Agenda item
Basement, 22-25 Portman Close, W1H 6BS
Minutes:
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.3
(“The Committee”)
Thursday 3 February 2022
Membership: Councillor Jim Glen (Chairman), Councillor Melvyn Caplan and Councillor Rita Begum
Officer Support: Legal Advisor: Viviene Walker
Policy Officer: Kerry Simpkin
Committee Officer: Kisi Smith-Charlemagne
Presenting Officer: Emanuela Meloyan
Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Basement 22-25 Portman Close London W1H 6BS 21/09220/LIPN
FULL DECISION
Premises
Basement
22-25 Portman Close
London W1H 6BS
Applicant
Bb Traders Limited
Cumulative Impact Area
None
Ward
Marylebone High Street
Summary of Application
This is an application for a local Convenience Store to stock goods including alcohol for packaging and delivery to fulfil customers’ orders made online.
The Premises are located in the Marylebone High Street Ward but not within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone or the Special Consideration Zone. There is a resident Count of 254.
Proposed Licensable Activities and Hours
Sale by Retail of Alcohol (Off Sales)
Monday to Saturday 08:00 hours to 23:00 hours
Sunday 09:00 hours to 22:00 hours
Seasonal variations/Non-standard timings: None
Hours Premises are open to the Public
Monday to Sunday 00:00 hours to 23:59 hours
Seasonal variations/Non-standard timings: None
Representations Received
· Environmental Health Service (EHS)
· Metropolitan Police Service (Withdrawn)
· Baker Street Quarter Partnership
· 4 local residents
· Willowgreen Limited (Orbiton Estates) (Withdrawn)
· Home House Limited (Withdrawn)
Summary of issues raised by Objectors
· EHS stated the proposals are likely to increase the risk of public nuisance.
· The Baker Street Quarter Partnership objected to the application on the grounds of public safety, prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder.
· Local Residents objected on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.
Policy Position
Under Policy HRS1, applications within the core hours set out in the policy will generally be granted for the relevant premises uses, subject to not being contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy and applications for hours outside the core hours set out in the Policy will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies and with particular regard to the matters identified in Policy HRS1.
Under Policy 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 CG1. 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 Emanuela Meloyan, Senior Licensing Officer, presented the report that was before the Sub-Committee. She noted that representations had been received from EHS. The premises are situated within the Marylebone Ward and do not fall within any area of cumulative impact.
Mr Rajveer Kohli, for the applicant explained that the application was for a new start up business which is an online store, no customers would visit the premises. He stated that customers can only make orders through Uber Eat and Deliveroo. The office space is very small, and he was using it to test out the demand in the market.
Mr Kohli stated that the business would operate 24 hours per day and is currently selling groceries. However, the sale of alcohol would help the business.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Kohli advised that the wanted to see if there was a market for his type of operation as no other local convenience does this, and DPD does a collection within the area around 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. each day. He stated that his average orders are around £25.00 and are delivered within the same hour. The DPD orders are not doing as well, so he intends to stop that use which was just an extra option to help the business.
Mr Kohli explained that he has a challenge 25 policy, when customers select alcohol, they will have to confirm if they are of the correct age. When delivery drivers dropped off the alcohol, the driver will always aske for proof of ID if the customers looked underage. The delivery driver would refuse the delivery if the customer looked intoxicated. He also stated that deliveries after 23:00 hours would be by non-motorised vehicles only. He is currently collecting data and wants to get investors on board. He works 24 hours on certain days to collect data. He has an average of 7 to 8 orders per day, which is less than one every hour. He would be happy with 20 orders per day.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Kohli explained that because the office is very small the drivers would wait outside the premises on the road and the use of facilities are not available as no one is allowed in or out of the office.
Mr Dave Nevitt, representing the EHS referred to the street view photograph. He stated that the office is very small and three is not much space for storage. If the business increases, he suspected that the applicant would seek a larger office. Mr Nevitt explained that the residents have submitted concerns such as noise impact as there are a number of windows overlooking the premises.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Nevitt explained that a number of conditions proposed were agreed by the applicant. It would be necessary to assess how the delivery drivers are managed, are the vehicles noisy and will the drivers congregate outside the premises. He confirmed that the premises are in a predominantly residential area.
Mr Richard Brown, representing a local resident, introduced Mr Clarke to the Sub-Committee. Mr Clarke outlined that his main concerns were the large number of bikes, scooters and cars down the narrow road would cause a noise nuisance, on evenings and during Sundays, there are no parking restrictions which means both sides of the road are occupied and in turn makes it a single lane, the pavement is very narrow, and this would block the pavement making it impossible for prams and wheelchairs to pass by. He stated that residents expected the applicant to engage with them, but he failed to do so.
Mr Kayvan Beklik, local resident stated that there is a licensed premises in the vicinity which cause a nuisance and traffic. This new business will affect residents even more.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Clarke stated that he had tried to research the business but could not find anything. He had checked on Uber Eat, there is a website, but it is non-functional.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Kohli informed the Committee that if someone placed an order within the same hour, he stands outside and wait for the delivery driver as he tracks them on the App. He stated that there is only one member of staff, and he is the only one doing the deliveries. There will be non-motorised vehicles so not to add to the traffic congestion or disturb neighbours. They have agreed to only deliver goods to the premises between 20:00 and 22:00 hours.
Conclusion
The Sub-Committee had considered the evidence before it and whether the four licensing objectives would be promoted.
The Sub-Committee noted that representations were received from EHS and two local residents, who cited public nuisance as the key issue. It was noted that the Metropolitan Police Service did not make any representations.
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises are not within Cumulative Impact Zones.
The Sub-Committee has a duty to consider the application on its individual merits and took into account all of the committee papers, submissions made by the Applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by those parties in attendance during the hearing in its determination of the matter.
The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives and therefore refused the application.
The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the parties and in light of considering that evidence refused the application for the reasons outlined bellowed:
1. There will be no control or any means of ensuring that the licensing objectives would be upheld.
2. The Applicant did not demonstrate that procedures in place for delivery personnel to be trained in order to promote the licensing objectives.
3. The size of the premises is not conducive for the use by delivery personnel.
4. The premises are not suitably located for the proposed type of operation.
5. In terms of policy consideration, the Sub-Committee had regard to Policy HRS1 which states: Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in this policy will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP).
The Sub-Committee appreciated it has a discretion when considering the merits of the application but took the view that granting the application would be contrary to other policies. The Sub-Committee had regard to all relevant policies under the SLP in particular Policy PN1: the prevention of public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee also had regard to Policy DC1 and noted that the premises are located in a predominantly residential area.
This is the Full Decision reached by the Licensing Sub-Committee.
This Decision takes immediate effect.
Licensing Sub-Committee
3 February 2022
Supporting documents:
-
LSC report - 22-25 Portman close_Redacted, item 3.
PDF 2 MB - Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 3./2 is restricted