Agenda item

Cote, Unit 7, 98 Westbourne Grove, W2

16/05066/LIPV

1.

To add the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant had agreed a condition with the Police prior to the hearing that ‘there shall be no off sales of alcohol after 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 22:30 on Sundays’.  The Police had subsequently withdrawn their representation.  Following discussions with local residents, the terminal hour for off-sales on Bank Holidays would also be 22:30.

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

This was a variation application where the Applicants were seeking the ability to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises.  Ms Jung, representing the Applicant, confirmed that the concept was that off-sales in sealed bottles would be ancillary to a take away meal and they would only be ordered via the Deliveroo app or website.  The food and drink order supplied by Cote would be taken by a delivery person working on behalf of Deliveroo from the restaurant to customers’ addresses.  Off-sales would not be purchased by customers at the restaurant itself.

Ms Jung emphasised that Cote is a very successful, responsible business with over 90 premises across the country and the restaurant at Westbourne Grove was very popular.  Food would be delivered by Deliveroo from Cote whether the off-sales aspect of the application was granted or not.  She also made the point that most of Deliveroo’s delivery people made their journeys via bicycles as the delivery destinations were within a two mile radius of Cote restaurant.  The intention was to commence off-sales on 15 August if the application was granted.  Ms Jung referred to the off-sales comprising a limited range of wines and beers.  A bottle of wine would cost between £16 and £34 and beer would cost approximately £4 a bottle. 

Ms Jung informed Members that there was a limited time for Deliveroo to deliver to external customers and they would have to leave the premises as soon as the order was ready.  The alcohol would not be consumed on the streets.  She commented that there are currently four branches of Cote which provide off-sales and the alcohol was a small percentage of the sales.  She was of the view that there would not be a significant impact on the Queensway/Bayswater Cumulative Impact Area which she believed was reflected in the withdrawal of Environmental Health’s and the Police’s representations.

Ms Jung also looked to address concerns regarding the potential for underage sales of alcohol. She stated that Deliveroo had robust procedures and training.  A condition was being proposed which had been discussed with residents prior to the hearing that online menus would state that alcohol was not for sale to customers under the age of 18.  By placing an order for alcoholic products, the customers were declaring that they were 18 or over.  Identification would be requested from anyone who appeared to look under the age of 25.  Ms Jung added that there would be a refund if this could not be provided.

Ms Jung referred to the other conditions agreed with the Police and discussed with the residents prior to the hearing.  A condition agreed with the Police was that ‘there shall be no off sales of alcohol after 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 22:30 on Sundays’.  Following discussions with the residents, the terminal hour for off-sales on Bank Holidays would also be 22:30.  A condition was also proposed that no beers stronger than 5.5% would be sold for delivery.

Ms Jung made the additional point that the Applicant had limited control over those not employed by Cote.  She stressed that there should not be a condition that the Applicant controlled the actions of the delivery people of other companies.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee as to whether it would be possible for all deliveries to take place by bicycle rather than motor vehicles such as motorbikes in order to minimise public nuisance, she replied that whilst the majority of deliveries would be via bicycle, it was not possible for Cote to control this.  Members made Ms Jung and her clients aware that in general residents in the borough did have concerns regarding noise being created by delivery companies.

The Sub-Committee requested clarification on what entrance at Cote the Deliveroo drivers would use to pick up the deliveries. Members were informed that the entrance that was scheduled to be used would be the main one on the corner of Westbourne Grove and Hereford Road.  An alternative entrance would involve the delivery people going through a residents’ entrance which it was felt would cause too much disruption to the residents.  The transport used by Deliveroo would be parked outside for a limited period of time.  Bicycles were likely to be parked on the pavement in the vicinity of the tree.  The Cote manager would see the delivery person outside and give them the customer’s order.  The aim would be that the delivery person would not be outside for more than a minute or so.

Mr Brown addressed the Members of the Sub-Committee.  He stated that local residents had two specific issues.  Firstly there were the logistics of the delivery collections referred to in the representations.  There had been incidents noted there of noise from delivery companies. Secondly there were concerns relating to age verification when the alcohol was delivered.  It was accepted that Cote was a good company but the delivery of alcohol was provided by a third party company who themselves are served by third party delivery people.  It was very difficult for Cote to have any control over this situation.  Mr Brown confirmed that conditions had been discussed in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application including the wording on online menus that alcohol will not be sold to those under the age of 18 and that there would be no off sales after specific times including 22:30 on Bank Holidays.

Ms Sampson explained that she was speaking in her capacity as Co-Chairman of the Hereford Road Association which had over 100 members and as a Director of Hereford Mansions Residents Association where there were 17 flats.  There was a mix of families, sheltered housing and older people in the neighbourhood.  She stated that residents needed their sleep and it was clear that the Hereford Road area was getting noisier.  Ms Sampson commented that she went to Cote a lot and it was a very good restaurant but there were concerns relating to the current application.  The locality had a lot of noise from traffic including motorbikes and talking during deliveries.  She was keen to preserve some tranquility in Hereford Road.

Mr Zamit, Chairman, South East Bayswater Residents’ Association, stated that he agreed that Cote was well run.  He made the point however that there was always the potential that the Applicant could sell the premises given the high rent.  It was 98 Westbourne Grove which would be licensed if the application was granted not Cote or Deliveroo.  Another company could end up having the ability to deliver alcohol externally.  He believed it was necessary to attach strict conditions when alcohol could be delivered with food.  Mr Zamit expressed concerns that to the north of the premises there was a dedicated loading bay and this could be used as a congregation area for delivery companies, particularly those riding motorcycles.  He had seen an increasing use of motorcycles by delivery companies.  He was also concerned about alcohol possibly being accessible to those under the age of 18.

In response to the concerns raised by residents and the question of the Sub-Committee as to whether the Applicant could as a customer of Deliveroo influence the behaviour of Deliveroo drivers, Ms Jung explained that the most Cote could do (currently Cote was trialling delivering via Deliveroo at four premises) was speak to Deliveroo to encourage the delivery people not to congregate in the loading bay area and also use bicycles where possible.  Mr Bridge stated that the company would be open to trying to influence Deliveroo’s delivery methods in the future in the event the partnership expanded as envisaged.    

Mr Brown recommended that in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant, a condition should be attached that the Applicant should use best endeavours to encourage those delivering not to congregate.  If the Applicant/ licence holder used due diligence and another party caused issues the Applicant / licence holder would not be prosecuted.

Ms Jung advised Mr Panto prior to the Sub-Committee taking a decision that her client was minded to withdraw the application should Members wish to impose a condition that the Applicant be made responsible for the actions of Deliveroo delivery people.  Members made it known that their key concern was the use of motorcycles causing public nuisance.  They explored with the Applicant whether a ‘best endeavours’ condition would be acceptable.  It was appreciated by the Sub-Committee that the Applicant did not want potential criminal liability for the actions of Deliveroo delivery people.  Ms Jung responded that her client would accept a ‘reasonable endeavours’ condition.  Mr Brown informed the Sub-Committee that this wording was acceptable to local residents. 

In granting the application, the Sub-Committee attached an additional condition that ‘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 Sub-Committee considered that the conditions, including those agreed with the Police and discussed with the residents, would promote the licensing objectives. 

2.

To add condition

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant had agreed to amend the proposed condition at the request of Metropolitan Police to ‘Sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers only and supplied with and ancillary to a take away meal for delivery only’.  The Police and Environmental Health withdrew their representations following the Applicant’s agreement of this proposed amendment.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).