Agenda item

 

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
Church Street   * None   ** None	Taco Bell 346-348 Edgware Road W2 1EA	New Premises Licence	22/05206/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WCC LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 2

(“The Committee”)

 

Thursday 29 September 2022 – Item 2

 

Membership:           Councillor Angela Piddock (Chairman) Councillor Judith Southern and Councillor Caroline Sargent.

 

Officer Support:       Legal Adviser:                    Steve Burnett

                                Policy Officer:                     Aaron Hardy

                                Committee Officer:             Sarah Craddock

                                 Presenting Officer:             Jessica Donovan

 

Other Parties:          Christopher Rees-Gay (Solicitor, Woods Whur 2014 Ltd on behalf of the Applicant),

Paul Welford (Taco Bell Area Manager - Applicant),

Andy Bamber (Expert witness for the Applicant),

 

PC Adam Deweltz (Metropolitan Police) and

Dave Nevitt (Environmental Health)

 

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Taco Bell, 346 - 348 Edgware Road, London W2 1EA - 22/05206/LIPN

 

Full Decision

 

Premises

 

Taco Bell

346 – 348 Edgware Road

London W2 1EA

 

Applicant

 

Taco-Time Ltd

 

Ward

 

Church Street

 

Cumulative Impact Area

 

N/A

 

Special Consideration Zone

 

N/A

 

 

 

Activities and Hours applied for

 

Late Night Refreshment

 

Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 03:00

 

The Opening Hours of the Premises:

 

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 03:00

 

Summary of Application

 

This is an application for a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Applicant has submitted an application to permit the Premises to trade Mondays to Sundays 10:00 until 03:00.  The premises currently operates as a Taco Bell, Mexican quick service restaurant and take-away closing at 23.00 Mondays to Sundays.

 

The Premises is located in Church Street Ward and is not in a CIZ or Special Consideration Zone.

 

There is a resident count of 345.

 

Representations received

 

The Metropolitan Police Service (PC Reaz Guerra) - MPS

Environmental Health Service (David Nevitt) - EHO

Two Residents (objecting against the application)

 

Summary of issues raised by objectors

 

The thrust of those objections received cites public nuisance and crime and disorder.

 

MPS stated:

The hours sought for licensable activity go beyond Westminster’s Core Hours Policy, and if granted, the application could undermine the Licensing Objectives in relation to The Prevention of Crime and Disorder.

 

EHS stated:

The proposals are likely to increase the risk of Public Nuisance and may impact upon Public Safety.

 

The Residents stated:

Noise and nuisance will be created, and no parking is available

 

Policy Position

 

HRS1

 

Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in Westminster’s Statement of Licensing Policy will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant

policies, and with particular regard to Core Hours Policy HRS1 B 1-14

 

FFP1(A)

 

A.    Applications outside the West End Cumulative Zones 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 operation of any delivery services for alcohol and/or late night

refreshment meeting the council’s Ancillary Delivery of Alcohol

and/or Late-Night Refreshment Policy DEL1.

 

5. The application and operation of the venue meet the definition of

a fast-food premises in Clause D.

 

D. For the purposes of this policy a Fast-Food Premises is defined as:

 

1. A premises that provides late night refreshment, either by way

of fast food over a counter, via a self-seating basis or take away for

immediate consumption.

 

2. Food and drink are:

 

a. Available on the premises for self-selection.

b. Prepared on the premises.

c. Cooked or produced off the premises but brought to that premises in advance of its sale to customers.

 

3. The food and drink are provided in pre-sealed or open disposable packaging which is intended for immediate consumption.

 

4. A fast-food premises can provide a delivery service as part of its operation, however that service must be ancillary to the main function of the premises as defined within sub-clauses D,1 to D,3.

 

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

 

1.     Ms Jessica Donovan outlined the application to the Committee.

 

2.     The Committee was advised by Ms Jessica Donovan that representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service, the Metropolitan Police and two local residents. Ms Donovan further stated that the Premises was located within the Church Street Ward and was not in a Cumulative Impact Area or Special Consideration Zone.  She confirmed that additional submissions from the Applicant and Responsible Authorities had been received and circulated to the Committee.

 

3.     Mr Christopher Rees-Gay, outlined the application before the Committee. He explained that Taco Time Limited, which was part of the Adil Group, had been established since 1969 and had over 50 years of experience running quick service restaurants around the country.  Its brands included KFC, Burger King, Taco Bell and Costa Coffee.  He advised that it was one of the UKs fastest growing family business and had all the necessary management and resources to support this application.  He emphasised that not one of the Applicant’s Premises Licences had ever been before a Licensing Committee for Review.

 

4.     Mr Rees-Gay advised that the Applicant already operated in challenging areas of London such as Cricklewood, Wimbledon and Earl’s Court without incident. The Committee was informed that the Adil Group were the freeholder of the Premises building, so they had a vested interest to ensure that the Premises operated without any issues to the neighbourhood. He further advised the Committee that the Area Manager was very happy to provide his telephone number to any concerned local residents so they could contact him directly.

 

5.     Mr Rees-Gay confirmed that the Adil Group partnered with both national and local charities which benefited communities throughout the UK.  He stated that if the extra hours were granted it would lead to additional local employment with an additional five full-time and five part-time staff being employed to cover the extra hours.

 

6.     The Committee was advised that the Premises had been operating since the 28 May 2022 up to 23.00 without incident.  He explained that written training policies and formal training programmes were in all stores that have late night refreshment, and this ensured that all staff would promote the licensing objectives.  He stated that staff were given an induction course and then refresher training was undertaken regularly.  These courses consisted of one-to-one training and computer-based e-learning systems. 

 

7.     Mr Rees-Gay advised that the standard operating hours for Taco Bell across the country were until 03:00 hours. These premises have not been subject of Licence Reviews and this was why the extra hours had been applied for in this Premises.

 

8.     Mr Rees-Gay informed the Committee that a pre-application consultation had been conducted with the Environmental Health and conditions had been agreed which were contained in the report.  He advised, that the SIA Door Staff Condition recommended by the Police had not been agreed by the Applicant as no evidence had been supplied for consideration by their Licensing Consultant, such as crime data that links crime and disorder to food outlets or late-night food outlets on the Edgware Road, had been received from the Police supporting this requirement. 

 

9.     Mr Rees-Gay went on to explain to the Committee how the security StaffSafe™ system operated at their Premises and that this was a valid alternative to door supervisors across their other premises, some of which were located in more challenging areas. StaffSafe™ allowed for 24-hour remote supervision where StaffSafe™ operators monitored the Premises remotely 24 hrs via CCTV and could initiate action via the audio system within the Premises.

 

10.Mr Rees-Gay advised that the extra hours allowed flexible and key workers to take advantage of their offer especially as London was a 24/7 city.  He added, for example, that the Premises were located near St Mary’s Hospital. 

 

11.It was emphasised by the Applicant that the Premises was not located in a Cumulative Impact Area or a Special Consideration Zone and that every application should be considered individually on its own merits.  He advised the Committee that they had contacted the two residents that had submitted representations against the application, however there had been no response.

 

12.Mr Rees-Gay referred to the proposed conditions which would be attached to the Premises Licence if the application was granted and emphasised the comprehensive CCTV, public nuisance and delivery and collections conditions. 

 

13.Mr Rees-Gay advised that no other late night refreshment operator along that stretch of Edgware Road were required to have door staff, despite some trading late hours.  He added that the Applicant considered the StaffSafe™ system to be a very robust operating system. However, the Applicant would also agree to a condition regularly risk assessing the need for SIA door staff.

 

14.Mr Rees-Gay further referred the Committee to Andy Bamber’s report that stated that during the late hours proposed, both during the week and weekend, there were no homeless, gangs or anti-social behaviour reported, over his three visits that were conducted.  It also confirmed that there was no anti-social or nuisance heard along the street at those times.

 

15.Mr Rees-Gay concluded by emphasising that the Applicant was an experienced operator who would promote the four licensing objectives so there would be no negative impact on the area if the application was granted.  He further emphasised that the experts report confirms that the StaffSafe™ system was more versatile and effective than door supervisors at the Premises. 

 

16.In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Rees-Gay advised that the Premises had been operating since the 28 May until 23:00 hours.  He advised that Taco Bell’s busiest hour was between 22:00 and 23:00 hours and it had been estimated that the Premises would serve around 100 customers per hour until 03:00 hours which included orders for delivery.  He added that the Applicant anticipated that 50% of the orders would be for delivery only.  He explained that this was a quick serve restaurant and that customers usually took around 15-20 minutes to eat their food. There was only one entrance into the building and on departing the Premises customers would turn left towards the train/tube stations.  He emphasised that there was demand for this type of operation because of the high number of shift workers in the area.

 

17.In response to question from the Committee regarding the StaffSafe™ system, Mr Rees-Gay, with the assistance of Mr Bamber explained that there was a panic button in all Taco Bell Premises that staff could activate if there was an altercation in the Premises, and this alarm went straight through to the StaffSafe™ system control centre operated 24 hours a day.  He added that were 15 CCTV cameras installed in the Premises as well as a PA system which the safe staff operators would use to advise customers and staff on what to do if there was an incident in the Premises. 

 

18.The Applicant added that the police would be called depending on the severity of the incident, however in his experience, nine out of ten times, as soon as the PA system was activated, the customer(s) causing the problem left the Premises quickly as they became aware that they were being watched.  He added that the system was very effective and prevents incidents escalating which could happen whilst staff were waiting for the Police.  He advised that there were usually five staff working on every shift. 

 

19.PC Adam Deweltz on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service informed the Committee that the Police had maintained their representation as the hours sought for Late Night Refreshment, go beyond Westminster’s Core Hours Policy and the Applicant would not accept the MPS SIA Door Staff condition.  He added that the Police further believed that if granted, the application could undermine the licensing objectives in relation to The Prevention of Crime and Disorder.  PC Deweltz referred to the two supporting statements from Dedicated Ward Officers for the area which were contained at Appendix 3 of the report.

 

20.PC Deweltz confirmed that the Police would like a SIA on the door until closing time at 03:00 hours, if the later hours were granted.  He explained that the Police considered that the StaffSafe™ system was no substitute for an experienced door supervisor who could physically detain someone, implement first aid, calm down a potentially volatile situation, ensure that any crime scene was preserved to be used as evidence by the police and help with dispersing people quietly away from the Premises.  He added that the presence of a door supervisor was also a reassurance for the staff working in the Premises and because door staff were highly visible, they helped deter criminals from committing crime. 

 

21.PC Deweltz stated to the Committee that because of the gang related crime in the area, the use of the StaffSafe™ system would not be sufficient to prevent crime and disorder and promote the licensing objectives. He confirmed that he was happy with all the other proposed conditions.

 

22.The Officer went on to inform the Committee that Edgware Road was saturated and hot food is attractive to people who drink alcohol which could make them vulnerable to crime.

 

23.The Officer then proceeded to give the Committee an overview of the crime which takes place in the area. The evidence was not contained in the Officer’s original representation or the supporting evidence for the Committee to consider. The Legal Advisor to the Committee, Mr Burnett asked whether the evidence and information the officer was providing had been disclosed to the Applicant for consideration. The Applicant confirmed that he was aware of the information and that is why he had not previously intervened, and that he was happy with the Officer continuing.

 

24.PC Deweltz continued and stated that the area has different rival gangs and is an anti-social behaviour hotspot. Mr Rees-Gay intervened stating that he had not received information from the police that the area is a hotspot. PC Deweltz stated that the information had been previously given to the Applicants during earlier meetings. The Members however confirmed that they knew the area well. Mr Burnett at this stage reminded the Parties of procedures, namely that they are permitted to expand on the original representations, but the production of new evidence would require consent. (The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 Reg 18). No representations in relation to this were made by either party.

 

25.PC Deweltz identified a serious incident involving a gang member. Mr Rees-Gay expressed concerns that this was new information he was not aware of. The Applicant’s representative stated that he did not consent to this being raised. The Officer was informed that as this was new information and the Applicant does not consent, the information should not be raised. The Officer did not make any observations or representations and accepted the position.

 

26.The MPS concluded by advising that the police objected to the operating hours up to 03:00 hours and requested that the Premises operated in line with the Council’s Core Hours Policy. However, the MPS stated that if the Committee was minded to grant a premises licence with a 03.00 trading time Mondays to Sundays, then the police would ask for SIA registered door staff at the premises.

 

27.Mr Dave Newitt, representing the Environmental Health Service (EH), advised that EH had given pre-application advice to the Applicant and conditions had been agreed which would promote the licensing objectives.  Mr Newitt advised that as the Premises was not located in a CIA or SCZ the application would be considered on its merits. However, as the Applicant wished to operate until 03:00 hours, EH had maintained their representation. 

 

28.Mr Nevitt explained that hot food attracted intoxicated people which could have the likely effect of increasing noise nuisance, anti-social behaviour and congestion in the area.  He added that EH had concerns regarding the departure and dispersal of customers at 03:00 hours as people had a tendency to congregate and remain in an area which increased nuisance for local residents.  Mr Newitt then highlighted to the Committee that there had been a recent residential development across the road from this Premises because the Committee would need to consider the likely impact on local residents when considering this application.

 

29.Mr Newitt advised that the Premises was newly refurbished and fully equipped with up to-date public safety features.  He added that it was well managed and EH had no concerns regarding its operation and had received no complaints.  He advised that EH would maintain their representation because of the increased risk to local residents regarding the late operating hour of 03:00 hours which had the likely effect of causing noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour in the area

 

30.In response to questions from the Committee about trade of the premises from 23.00 to 03.00 and the sound proofing of the new residential block, Mr Newitt advised that the new residential development would be sound insulated to some degree, however, it would be reasonable to expect residents to be able to open their windows/enjoy sitting out on their balconies without being disturbed by excess noise in the area.

 

31.Mr Nevitt confirmed that it was standard for tables and chairs to be used and remain outside of a Premises until 23:00 hours.  Mr Rees-Gay advised that the Premises did four covers per table per hour and that over 70% of customers would take their food away to consume.  He emphasised that it was a quick service restaurant so there never was a long queue. 

 

32.Mr Newitt confirmed that there was adequate internal space between the ordering counter to accommodate a good number of people inside the Premises.  He further confirmed there was a disabled toilet provided for customers and there were separate facilities for staff. 

 

33.PC Deweltz advised that the other quick serve Premises in the area operated until either 01.00 or 02.00 and were take-away only and therefore, there was no requirement for a SIA to be present at these Premises.

 

34.The Committee’s legal adviser discussed the numerous conditions with Mr Rees-Gay and the Responsible Authorities and between them agreed amendments, deletions and additions to the conditions that would be attached to the Premises Licence if the Committee was minded to grant the application. 

 

35.Discussions included the undertaking of regular risk assessment for the need of door staff, the Premises capacity and whether the Applicant would consider accepting an earlier terminal hour.  Mr Rees-Gay advised that the Applicant considered that they were good operators with a proven history of trade and they had the expertise to operate and promote the licensing objectives until 03:00 hours

 

36.During the summing up, Mr Nevitt advised that EH would prefer the Committee to grant an earlier terminal hour so the Applicant could prove to the Responsible Authorities that they could promote the licensing objectives.   He added the Applicant could then apply for a variation to the Premises Licence for a later terminal hour.

 

37.During the summing up, Mr Rees-Gay advised that StaffSafe™ system was a sophisticated system, that no representation had been made by people living in the new flats opposite the Premises, the extra hours would create local employment, the Applicant was a very experienced operator and that there had been no crime statistics or evidence produced regarding crime and disorder occurring at late night refreshment operations in the locality and that the Committee should have regard to the principles  in the case of Daniel Thwaites plc v Wirral Borough Magistrates' Court [2008] EWHC 838 (Admin), CO/5533/2006.  

 

Decision

 

38.The Committee has determined an application for a grant of a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.   The Committee is aware that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so when determining this application.

 

39.The Committee had regard to the premises not being located in a Cumulative Impact Area or Special Consideration Zone and Westminster’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular Fast Food Policy FFP1:

 

A. Applications outside the West End Cumulative Zones 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 operation of any delivery services for alcohol and/or late night refreshment meeting the council’s Ancillary Delivery of Alcohol and/or Late-Night Refreshment Policy DEL1.

4. The applicant has taken account of the Special Consideration Zones

Policy SCZ1 if the premises are located within a designated zone.

5. The application and operation of the venue meet the definition of a fast-food premises.

 

The key issues raised in the representations and for consideration falls under points 1 and 2.

 

40.Evidence had been provided that there is crime and disorder in the area, and the Committee also noted that there was no evidence of the criminal activities mentioned being as a direct result poor management of licensed late night fast-food outlets on the Edgware Road. If this was the case, then the Committee would expect the premises licenses for those sites to be Reviewed and/or a request for those premises to agree to a condition requiring them to have door supervisors.

 

41.The Committee found the evidence from the Applicant compelling and in particular, the evidence that they were experienced operators and their substantial number of operations had not attracted licensing reviews.

 

42.The Committee noted that there are a number of licensed late-night fast-food premises in the vicinity, trading until 00:00, 01:00 and 02:00 as detailed in the additional evidence from the Applicant and in the Agenda papers. However, there was an absence of evidence at the hearing directly linking the operation of these premises to crime and disorder or complaints of nuisance during late trading hours.

 

43.The Committee decided that parts of the evidence against the grant of this application was based on the likelihood or belief that crime and disorder and public nuisance would increase as a result of this premises trading until 03.00 Mondays to Sundays.

 

44.The Committee considered and gave appropriate weight to the oral and written evidence from PC Deweltz, from Mr Nevitt, the two residents who objected, the Applicant’s written dispersal policy and proposed conditions at page 122, 154 and 155 of the Committee papers.

 

45.The Committee had regard to Westminster’s Core Hours Policy HRS1 and noted:

 

·       that the Applicant are experienced operators with no history of Licence Review action against their existing premises.

·       that the proposed conditions promoted the licensing objectives.

·       that the operation of the Premises under a suitably conditioned premises licence is unlikely to increase nuisance caused to residents in the area.

·       that there is suitable transport for customers away from the premises but in the main, customers are likely to live locally or be shift workers.

·       that the premises is of a limited seated capacity of 20 customers.

·       that there is no application for the sale of alcohol or recorded music at the premises.   

·       that the Responsible Authorities, may reduce hours or add conditions if, after review, it is necessary to impose conditions in order to promote the licensing objectives

 

46.The MPS stated to the Committee that if the application is granted to permit the premises to trade until 03.00 Mondays to Sundays, they will require door staff at the premises.

 

47.The Committee noted that the Premises is not located in a CIA or a SCZ.

 

48.The Committee had regard to the Committee papers and PC Deweltz own evidence, that notwithstanding crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour in the area, other quick serve licensed late night refreshment premises in the area, historically operated until either 01.00 or 02.00 without SIA door staff.

 

49.The Committee noted that the security StaffSafe™ system operated in the Applicants Premises and that this was the alternative to door supervisors at this Premises and across their other operations. StaffSafe™ allowed for 24-hour remote supervision where StaffSafe™ operators monitored the Premises remotely 24 hrs via CCTV and could initiate immediate action via the audio system within the Premises.

 

50.The Committee was impressed that 24hr operators could call the police and that the system also acted as a deterrent. Mr Bamber’s own statement gives a clear example of the operation of the system. Evidence from the Applicant suggests that it prevents incidents escalating which could happen whilst staff were waiting for the Police.

 

51.The Committee noted that Applicant’s Licensing Consultant was impressed with the system and gave evidence of its workings and stated that this was more versatile and effective than door supervisors.

 

 

 

 

52.In addition to two agreed conditions stating:

 

 A Staffsafe™ system with both audio and visual monitoring capability shall be installed and maintained in the premises. This system should be capable of being activated by either fixed or mobile panic buttons,

 

and

 

Signage stating that “Staff Safe antisocial behaviour monitoring system is in place and operating at the premises” shall be displayed at the premises.

 

The Applicant proposed an additional condition:

 

The Premises Licence Holder shall undertake a written risk assessment every three months to determine whether or not a SIA licensed door supervisor is required during the hours of 23:00-03:00 and this risk assessment should be available to the Police licensing authority upon request.

 

53.This condition is not accepted by the MPS. However, the combination of the 3 conditions and the other agreed conditions (page 154 and 155 of the Committee papers) gave the Committee confidence based on the evidence as to how the Premises and Applicant will promote the prevention of crime and disorder.

 

54.The Revised Guidance under section 182 of the Licence Act 2003 provides the Committee with some guidance in relation to conditions which may be added to a Premises Licence. The Committee noted in particular that conditions must be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and should be proportionate and justifiable.

 

55.The Committee was satisfied that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, Home Office Guidance, Westminster’s Statement of Licensing Policy and on the evidence before it, that it was appropriate and proportionate, in all the circumstances, to GRANT the application.

 

56.In reaching its decision, the Committee took into consideration that conditions had been agreed with the Environmental Health Officer and that the Metropolitan Police Force agree all but one condition, as discussed above. The Committee was persuaded by the arguments advanced by the Applicant that they were a responsible operator and that they had provided valid reasons as to why the granting of the application would not undermine the licensing objectives. 

 

57.In reaching its decision, the Committee concluded that the conditions attached to the licence would alleviate the residents’ concerns and were proportionate and appropriate and would promote the licencing objective.

 

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

 

1.     To grant permission for Late Night Refreshment Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 03:00.

 

2.     To grant permission for the opening hours of the Premise Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 03:00.

 

3.     The new premises licence shall be subject to any relevant mandatory conditions.

 

4.     The new premises licence is subject to the following conditions imposed by the Committee which are considered appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

 

 

Conditions consistent with the operating schedule

 

10.      (a) The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team.

(b) All entry and exit points shall be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition.

(c) The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises and shall include the external area immediately outside the premises entrance.

(d) All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping.

(e) Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.

 

11. 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.

 

12. The Premises Licence Holder shall undertake a written risk assessment every three months to determine whether or not a SIA licensed door supervisor is required during the hours of 23:00-03:00 and this risk assessment shall be available to the Metropolitan Police and Westminster’s Licensing Authority immediately upon request.

 

13. The number of persons permitted to be seated in the premises at any one-time (excluding staff) shall not exceed 20 persons.

 

14. 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. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and shall 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, searching equipment or scanning equipment

(g) any refusal of the sale of alcohol

(h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

 

15. The store shall operate a "No Open Alcohol Containers" policy to prevent persons carrying open alcohol into the premises.

 

16. Signage stating that “no open alcohol containers to be allowed on the premises” shall be displayed at the premises.

 

17. Signage stating that “anti-social behaviour and/or disorder shall not be tolerated” shall be displayed at the premises.

 

18. A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number and/or is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

 

19. All staff to be trained on induction and every 6 months, in relation to conflict management.

This training to be recorded and provided to the Responsible Authorities upon request.

 

20. A Staffsafe™ system with both audio and visual monitoring capability shall be installed and maintained in the premises. This system should be capable of being activated by either fixed or mobile panic buttons.

 

21. Signage stating that “Staff Safe antisocial behaviour monitoring system is in place and operating at the premises” shall be displayed at the premises.

 

22. Members of the public shall be prevented from accessing hot food and preparation areas to prevent risk of scald or burns.

 

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. All outside tables and chairs shall be rendered unusable by 23.00 hours each day.

 

25. All tables and chairs shall be moved from the outside area by 2300 hours each day.

 

26. Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.

 

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

 

28. 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.

 

29. No deliveries to the premises shall take place between (23.00) and (08.00) hours on the following day.

 

30. Delivery drivers shall be given clear, written instructions to use their vehicles in a responsible manner so as not to cause a nuisance to any residents or generally outside the licensed premises; not to leave engines running when the vehicles are parked; and not to obstruct the highway.

 

31. A copy of the premises’ dispersal policy shall be made readily available at the premises for inspection by a police officer and/or an authorised officer of Westminster City Council.

 

32. During the hours of operation of the premises, the licence holder shall ensure sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising or accumulating from customers in the area immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and or washed, and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements by close of business.

 

33. No collections of waste or recycling materials (including bottles) from the premises shall take place between (23.00) and (08.00) hours on the following day.

 

34. No licensable activities shall take at the premises until the capacity of the premises has been determined by the Environmental Health Consultation Team and the licensing authority has replaced this condition on the licence with a condition detailing the capacity so determined.

 

35. Flashing or particularly bright lights on or outside the premises shall not cause a nuisance to nearby properties, save insofar as they are necessary for the prevention of crime.

 

36. No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until the premises has been assessed as satisfactory by the Environmental Health Consultation Team at which time this condition shall be removed from the Licence by the licensing authority.

 

37. No fumes, steam or odours shall be emitted from the licensed premises so as to cause a nuisance to any persons living or carrying on business in the area where the premises are situated

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

29 September 2022