Agenda item

Report of the Director for Public Protection and Licensing

3.1      The report was introduced by Kerry Simpkin, Licensing Team Manager.  He referred to the growing ‘gig’ economy in London and elsewhere in the country.  One of the issues which had arisen in more recent times, particularly in Westminster, related to the delivery of food and drink from restaurant or takeaway premises.  The impact which resulted from this included public nuisance, anti-social behaviour, litter being discarded and parking offences and general poor behaviour on the part of delivery drivers.  The Licensing Service had been looking at identifying and addressing some of the issues which were associated with this growing market.    

3.2      Mr Simpkin explained that whilst the Licensing Service had a role to play in this process there were limitations to what could be requested of licence holders under the terms of the Licensing Act 2003.  For instance the sale of hot food and hot drink (late night refreshment) was only licensable between 23:00 and 05:00 hours.  It was also the case that a lot of deliveries were carried out by unlicensed operators.  There was greater scope for controls over the activities of licence holders in respect of the delivery of off sales as the hours for off sales were not restricted in the same way as late night refreshment.

3.3      Mr Simpkin referred to the proposed stepped approach by the Licensing Service and other Council departments.  These included looking at the locations where the issues were most severe and the extent of these issues.  Once the evidence was obtained, there would then be engagement with the operators offering deliveries and in the event they used third party delivery companies there would also be discussions with them.  The aim was that agreement would be reached as to how these operations should proceed in the borough.  This could involve small changes in operation such as relocating staging areas for riders/drivers away from residential areas.  The Licensing Service was working with local residential problem solvers and the Council’s Planning department who were looking at planning uses.

3.4      Mr Simpkin added that the Licensing Service was investigating how best to address the environmental factors raised by the delivery vehicles including noise and emissions and to encourage a movement towards low emission vehicles. 

3.5      The views of the Committee were sought.  The Chairman referred to the signs of success of the new anti-idling action campaign which drivers had begun to comply with.  She also made the point that the younger demographic had often expressed interest in environmental issues.  This she believed was an opportunity for the delivery companies’ apps or websites to provide greener options where deliveries would be by bicycle, foot or electric vehicles rather than by mopeds and motorbikes.  Some delivery companies were setting up kitchens in industrial areas.  This could potentially reduce the amount of mileage that the third party delivery companies were travelling, and engagement with such companies should start.

3.6      Councillor Floru raised the issue of the operators saying at Sub-Committee hearings that they could not adhere to Members’ or residents’ requests about using bicycles or electric vehicles for deliveries because they had no control over the third party delivery companies.  He expressed the view that there needed to be a pan-Westminster approach.  Councillor Scarborough commented that the problem was not simply noise but also delivery motorbikes in residents’ parking bays and also whilst deliveries of food and drink was part of the problem, there were plenty of other companies who were delivering items at times which caused nuisance to residents.  Councillor Prendergast raised the point that the deliveries caused irritation to residents because the drivers/riders did not always know the location destination and rang doorbells, waking up people in flats.  Councillor Mitchell recommended that discussions took place with landlords who could influence tenants that were operating licensed premises and signing up to providing deliveries.

3.7       Members had some concerns about the feasibility of the proposed stepped approach.  Councillor Burbridge stated that there had been similar discussions with delivery services in her ward (Lancaster Gate) and the approach was not working.  She believed that it was known what the problems were such as the number of motorbikes on the road, the noise they make and the litter which is discarded and also where the problems were particularly acute.  She recommended encouraging operators to run their own delivery businesses and have a greater interest in respecting the needs of the community rather than depending on third party delivery companies.  Councillor Acton was of the view that planning options needed to be investigated more thoroughly.  She took the view that it was not sufficient to look only at where the problems were most severe because they were not restricted to where the delivery vehicles congregated or set off from but the journeys that the noisy motorbikes were taking, such as down backstreet mews.  She referred to officers having previously talked to third party delivery companies and that the companies were not changing their style of operation.  Councillor Acton concurred with the Chairman that the users of the service were made aware of the adverse impact it was having, including on the environment.

3.8      Councillor Caplan believed it was unfair and opportunistic for such restrictions to be placed purely on companies who were applying for new premises licences.  There were many companies who were providing deliveries who were not affected as they were not applying for the licences.  He believed it was known where the areas were acute and that it is a city wide issue.  He did not believe the stepped approach would work.  He believed more could be achieved via the planning regime than the licensing one.  The Council had to be clearer what it wanted to achieve on this issue, including whether it supported legislation.  It needed to be made easy for the public to do the right thing if they were to choose ‘greener’ delivery methods.

3.9       Councillor Gassanly spoke about the need to better understand the delivery industry.  He had had discussions with third party Deliveroo cyclists.  They had informed him that they planned to buy motorbikes in order to be able to carry out more deliveries as they earnt more money on the basis of the number of deliveries made as self-employed individuals.

3.10    The Chairman and Councillor Acton emphasised the need for the Council’s Communications Team to develop a strategy which could reflect the adverse impact of environmental pollution and mental health from the increased use of vehicles on the road and also that the use of motorcycles risked the safety of inexperienced delivery riders.  There had been two deaths of Deliveroo motorcycle riders.  This was related to how the company structured the rewards.  Councillor Scarborough said that she was agreeable to the idea of lobbying for legislation but that it was important that as a result of the communications strategy the Council was not presented as being anti-business.  The Chairman was keen to emphasise that the Council, the operators and the third party delivery companies encouraged good business practices.

3.11    Barry Panto, Senior Assistant Solicitor, advised that if firms were undermining the licensing objectives when delivering alcohol or hot food or hot drink by for instance causing public nuisance, there was the option to review the premises licence.  There was then the potential for appropriate conditions to be attached to the licence or for the hours of the delivery to be restricted.  Any such review was likely to be noted by similar companies.

3.12    Annette Acik, Head of Licensing, stated that officers were very mindful of the fact that there were colleagues in other service areas who deal more with anti-social behaviour or public nuisance issues and the Licensing Service were linking up with them.  This would enable them to identify the problematic premises and obtain the evidence which could be used for a review of a premises licence.  It would take time to do down any legislative route.  It was a developing picture and officers needed to be managed in the best way possible.

3.13    The Chairman requested that the Licensing Service further investigate all the policy strands available in responding to the issues raised by deliveries of off-sales and hot food and hot drink.  She added that there needed to be a communications strategy in place and also discussions take place with operators and the third party delivery companies to encourage good healthy business practices rather than continuing to pursue an approach which impacts adversely on health. 

3.14    RESOLVED: (i) That the Licensing Service further investigate all the policy strands available in responding to the issues raised by food and drink delivery services and, in consultation with the Chairman, bring a paper with recommendations to the next meeting of the Licensing Committee; and,

            (ii) That a communications strategy on the issue of food and drink delivery services be developed by the Communications Team, in consultation with the Chairman and the Licensing Service.