Agenda item

Sushi Shop, 72 Westbourne Grove, London, W2 5SH

17/01077/LIPN

1.

Off Sales by Retail of Alcohol

Monday to Sunday: 11:00 to 22:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

None.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Sushi Shop UK Ltd for a new premises licence in respect of 72 Westbourne Grove, London, W2 5SH.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and confirmed that no representations had been received from the responsible authorities.

Mr Thomas, representing the applicant, explained that Sushi Shop operated multiple sites across Europe and was the market leader in sushi delivery. It had opened three premises in London and the site at 72 Westbourne Grove had been operating since August 2016. No hot food was sold, there were modest sales of alcohol at the other premises which accounted for less than 10% of all sales and no responsible authorities had submitted representations. To deal with a concern raised over the age verification policy in place for any deliveries involving alcohol it was confirmed that all drivers employed by Sushi Shop were trained accordingly. A Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 condition had also been offered by the applicant and as the sale of alcohol took place at the shop and not the delivery address what the applicant was proposing exceeded the legal requirement.

Mr Thomas highlighted how the premises was located on Westbourne Grove which was a very commercial area and the applicant was aware of concerns regarding deliveries and delivery drivers. The Sub-Committee noted that deliveries could still take place from the premises regardless of alcohol sales. The licensing regime was relevant to the sale of alcohol, however how relevant it was to the licensing objectives in relation to the delivery of alcohol was unclear.

Mr Thomas detailed the hours of operation of the premises and how deliveries would cease at 22:00 hours with the sale of alcohol ancillary to takeaway food. The applicant was aware that the representations received requested the following condition be added to the licence

“the Licence Holder shall use reasonable endeavours to ensure that - (a) delivery drivers do not congregate in the vicinity of the premises, obstruct the highway or cause noise or other nuisance outside the premises. (b) the use of bicycles for deliveries is encouraged”

The applicant was willing to agree in part the first section of the condition to ensure delivery drivers did not obstruct the highway or cause noise or nuisance outside the premises. It would not be possible however to prevent delivery drivers congregating in the vicinity of the premises as they would be undertaking a lawful activity. The applicant was willing to undertake the second part of the condition to use their best endeavours to use bicycles for deliveries. There was a delivery radius of 2.5 miles from the premises with one bicycle already in use for deliveries in the local area and a motorised scooter utilised for longer distances. Staff were employed to undertake deliveries using the bicycle and motor scooter and both were owned by the applicant

Mr Brown, from Westminster Citizens Advice Bureau, brought the Sub-Committee’s attention to the information circulated by the South East Bayswater Residents Association (SEBRA) and the impact food takeaway deliveries were having on residents in the local area. If was recognised that if deliveries took place lawfully in terms of licensing it was difficult to regulate such activities especially as the main function of the applicant was the delivery of food. Mr Brown was pleased to note that the applicant owned its own delivery vehicles as this provided more control over them. Unfortunately the premises also utilised delivery companies such as Deliveroo for which they had no control over. It was acknowledged that it was difficult to link delivery vehicles to specific premises however the photos circulated before the meeting to all parties detailed the issues of congregation described. Therefore, it was requested that the condition detailed above be added to the licence if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.

Mr Thomas questioned whether licensing was the appropriate method to regulate delivery drivers for three reasons. Firstly, it was queried whether motor scooters could be conditioned. Secondly, food deliveries would take place if the premises was licenced or not. Thirdly, conditions could be added to the licence to control unlicensable activities e.g. smoking, however these were directly associated with licensable activities taking place at the premises.

Mr Brown responded by indicating that the very fact that an application had been made for a licence was sufficient to warrant conditions being attached to the licence regarding the use of delivery vehicles. Moreover, delivery in the case of these premises was core to the business itself rather than being a mere adjunct to a restaurant or similar type of operation. He explained that one of the representations received by a local resident was requesting that deliveries only take place by bicycles, however if electric scooters were used this would ease noise and pollution concerns. It had been stated that the delivery radius for the premises was 2.5 miles, however it was suggested that this was not a far distance and as the food was not hot this could be achievable by bicycle rather than by motor scooter. It was acknowledged that the licence holder could not control operations such as Deliveroo however there was leverage and it could be expected for them to comply with the condition stated earlier.

The Sub-Committee did express concern that if delivery vehicles were prevented from congregating in Westbourne Grove this would push the problem elsewhere in to possibly more residential areas. In response Mr Brown agreed it was an issue that needed addressing. The fact the applicant utilised their own delivery vehicles was pleasing as a level of control could be exerted on these, however if outside delivery companies were utilised the solution was problematic.

Ms Sampson, a local resident who had objected to the application, addressed the Sub-Committee and explained how the local vicinity housed many families and vulnerable people. Residents did not want to inhibit local business but there was a feeling they were being edged out of the area by commerce. The delivery drivers were often very noisy and were proving a danger to people due to their dangerous driving style. As such life for local residents was becoming intolerable.

Mr Zamit, representing SEBRA, expressed frustration that there appeared to be little that could be done to impose restrictions on delivery drivers. The bikes disrupted the local area by congregating on the road and even sometimes becoming involved in physical altercations with each other. Westbourne Grove was a busy street however it was still residential with many residents living above commercial properties. There were parking restrictions along the street and it was suggested some of the delivery drivers could be breaking the law when collecting takeaways. Some of the drivers were irresponsible when using their vehicles and it was hoped they used better judgement when delivering alcohol to customers. It was also requested that a waste collection condition be added to the licence to ensure noise disruption was minimised for residents. Mr Zamit highlighted the importance of working cooperatively with all parties to solve the issues raised.

Mr Thomas clarified that a deliveries condition had been proposed by the applicant to ensure there were no deliveries to the premises between 23:00 and 08:00, this could be changed to between 00:00 and 07:00 if it provided further reassurance. With regards to the parking restrictions it was confirmed that no parking was allowed between 16:00 and 19:00. Finally, as the premises was located within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) the applicant had to prove it would not add to the cumulative impact in the area and as it was only requesting off sales, plus the nature of the operation, it was obvious this would not be the case.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee the applicant confirmed that external delivery companies did operate an age verification policy. It was hoped in future to only conduct deliveries through their in-house drivers however currently it did utilise external delivery companies and it would not want this restricted through a condition. The Sub-Committee expressed concern that another premises had come before a hearing in October 2015 and despite agreeing to use its best endeavours to utilise electric bikes for deliveries this had not occurred. Mr Humbert, representing the applicant company, explained that approximately half of deliveries were undertaken by bicycle depending on the distance required to travel.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and listened very closely to the issues raised by local residents. It was recognised that the issues surrounding the noise and public disturbance created by delivery drivers were very significant and were having a negative impact on the local amenity for residents. The Sub-Committee acknowledged that these issues often did arise due to the commercial nature of the area and it would be unfair to apportion all of the concerns raised to the application before it. Most of the problems described by residents did not centre on the sale of alcohol and instead focused on the actions of delivery drivers servicing the various food takeaway premises on the street. As such the Sub-Committee granted the application but required extra appropriate conditions be placed on the licence to provide reassurance to local residents over the sale of alcohol and, more importantly, minimise any noise disruption from delivery drivers. Conditions would be added to the licence preventing any deliveries from motorised vehicles occurring after 22:00 hours and ensuring no waste collections took place between 00:00 and 07:00. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that these conditions would limit the noise impact the premises would have on local residents. A condition requiring the applicant to use best endeavours to ensure delivery drivers did not obstruct the public highway or cause nuisance outside the premises would also provide reassurance to residents. This would be further helped by encouraging the applicant to move away from using noisy vehicles and expand the number of deliveries undertaken by bicycle. The Sub-Committee recognised that the sale of alcohol was also of a concern though and as such conditions were attached to the licence to ensure the licensing objectives were promoted. These included introducing a Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 scheme and ensuring relevant training would be provided to all staff to ensure this condition was complied with. Finally, all online menus would contain a message stating that there would be no sales of alcohol to anyone aged under 18 to help prevent any underage sales of alcohol. Even though the premises was located in a CIA the nature of the operation and the restrictive conditions imposed on the licence would ensure that the application upheld the licensing objectives and was considered an exemption to policy.

The following conditions were deleted from the licence:

·         Mandatory conditions 4, 5 and 7 were deleted from the licence as they referred to sales of alcohol for consumption on the premises.

The following conditions were added to the licence:

·         The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team. All entry points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31 day period.

·         A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises is open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

·         All sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers only, and shall not be consumed on the premises.

·         No super-strength beer, lagers, ciders or spirit mixtures of 5.55 ABV (alcohol by volume) or above shall be sold at the premises, except for premium beers and ciders supplied in glass bottles.

·         No more than (15)% of the sales area shall be used at any one time for the sale, exposure for sale, or display of alcohol.

·         Sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall only be supplied with, and ancillary to a take-away meal.

·         A Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.

·         An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to an authorised officer of the City Council or the Police, which will record the following: (a) all crimes reported to the venue (b) all ejections of patrons (c) any complaints received concerning crime and disorder (d) any incidents of disorder (e) all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons (f) any faults in the CCTV system (g) any refusal of the sale of alcohol (h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

·         No deliveries to the premises shall take place between 23.00 and 08.00 on the following day.

·         No deliveries to the premises by motorised vehicle after 22:00 hours.

·         No collections of waste or recycling materials (including bottles) from the premises shall take place between 00:00 and 07:00 on the following day.

·         The Licence Holder shall use reasonable endeavours to ensure that –

(a) delivery drivers do not obstruct the highway or cause noise or other nuisance outside the premises.

(b) the use of bicycles or electric vehicles for deliveries is encouraged”

·         A Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated in relation to home deliveries of alcohol where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram. Relevant training will be provided to all staff on how to implement the scheme.

·         All online menus will display the following message to prevent underage sales of alcohol: “Alcohol is not for sale to people under the age of 18, by placing an order for alcohol products on this site you are declaring that you are 18 years of age or over. Identification will be requested from anyone looking under the age of 25.”

2.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Sunday: 11:00 to 22:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

None.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The application was granted, the reason for the decision is detailed in section 1.