other stores had helped local areas was provided.

Mr Arnot explained it was the intention for the store to be open between 07:00 and 23:00 and the application had been amended to ensure the sales of alcohol were within the Council’s core hours policy. Discussions had taken place with the Police and they were requesting additional conditions to be added to the licence. The Sub-Committee was advised that these were different to the conditions attached to a similar store in Paddington. Further amendments proposed by the applicant were detailed regarding deliveries including restricting deliveries to the premises to between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. Mr Arnot confirmed that those were the conditions applied for in terms of planning.

Mr Arnot brought the Sub-Committee’s attention to the conditions proposed by the applicant. It was recognised that the wording was different to the model conditions proposed by Environmental Health (EH), however it was considered that the applicant’s were more stringent and more appropriate for the operation of the Premises. It was acknowledged that the store would be located within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) but it was considered that the application was policy compliant and demonstrated that it would not add to cumulative impact. The premises was already licensed and it was a relevant policy factor that this would be surrendered if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, especially as the hours sought were more restricted than those currently permitted. The existing capacity was 155 people. This would be significantly reduced through the proposed operation which also would not permit customers to remain on the premises and consume alcohol. The applicant was aware of street drinking issues in the local area and as such a condition had been proposed restricting sales of super strength beer, lagers or ciders. Staff would also be trained to ensure no sales took place to street drinkers. A Challenge 25 policy would also be in place and this would help ensure that there would not be any issues originating from the premises.

Mr Arnot addressed the residents’ concerns which had been raised. Firstly, concerns had been expressed over deliveries to the premises. To address these an amended condition had been proposed to restrict the times when deliveries could take place. Assurances were provided that all deliveries would be to the front of the premises in wheeled cages and not to the back of the building therefore not disturbing residents or impeding the use of the garages. Also reassurances were given that the residents bin stores would not be used by the premises. Waste would be stored on site and then removed at the same time deliveries were made. Secondly, a concern had been raised that the premises would increase footfall in the area. Mr Arnot advised that the street it was located on was already very busy and the residential entrances were situated away from the store entrance.

PC Guerra advised that the Metropolitan Police’s representation was maintained. The model conditions proposed for the application had been tested, were understandable and enforceable and could be applied appropriately to each application on its merits. PC Guerra and Mr Arnot both confirmed that a condition relating to the Notting Hill Carnival and the sale of alcohol during the event had been agreed.

Mr Nevitt, representing Environmental Health, advised that its representation was maintained as the premises was located in a CIA and also due to the concerns raised by local residents. It was therefore important to ensure suitable conditions that could be enforced and that clear interpretations were placed on the licence. Mr Nevitt explained that he was not suggesting the imposition of standard conditions. The model conditions proposed were considered clear and consistent and appropriate in the circumstances. This was important as the premises was located not only within a CIA but also in the footprint of the Notting Hill Carnival.

Ms Haq, representing the Licensing Authority, confirmed that the premises was located in a CIA and as such, policy OS2, concerning off sales of alcohol within a CIA, needed to be considered. It was acknowledged that the hours permitting the sale of alcohol had been amended to core hours but the Sub-Committee had to decide if the application had demonstrated that it could be considered an exception to policy.

Mr Zamit, representing the South East Bayswater Residents Association (SEBRA), advised that there was a busy bus stop located near the front of the premises, which would make it difficult to undertake deliveries to the front entrance. Details of the proposed loading bay identified by the applicant were provided and the complications of using it were discussed in detail. Mr Zamit also advised the Sub-Committee that a simultaneous planning application had been submitted for the premises for a change of use which would permit it to trade as a convenience store.

Mr Brown from the Westminster Citizens Advice Bureau, clarified that the local residents he was representing did not oppose a Co-Op trading in the area but did have significant concerns over the logistical issues involved at the premises, particularly regarding deliveries. It was proposed for delivery vehicles to use the Hereford Road loading bay, this area however was often very busy and the loading bay occupied. Clarification was requested on what a delivery vehicle would do if it could not use the bay. In addition, would the vehicles have to keep their engines running whilst undertaking a delivery in order to keep any refrigerated food cool as this would impact on pollution levels in the local area?

Ms Simpson, a local resident, addressed the Sub-Committee and explained that she had lived in the area since 2000. She was pleased to note that 85% of the premises sales would be non-alcoholic. Ms Simpson endorsed Mr Zamit’s comments and expressed concern over deliveries to the Premises and potential pollution from delivery vehicles.

Mr Deans, representing five local residents, advised that the residents he was representing were opposed to the application. The area was very busy and Mr Deans described in detail residential concerns over deliveries and how the use of wheeled cages on pavements created potential health and safety issues. The Premises could be expected to increase footfall in the area and this would compound problems already experienced by residents regarding deliveries and noise. In terms of waste it was noted that this would be stored internally within the Premises, however concern was raised that this could result in potential pest issues. Mr Zamit requested that the proposed refuse operation be conditioned.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee Mr Arnot explained that the delivery vehicles to be used were 8 metres long, which was considered quite small. Their engines did not require to be on in order to refrigerate any goods, therefore assurances were made that they would not idle their engines and add to any pollution issues.

Mr Arnot advised that the applicant’s delivery vehicles would not commit any parking offences in the local area and this would include not parking in front of or obstructing residential garages. If a loading bay was being used then the delivery vehicle would move on, it would not loiter in the area or idle its engine. No deliveries would be made outside of the hours proposed in the application. The pavements in the vicinity of the Premises were considered broad and the wheeled cages were narrow therefore limiting their impact during deliveries. There would be ten to fifteen cages per delivery vehicle, with the delivery taking approximately thirty to forty-five minutes. In terms of waste, this would be removed from the Premises within twenty-four hours and the applicant would ensure that there were no pests as it would be a store where food was stored. To provide reassurance to residents that the applicant wished to be a considerate neighbour a phone number to the store’s manager would be made available to them.

The Sub-Committee noted that it had received a late submission from a local resident, which had also been circulated to the applicant. The submission had been taken into consideration but did not affect the decision made by the Sub-Committee, which was based on all the other evidence presented to it.

It was noted that the Premises was located in a CIA and also within the footprint of the Notting Hill Carnival and therefore it was important to assess the potential impact granting the licence could have on the local area. In terms of promoting the licensing objectives the principle one associated with the application before it was the prevention of public nuisance. Concerns had been raised that granting the licence could increase pollution levels, increase traffic congestion; elevate noise levels and also have the potential to obstruct public highways. These concerns were only of relevance to the extent that they were associated in some way with the licensable activities proposed and likely to cause a public nuisance or impact on public safety. The Sub-Committee did note however that only a maximum of 15% of the sales area at the Premises would be used for alcohol sales and therefore alcohol would only represent a small portion of the deliveries taking place. As such, it was mainly a decision of the planning authority and not the Sub-Committee to determine the overall delivery arrangements for the Premises. It was expected that the planning authority would require the submission of a detailed operational management plan from the applicant regarding deliveries to the Premises.

Having heard all the evidence and taken into consideration all the representations received, the Sub-Committee decided to grant the application subject to amendments to the conditions. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that using the applicant’s proposed conditions along with the Council’s model conditions was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances and would ensure that sufficient levels of control were in place to ensure that the licensing objectives were promoted. The Sub-Committee felt that the restrictions in place and the reduction in the hours requested for the sale of alcohol would safeguard the local area and prevent the premises from adding to cumulative impact. The Sub-Committee noted that the premises already benefited from a premises licence, which permitted hours for licensable activities in excess of those sought by the applicant. A condition requiring the surrender of the old licence would be imposed and this provided reassurance that there would be no increase in the overall impact of the premises. The concerns of the residents had been noted and they were informed that if there were any breaches of the conditions then they did have the ability to instigate licence review proceedings. Of particular importance, the Sub-Committee noted the applicant’s guarantee that none of their delivery vehicles would park outside residential garages in the local area.

The Sub-Committee also took into account a number of assurances given by Mr Arnot that were not translated into conditions on the licence. These included an assurance that delivery vehicles would move on if the delivery bay was not available; that delivery vehicles would not leave their engines idling whilst the deliveries were being made; that at least three personal licence holders would be engaged by the licensee and that staff would be trained to ensure that no sales were made to street drinkers. 

Having heard all the evidence the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the applicant  had demonstrated that the granting of the premises licence would not add to cumulative impact in the local area and would promote the licensing objectives.

2.

Hours Premises Are Open to the Public

Monday to Sunday: 07:00 to 23:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).