Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
Abbey Road None* None **	18-22 Finchley Road, NW8 6EB	Variation to the Premises Licence	21/06196/LIPV
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.3

 

Thursday 27^th January 2022

 

          

Membership:      Councillor Jim Glen (Chairman) Councillor Barbara Arzymanow and Councillor Aicha Less.

 

Officer Support: Legal Adviser:         Viviene Walker

                          Policy Officer:         Kerry Simpkin

                          Committee Officer: Sarah Craddock

                          Presenting Officer: Roxsana Haq

              

Application for a Variation of Premises Licence - 18-22 Finchley Road

London NW8 6EB – 21/06196/LIPV

 

                                           FULL DECISION

 

Premises  

 

18-22 Finchley Road

London NW8 6EB

 

Applicant

 

Quick Commerce Limited

Represented by Philip Kolvin QC, Robert Botkai, Winckworth Sherwood, (Agent), Joseph Falter (Applicant Company) Joseph Winter (Applicant Company) Jamie Stephenson (Applicant Company) and Adrian Studd (Consultant).

 

Ward

 

Abbey Road

 

 

Cumulative Impact

 

N/A

 

Special Consideration Zone

 

N/A

 

The Applicant wishes to vary the licence as follows:

 

To vary the hours for the Sale by Retail of Alcohol for consumption off the premises from Monday to Saturday 08:00 to 23:00 and Sunday 09:00 to 22:30 to Monday to Sunday 00:00 to 00:00.

 

 

 

Representations Received

 

·       Environmental Health Service (Maxwell Koduah)

·       Metropolitan Police Service (PC Reaz Guerra)

·       Nine Interested Parties.

 

Issues raised by Objectors

 

Environmental Health Service stated:

·       The hours requested to supply alcohol may have the likely effect of causing an increase in Public Nuisance and may affect Public Safety within the area.

 

The Metropolitan Police Service stated:

·       If granted the application would undermine the Licensing Objectives.

·       The hours sought exceed Westminster’s Core Hours Policy and there is insufficient detail contained within the operating schedule to promote the licensing objectives.

 

The local residents stated:

 

·       This once peaceful and safe surrounding of the neighbourhood would be completely destroyed if this would go ahead.  With the granting of licence, this will lead to the attraction of frequent opportunistic crime to come to the surrounding area.

·       There are two schools with several hundred high school students in the immediate neighbourhood to the subject premises.  Students could be tempted to access alcoholic drinks from the premises to the detriment of societal peace in St John’s Wood.

·       This will add to traffic congestion in the area and deteriorate air quality.  It will increase the risk of accidents.  The area is residential with small children everywhere.

·       Activity of alcohol sales and the possible noise involved throughout the night could be intolerable for myself and my neighbours, trying to sleep with a window or two open, and accustomed to a peaceful living. The potential for drinking in this area especially during the evening and night is horrific.  It must not be allowed.

·       Core licensing hours should not be extended under any circumstances as this will also create a precedent elsewhere in St John’s Wood.

·       This will be a huge disturbance to the neighbourhood.

·       The establishment will become a hang out and will cause loitering and noise.

·       The application would undermine the licensing objectives, in so far as they relate to the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

 

 

 

 

Summary of the Application

 

The Committee has determined an application for a variation of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”).  The Premises stock convenience goods including alcohol for packaging and delivery to fulfil customers’ orders made online or via a app.  The Premises are situated within the Abbey Ward but not in a Cumulative Impact Zone or a Special Consideration Zone. The Premises have the benefit of a Premises Licence (21/01568/LIPN) since May 2021.  There is a resident count of 119. 

 

Policy Considerations

 

HRS1 - Applications within the core hours set out below in this policy will generally be granted for the relevant premises uses, subject to not being contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy.  Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in Clause C will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies and with particular regard to the following:

 

The demonstration of compliance in the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1 associated with the likelihood of the effect of the grant of a licence for later or earlier hours on crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

DC1 - Applications for a delivery centre outside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone will generally be granted subject to:

1.     The application meeting the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.

2.     The hours for licensable activities are within the Council’s Core Hours Policy HRS1.

3.     The applicant having taken account of the Special Consideration Zone Policy SCZ1 if the premises are located within a designated zone.

4.     The premises are not located in a predominantly residential area, and

5.     The application and operation of the venue meeting the definition of a delivery centre in Clause D.

 

 

 

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

 

Ms Haq, Senior Licensing Officer summarised the application set out in the report before the Sub-Committee.  She explained that the application was for a variation to the Premises licenceto vary the hours for the Sale by Retail of Alcohol for consumption off the premises from Monday to Saturday 08:00 to 23:00 and Sunday 09:00 to 22:30 to Monday to Sunday 00:00 to 00:00.  She advised that representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service, the Metropolitan Police Service and nine Interested Parties.  She further advised that the Premises were situated in the Abbey Road ward but did not fall within a cumulative impact or special consideration zone.  She confirmed that additional submissions had been received from the applicant which had been circulated to all the relevant parties before the Sub-Committee hearing.

 

Mr Kolvin, Counsel, representing the Applicant, outlined the application before the Sub-Committee.  He advised that the Premises had been operating without harm to the Licensing Objections since May 2021 when the Licensing Sub-Committee had kindly granted the Premises a Premises Licence restricted to Core Hours. He outlined that during the past eight months the Premises had delivered products including alcohol to customers within the local neighbourhood for 15 hours per day and had delivered products including alcohol within the local neighbourhood 24/7 from its licensed facilities elsewhere in London.

 

Mr Kolvin referred to the Council’s new DC1 Licensing Policy which was crafted in response to the emergence of the home delivery sector and advised that applications for a delivery centre outside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone would generally be granted subject to the various criteria within the new Policy. He outlined that his client complied with all the criteria within the new policy, that the Premises already operated 24 hours a day and that granting this variation would allow alcohol to be picked, packed and delivered from the Finchley Road Premises rather than from its other stores after Core Hours.  He emphasised that this would bring the night-time operation under the direct control of Westminster City Council’s licensing regime.

 

Mr Kolvin highlighted:

 

·       His client had conducted an exhaustive search for a suitable Premises site which was large enough to contain stock, accommodate staff, including staffing facilities such as WCC facilities for its riders, have off road parking, was situated away from a highly residential area and enabled the company to promote the licensing objectives.  He advised that his client believed there was no other site in Westminster with all these qualities.

 

·       His client was a responsible and professional operator with highly experienced individuals working at the Premises.  Mr Kolvin explained that customers could not attend the Premises and that everything was delivered by electric vehicles.  He advised that all drivers were properly trained and were employed directly by the company which meant that his client had direct control over the whole operation and was not reliant on third party drivers.  He added that all deliveries were made to homes or places of work (they were never made to open spaces), and age verification was strictly enforced.  He highlighted drivers were always informed when they were carrying age restricted products and packages were clearly marked ‘Challenge 25’ which drivers were required to observe strictly on pain of dismissal. 

 

·       His client had not received any detrimental submissions from any of the Responsible Authorities or Interested Parties in the eight and half months of operation and no complaints had been received regarding public nuisance. Six of the objections had been made by residents who considered that the Premises were going to operate as a 24-hour shop.  Mr Kolvin confirmed that this was not the case.

 

·       The Premise Licence already contained a comprehensive list of conditions which were attached at pages 22 and 23 of the report however his client was content to add two more conditions to make it clear that the public could not attend the Premises and that periodic contact with the various local resident associations would be maintained.  He highlighted that no additional  conditions had been suggested by the Responsible Authorities.

 

·       His client was already complying and promoting the licencing objectives and there had been no submissions made to the contrary.  Mr Kolvin outlined that many operators were sending alcohol into Westminster 24/7 and suggested that it would be preferable that such sales of alcohol be made by a responsible operator which was subject to Westminster’s licenced conditions and licensing policies. 

 

·       The operation of a delivery Premises that had been established in a quiet and narrow residential street (Clifton Hill) which had caused serious nuisance to local residents and had consequently been refused a Premises Licence.  He emphasised that this highlighted the need to pick the correct location for such an operation. He further highlighted that the Responsible Authorities had not provided any information in support of their representations.

 

·       His client currently operated 24 hours a day from Premises situated in Clerkenwell, East Finchley and Notting Hill.  He advised that allowing the Finchley Road Premises to also operate 24 hours a day would mean the distance travelled by drivers would be shorter enabling the business to use its human resources more effectively.

 

·       The granting of this application would not set a precedent because there was no such thing as precedent in licence as each case was determined on its own merits.  He added that Westminster had also created a detailed policy for such applications and the Licensing Sub-Committee would have to be satisfied that each applicant could comply with the criteria and promote the licencing objections.  He highlighted that the Premises Licence contained a long list of conditions which promoted the licensing objectives and that his client had also put in place in house systems to protect its staff and the public.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Kolvin advised that the Council’s Core Hours Policy was always directed towards Premises where customers were attending the Premises and where queuing, clogging up the pavements and leaving the Premises late at night had the likely effect of causing noise nuisance and harm to public safety in a cumulative impact zone.  Mr Kolvin further advised that his client had demonstrated that he could operate beyond core hours without causing harm to the Licensing Objectives thorough the operation of the other sites in London.  Mr Kolvin outlined how Challenge 25 was implemented through an App which informed the driver that their delivery included alcohol and that proof of age needed to be requested from the customer.  He added that the customer would also be informed that they needed to provide ID on delivery of their order and that if none was produced the alcohol would be removed and taken back to the depot.  Mr Kolvin commented that there had been five such cases in Finchley Road where alcohol had been returned because no customer had presented themselves to the driver.  He emphasised that there had been no incidents where drivers had got into any difficulty enforcing challenge 25 and drivers had never encountered difficulties in refusing to hand over alcohol to intoxicated customers.

 

Mr Jamie Stevenson, representing the Applicant company, advised that there was an internal fleet of mechanics maintaining the e-bicycles.  The Sub-Committee noted the huge advantages of directly employing drivers instead of hiring them from a third party.

 

Mr  Maxwell Koduah, representing the Environmental Health Service (EHS), advised that the variation to this Premises Licence had been received on the 24 June 2021 which was only 42 days after the Licensing Sub-Committee had granted the Premises a new Premises Licence with Core Hours. Mr Koduah considered that the Applicant would not have had sufficient evidence to demonstrate the promotion of the Licensing Objectives at this time and in addition the current licensing policy to deal with such applications had only come into effect in October 2021. 

 

Mr Koduah confirmed that there was already an extensive list of conditions attached to the Premise Licence which promoted the Licensing Objectives. However, he welcomed the two additional conditions offered by the Applicant that no public be allowed on the Premises and the undertaking to maintain relations with the local Resident Associations.   He confirmed that no public nuisance complaints had been made against the Premises. 

 

Mr Koduah highlighted that he had maintained his representation as the application was requesting hours well in excess of the Council’s Core Hours Policy and therefore it was for the Sub-Committee to determine this application.  He confirmed that the company had already been running a 24-hour operation from the Premises; the only difference was that that the deliveries containing alcohol were being packed and delivered by drivers elsewhere in one of their other sites.

 

PC Reaz Guerra, representing the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), advised that the Police were maintaining their representation on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder and protection of harm to children.  He explained that the application was for an increase in hours for off sales of alcohol and that historically off licences in Westminster operated within Westminster’s Core Hours Policy so that they were closed before most pubs, so the supply of alcohol was not readily available unless people had stocked up at home or gone on to a late hour’s bar or nightclub.  He outlined that there were generally additional controls and measures in place regarding the supply of alcohol to customers in late night bars/nightclubs such as trained staff to deal with intoxicated people and security staff to deal with any trouble.  He emphasised that having access to alcohol 24 hours a day could lead to anti-social behaviour. 

 

PC Guerra explained that a responsible operator had a duty of care to both their customers and staff which included the delivery riders who could become targets for robbery and therefore their safety compromised.  He added that there was always potential for confrontation between the customer and driver and therefore it would be easier for the driver to make the sale of alcohol as opposed to deal with any confrontation.

 

PC Guerra commented that drunkenness at home brought all kinds of safeguarding concerns such as domestic violence and there would also nothing to stop people becoming noisy and disturbing their neighbours.  He also added that it would be difficult for delivery staff to pick up and identify an intoxicated person or domestic issues on a person’s doorstep. 

 

PC Guerra highlighted that the Police considered that this operation could pose a serious risk to public safety and that the Core Hours policy had been introduced as a key preventative measure to protect the public.  PC Guerra referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee’s decision taken on the 13 May 2021 and read out:

 

‘The Sub-Committee did consider that the Applicant to be responsible and that it was a well-run business but on balance the Sub-Committee agreed with the Police that there would be a real risk to the licensing objectives if a 24-hour Premises Licence were granted.  The Sub-Committee noted that allowing 24 hours of off sales of alcohol would remove safeguards typically found from late night sales of alcohol.  Furthermore, the Sub-Committee considered it likely that while riders were clearly well trained, the brief contact between riders and customers would make it more likely that inebriated customers could purchase alcohol.  The Sub-Committee also considered that the business model may put riders at risk in the event that they sought to refuse an intoxicated customer.  On this basis the Sub-Committee concluded that there were not exceptional reasons to grant the licence for off sales beyond core hours and to do so would undermine the licencing objectives. 

 

PC Guerra emphasised that the concerns outlined above still existed and in conclusion requested that the Sub-Committee refuse this application and avoid setting an indefinite precedent for future applications.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee regarding the applicant’s assertion that he was already operating 24 hours a day at licensed 24-hour premises within Westminster without complaint or evidence of public nuisance, PC Guerra advised that one of the issues the Police had was establishing the link between off licences and the crime and disorder that takes place within Westminster.  The Sub-Committee noted that the existing condition 15 stated that deliveries shall only be to a residential address or place of work so deliveries would not be made to schools.

 

Mr Kolvin advised that his client was operating 24/7 across London and there was no evidence that drivers were being placed at risk.  He emphasised that London was a 24-hour city with Uber eats and Deliveroo being commonplace.  Mr Stevenson advised that their drivers were extensively trained, and the training included general health and safety as well as lifting and handling and how to identify an individual who may be potentially intoxicated.  Mr Stevenson then described the APP that was used to monitor operations 24/7 on a real time basis.  He strongly confirmed that his company had never experienced any problems with customers and had no records of incidences where riders had been threatened or felt threatened.  He emphasised that the company was already delivering in Westminster and granting this licence would reduce risk because local riders would get to know the customers/area as opposed to riders delivering orders from outside the borough.  He confirmed that he would maintain dialogue with the various Resident Association beyond the 12-month period.  Mr Kolvin advised that his client maintained good governance principles which included employment practices, sustainability, health and safety and neighbourhood relations.

 

Mr Kerry Simpkin, Policy Adviser to the Sub-Committee, advised that the key considerations for the Sub-Committee was whether this application met and complied with the Council’s Licensing policies as well as promoting the licensing objectives within the Council’s Statement of Licencing Policy.  He confirmed that all applications were determined on their individual merits.  He advised that the Premises were situated outside of a cumulative impact or special consideration zone.

 

Mr Kolvin advised that the Sub-Committee must judge the application on the evidence before it today.  He emphasised that he was not asking the Sub-Committee to grant this application as an exception to policy as the application fitted within the Council’s new Licencing Policy DC1.  He explained that this application should be granted because the applicant had proposed measures that would mitigate or eliminate any potential impact on the licensing objectives and residents even through the Premises would operate outside the Council’s Core Hours Policy.

 

Mr Kolvin concluded that the Premises were situated in an exceptional location and operated exceptionally well.  The new licensing policy made it clear that applications beyond core hours would be considered on their merits.  He advised that his client was already delivering in the area without harm, as were lots of other operators, and that it would be preferable that his client operated under conditions set by Westminster City Council.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Sub-Committee considered the application on its individual merits. In reaching their decision, the Sub-Committee took into account all the committee papers, supplementary submissions made by the Applicant, and the oral evidence given by all parties during the hearing in its determination of the matter.

 

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, Home Office Guidance and on the evidence before it, it was appropriate and proportionate, in all the circumstances, to GRANT the application.

 

In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had provided valid reasons as to why the granting of the application would not undermine the licensing objectives.

 

The Committee in its determination noted that the Applicant has now operated in the locality for some months and there was no evidence of public nuisance or lack of public safety.  The Applicant has clear procedures in which all delivery personnel, who are directly employed by the Applicant, are trained in order to promote the licensing objectives.  There is also suitable provision within the premises for delivery personnel to wait without causing a public nuisance and all deliveries will be by non-motorised transport.  It was also noted that the premises are in a suitable location and the Applicant satisfies the criteria of Policy DC1 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

The Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed two additional conditions as set out below in order to promote the licensing objectives.

 

Having carefully considered current policies, the committee papers and the submissions made by all the parties, both orally and in writing, the Committee has decided, after taking into account all of the individual circumstances of this application and the promotion of the four licensing objectives:

 

1.     To grant permission to vary the hours for the Sale by Retail of Alcohol for consumption off the premises from Monday to Saturday 08:00 to 23:00 and Sunday 09:00 to 22:30 to Monday to Sunday 00:00 to 00:00.

 

2.     To add conditions 28 and 29 in the terms specified below.

 

3.     That the varied licence is subject to any relevant mandatory conditions.

 

4.     That the existing conditions on the licence shall apply in all respects except in so far as they are varied by this Decision.

 

 

 

 

Conditions: On Current Licence -

Mandatory:

1.        No supply of alcohol may be made at a time when there is no designated premises supervisor in respect of this licence.

 

2.        No supply of alcohol may be made at a time when the designated premises supervisor does not hold a personal licence or the personal licence is suspended.

 

3.        Every supply of alcohol under this licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence.

 

4.       (1)       The premises licence holder or club premises certificate holder must ensure that an age verification policy is adopted in respect of the premises in relation to the sale or supply of alcohol.

 

(2)      The designated premises supervisor in relation to the premises licence must ensure that the supply of alcohol at the premises is carried on in accordance with the age verification policy.

(3)      The policy must require individuals who appear to the responsible person to be under 18 years of age (or such older age as may be specified in the policy) to produce on request, before being served alcohol, identification bearing their photograph, date of birth and either—

 (a)     a holographic mark, or

 (b)     an ultraviolet feature.

 

5(i)     A relevant person shall ensure that no alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises for a price which is less than the permitted price.

 

5(ii)     For the purposes of the condition set out in paragraph 5(i) above -

(a)      "duty" is to be construed in accordance with the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979;

(b)      "permitted price" is the price found by applying the formula -

 

P = D+(DxV)

Where -

(i)       P is the permitted price,

(ii)       D is the amount of duty chargeable in relation to the alcohol as if the duty     were charged on the date of the sale or supply of the alcohol, and

(iii)      V is the rate of value added tax chargeable in relation to the alcohol as if the value added tax were charged on the date of the sale or supply of the alcohol;

 

(c)       "relevant person" means, in relation to premises in respect of which there is in force a premises licence -

(i)        the holder of the premises licence,

(ii)       the designated premises supervisor (if any) in respect of such a licence, or

(iii)      the personal licence holder who makes or authorises a supply of    alcohol under such a licence;

(d)      "relevant person" means, in relation to premises in respect of which there is in force a club premises certificate, any member or officer of the club present on the premises in a capacity which enables the member or officer to prevent the supply in question; and

(e)      "value added tax" means value added tax charged in accordance with the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

 

5(iii).   Where the permitted price given by Paragraph 5(ii)(b) above would (apart from this paragraph) not be a whole number of pennies, the price given by that sub-paragraph shall be taken to be the price actually given by that sub-paragraph rounded up to the nearest penny.

 

5(iv).     (1)    Sub-paragraph 5(iv)(2) below applies where the permitted price given by Paragraph 5(ii)(b) above on a day ("the first day") would be different from the permitted price on the next day ("the second day") as a result of a change to the rate of duty or value added tax.

(2)      The permitted price which would apply on the first day applies to sales or supplies of alcohol which take place before the expiry of the period of 14 days beginning on the second day.

 

Conditions consistent with the operating schedule

 

6.        The sale of alcohol from the premises shall be for delivery only by a delivery rider.

 

7.        The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises are 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 the Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.

 

8.        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 are 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.

9.        An incident log/register shall be maintained to record all incidents of crime and disorder occurring on delivery of products. This log/register will be available for inspection by a Police Officer or other authorised officer on request.

 

10.      There shall be no signage or advertisement, or promotional material affixed to the outside of the premises that give any reference to the sale of alcohol taking place at the premises.

 

11.      The premises licence holder will ensure that an age verification policy will apply whereby all delivery riders will be trained to ask any customer to whom alcohol is delivered, who appears to be under the age of 25 years to produce, before being sold alcohol, identification being a passport or photocard driving licence bearing a holographic mark or other form of identification that complies with any mandatory condition that may apply to this licence.

 

12.      All delivery riders shall receive training in age restricted sales.

- Induction training must be completed and documented prior to the delivery of alcohol by the rider.

- Refresher/reinforcement training must be completed and documented at intervals of no more than 6 months.

- Training records will be available for inspection by a Police Officer or other authorised officer on request. Training records will be electronically stored by the licence holder for a period of 12 months.

 

13.      A warning shall be displayed on the digital platform on which an order is placed informing customers that they must be aged 18 or over to make a purchase of alcohol and notifying customers that the rider will carry out age verification on delivery. The customer will be required to declare that he or she is aged 18 or over. If the rider is not satisfied that the customer is aged 18 or over any alcohol in the order will be withheld.

 

14.      All riders shall be trained to record refusals of sales of alcohol in a refusals log/register. The log/register will contain:

- details of the time and date the refusal was made.

- the identity of the rider refusing the sale.

- details of the alcohol the person attempted to purchase.

This log/register will be available for inspection by a Police Officer or other authorised officer on request.

 

15.      Delivery of alcohol shall be to a residential address or place of work.

 

16.      Riders will be permitted to collect orders and deliver by pedal bike, electric bike (or other electric vehicle) only.

 

17.      Riders will not be permitted to smoke in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

18.      Riders will not be permitted to congregate in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

 

19.      Riders will be instructed not to loiter in the vicinity of residential premises.

 

20.      All waste shall be properly presented and placed out for collection no earlier than 30 minutes before the scheduled collection times.

 

21.      No waste or recyclable materials, including bottles, shall be moved, removed from or placed in outside areas between 23.00 hours and 08.00 hours on the following day.

 

22.      Prominent, clear and legible notices must be displayed at all exits requesting staff and couriers to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premises and the area quietly.

 

23.      No noise generated on the premises, or by its associated plant or equipment, shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

 

24.      The premises licence holder shall not sell super-strength beer, lager, cider or spirit mixtures with an alcohol content over 5.5% ABV (alcohol by volume) save for products agreed (email will suffice) with the Police.  This restriction shall not apply in respect of the specialist branded, premium priced products for example craft ales, local or microbrewery specialist products, boxed gifts or national celebratory/commemorative beer, lager or cider.

 

25.      All delivery riders will be employed directly by the licence holder or a group company of the licence holder.

 

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

 

27.      Deliveries to the premises shall only take place between 07:00 and 23:00 hours save that this restriction does not apply to deliveries of bread and milk.

 

28.      There shall be no access to the public for the purchase of alcohol or other items at any time.

 

29.      The licence holder shall make contact with a representative of the St John’s Wood Society and Balmoral Court 20 Queens Terrace Residents Association Limited every 3 months for a period of 12 months from 28 January 2022 to check if any residents have had reason to complain about the licence holder’s business operation at the premises.

 

INFORMATIVE

30.      The Premises Licence Holder is encouraged to have continuous dialogue with the local residents to ensure regular checks to ascertain if any residents have reasons to complain about the operation of the premises.

 

This is the Full Decision reached by the Licensing Sub-Committee. 

This Decision takes immediate effect.

The Licensing Sub-Committee

27^th January 2022.