Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that additional papers had been circulated from the applicant and the licensee.  A two second video had also been circulated which members had viewed and was shown to the licensee’s representative at the meeting so that he could verify whether he had received it. Late evidence submitted by the applicant had not been circulated.

The applicant stated that the submissions were clear in the papers that had been submitted and he did not propose to go into any further detail.

In response to questions, the applicant stated that there had been no change in behaviour since the review had been submitted.  He had been woken up this morning at 3am when somebody had been listening to music outside the door of Zapp.  He considered that the area was not suited to having riders gathering and it was clear that riders were going in and out keeping residents awake. It was not just him but other residents too who had experienced this. He understood that the riders were not just there for alcohol sales but for other grocery goods, and these would not be subject to a licence, but he stated that he didn’t know what else to do in order to live a peaceful life in a residential area and he had no option but to ask for a licence review.  He did not consider that meetings with the premises would be meaningful.  He had a better dialogue with the manager who had confirmed that, as the riders were not direct employees, there was only so much they could do. The riders stayed outside as they needed to be within a certain distance of the premises to get a delivery.  He stated that the riders wore their helmets and talked loudly and listened to music. The noise was amplified now that the Green had been concreted. There may be 6-18 riders outside so it was noisy.  There may be petrol engines but this was not often. He stated that the security guard had not said anything to the riders about the noise level. The riders loitered waiting for their next job.  People walking through felt intimidated by the riders. He had raised the issue of riders congregating outside with Zapp, the manager and to the sub-contractors.

The Licensing Authority advised that her representation was on page 28 of the agenda.  He stated that the review was submitted in June when there were issues but since that time visits had indicated a good level of compliance. Engagement had been taken on board and there had been a positive effect. There were three conditions proposed but these had not yet been accepted. In response to a question about a visit on the 13 September where there were 9 drivers congregating on the Green the Licensing Authority stated that the licensing objective of public nuisance was being upheld on that occasion. Complaints would need to be lodged by residents for officers to respond to and there had been no complaints made since July.

The Police stated that they had put in their representation due to an unpleasant incident recorded in February 2023.  There were no comments from him in terms of crime and disorder and he did not consider that great weight should be given to the incident as it was a one off and there was nothing to link the incident to the venue.

The Community Safety Team stated that this area became a hotspot location in June following complaints. This area was monitored but no gatherings were witnessed and no further complaints were received through anti-social behaviour reporting channels. The officer offered the applicant the opportunity for the noise to be measured within their premises, but this offer was not taken up and so there was no opportunity to investigate further. Officers would need to investigate complaints from residents in order that they be independently verified.

The licensee’s representative stated that a notice had been put up on the premises inviting people to contact the premises where there were issues. They had not received any communications from other residents and no increase in complaints following the submission of the review.  There was a new manager who had been in charge of the premises since June 2024. Difficult measures had been taken and the area outside was now supervised over the 24-hour period. Regarding the crime and disorder incident the rider was unidentified and may not have been connected to the premises.  Riders on e-bikes or pedal bikes tended not to wear helmets but could wear balaclavas.

Photos circulated by the applicant were not date or time stamped and could not necessarily be attributed to the premises. Riders using motorised vehicles would be turned away. There were two deliveries to the premises each day. With regard to toilet facilities, it was noted that should drivers wish to use the toilet facilities they would need to be chaperoned through the premises as this was a shared facility.  This was not practical. They had questioned three of the riders and they had stated that they made their own arrangements when they needed to use toilet facilities. There had been clear improvement after a glut of complaints and since July officers had no complaints to report. They had offered a meeting with residents and had tried to engage but this had not been accepted.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the representative stated that it was fair to say that there had been a difficult transition when moving to using third party delivery providers. When riders were employed in-house, they could be better policed and could access the building to use the toilet. He did not accept that there were large groups of riders at 3am. He stated that this was unlikely as there were not enough orders at that time. It may be that the riders were collecting from other venues. There would be no reason for riders to hang around for hours waiting for a one-off order in the early hours. The new manager had streamlined the process and deliveries away and inbound were very quick. They could only police the immediate vicinity. They were aware of their responsibilities and welcomed further dialogue with the applicant. He stated that if riders were in breach of their conditions, they would not be able to take the order.  They could also report riders to the third party and ask them to be taken off the Zapp account. They held weekly meetings with couriers and companies worked with them to ensure that there was no disturbance. Deliveries to the premises could not yet be carried out by non-motorised vehicles. Deliveries were made up of all household goods. Alcohol was not a large proportion of deliveries overnight. Over the course of a day there may be 300 deliveries and around 35% would contain alcohol. There was only one resident that had complained and there was a sign on their door that contained their email address and phone number. They would want to fix issues and welcomed meetings with residents and found them to be productive. The representative stated that he would be surprised if residents did not know what was in the building. The review must be based on the Zapp operation and not other delivery operations in the Borough. The licensee’s representative stated that the first two conditions proposed by the Licensing Authority were accepted but not the toilet condition for the reasons previously outlined.

In summary, the applicant stated that he could provide photos which were date and time stamped. He said that some riders caused a disturbance at night which kept him awake and which could be avoided if they waited away from residential premises.  He had spoken to riders who had tweaked their bikes to enable them to go faster. He and his partner had witnessed this and considered this behaviour would increase.

The Licensing Authority welcomed the acceptance of the two conditions. Any actions would need to be evidence based and if residents were affected, incidents needed to be logged in order to build up a record which officers could assess and monitor.

Community Safety stated that there had been no further complaints since July.  If there were incidents these could have been investigated if reported.

The licensee’s representative stated that a review was a weapon of last resort. The applicant had been invited to meet but this offer had not been taken up. Based on national guidance the Sub-Committee should take steps considered appropriate and there was no call for suspension or revocation. Two additional conditions had been agreed and this warning was accepted.  Liaison was still welcomed with the applicant and other neighbours.

RESOLVED

That the conditions of the licence in respect of Zapp, 2-7 Clerkenwell Close, EC1R 0DE be modified as follows:-

Conditions 1 and 2 as detailed on the agenda shall be applied to the licence with the following amended condition 3 and additional condition:-

·       Delivery riders be allowed to use a toilet facility within the premises.

·       That a sign be displayed on the outside of the premises providing a contact number and email address in the event of any complaints.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

This was a review brought by a local resident. Two other local residents had submitted representations in support of the review and there were three representations from responsible authorities being the Licensing Authority, Police and Community Safety.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the applicant that the riders used by the delivery platforms contracted by the premises were causing various issues for residents, in particular, noise when large numbers of riders congregated outside the premises. There were also issues of riders using the church yard as a toilet, blocking the pavement, drinking alcohol and smoking and talking loudly. The applicant stated that residents were disturbed late at night by the noise and sometimes felt intimidated by the numbers of drivers loitering. The applicant referred to an incident in February 2023 when he was assaulted by one of the delivery riders. There were also issues with deliveries to the premises which occurred before 8am and blocked the pavement. The applicant confirmed that the licensees had offered to meet with residents, but the applicant did not take up this offer as he was concerned that the meetings would not be meaningful.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Licensing Authority that the licensees had engaged with the Licensing Authority and there appeared to be a good level of compliance since visits to the premises in June 2024. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Police confirming that an incident had been reported in February 2023 but that the Police had nothing further to add regarding crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from Community Safety that in June 2024 the area was designated as an ASB hotspot, meaning that various officers were tasked with visiting the area to check for ASB. There was no evidence of issues from July onwards. Officers offered to set up mediation, but this was not accepted by the applicant. Officers offered to go to the applicants’ house to listen for noise nuisance but this was not accepted.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensee that the premises recently employed a new manager who had gone to extraordinary lengths to improve the operation of the business. 24 hour supervision had been put in place outside the premises to keep the outside area clean and noise to a minimum. The licensee’s representative submitted that there was no evidence linking the behaviour complained of to the premises, in particular the photographs provided did not show nuisance being caused by the premises and had no dates or times on them. The representative confirmed that delivery riders are not permitted to use the toilet on the premises as riders would have to be chaperoned. However, the licensees had interviewed three riders who confirmed that they had never seen a rider use the churchyard as a toilet. The licensee’s representative pointed out that there had been no complaints since July. They had tried to engage with the applicant as they wanted to sit with him and hear what he had to say, but he would not engage with them. The representative confirmed that two of the three conditions proposed by the Licensing Authority had been accepted. The representative confirmed that there is a sign on the door of the premises with an email address.

The Sub-Committee noted that there was no evidence of complaints being made to the premises, to the Police, or to the Licensing Authority since July 2024. The Sub-Committee also noted that a proportion of the deliveries did not contain alcohol and so did not constitute a licensable activity. The Sub-Committee concluded that the addition of extra conditions would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee added to the licence the two conditions agreed by the licensee with a further condition to ensure that residents would always know who to contact at the premises in the event of further issues, and a condition that the premises should provide toilet facilities to riders.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the addition of these conditions was proportionate and appropriate to the promotion of the licensing objectives.