The Licensing Sub-Committee (3) of Westminster Council met on Thursday 12 February 2026 to consider two licensing applications. The meeting agenda included the determination of a new premises licence for Ku Kushi and a review of an existing premises licence for Al Balad.

Ku Kushi, 39 Great Windmill Street, London, W1D 7LX

The committee was scheduled to consider a new premises licence application for Ku Kushi, a restaurant proposing to operate as a Japanese dining complex with a contemporary twist, specialising in Yakitori cuisine. The applicant, Dpm Gordon Company Limited, sought authorisation for the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment. The application was noted to have considered Westminster City Council's Statement of Licensing Policy, including Core Policy CIP1 and the Core Hours Policy. The applicant had also proposed a number of conditions aimed at restricting the operation to that of a restaurant, including a capacity limit of 50 people.

Following consultation, the applicant had reduced the proposed opening hours by 30 minutes per day. The report pack detailed the proposed licensable activities and hours for late-night refreshment and the retail sale of alcohol, as well as the hours the premises would be open to the public.

Representations were received from the Metropolitan Police, Environmental Health Service, the Licensing Authority, and interested parties including The Soho Society. The Metropolitan Police initially made representations opposing the grant of the licence due to concerns about crime and disorder within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), but later withdrew their objection after the applicant agreed to remove a condition that would have allowed alcohol consumption in a bar area prior to a meal. Environmental Health raised concerns about potential increases in public nuisance and impacts on public safety within the CIZ, requesting further information on kitchen extract ventilation, sanitary accommodation, and sound insulation. The Licensing Authority also expressed concerns regarding the promotion of the four licensing objectives, particularly in relation to the premises' location within the West End CIZ. The Soho Society objected to the proposed closing times, arguing they fell outside the restaurant core hours policy and could negatively impact residents. A nearby resident also raised concerns about noise transmission through party walls.

The report pack outlined various policies from the City of Westminster Statement of Licensing Policy that applied to the application, including CIP1 (Cumulative Impact Policy), HRS1 (Core Hours Policy), and RNT1 (Restaurants Policy).

Al Balad, 11 Edgware Road, London, W2 2ER

The committee was also scheduled to consider a review of the premises licence for Al Balad, located at 11 Edgware Road, London, W2 2ER. The review application was submitted by the Home Office Immigration Enforcement Licensing Compliance Team (IELCT) on the grounds that the licence holder had allegedly failed to meet the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder, citing the identification of illegal working at the premises.

The premises licence, originally granted in 2005 to Donise Limited, permits the playing of recorded music, private entertainment, late-night refreshment, and the retail sale of alcohol. The application for review highlighted multiple enforcement visits by Immigration Enforcement between 2017 and October 2025, which identified numerous individuals working without the legal right to do so. These visits resulted in significant civil penalties issued to Donise Limited. The review application detailed instances of hostility and violent behaviour from staff members towards enforcement officers during a visit on 31 October 2025, which required police intervention.

Representations in support of the review were received from the Licensing Authority, the Metropolitan Police Service, and Environmental Health. The Licensing Authority's representation specifically referenced guidance on the prevention of immigration crime and the serious consideration that should be given to licence revocation in such cases. The Metropolitan Police also supported the review, expressing serious concerns about the prevention of crime and disorder and highlighting the persistent breaches of immigration rules and the aggressive behaviour encountered during enforcement visits. Environmental Health supported the review, noting the potential for public safety hazards for council officers due to the hostility encountered during enforcement visits. Two representations from interested parties were received objecting to the review, focusing on their personal experiences as customers and stating they had not witnessed crime, disorder, or public nuisance.

The report outlined the options available to the Licensing Sub-Committee upon determining the review, which included modifying licence conditions, excluding licensable activities, removing the designated premises supervisor, suspending the licence, or revoking the licence.

The appendices to the report pack included the application for review, the premises licence, representations from responsible authorities and interested parties, and supporting documents from the premises licence holder, including right-to-work compliance checks and a director's statement.