Agenda and minutes

Street Trading

16/06838/LIIS (Pitch 1612) – Villiers Street, WC2

16/06838/LIIS (Pitch 1736) – Villiers Street, WC2

Applications adjourned prior to the hearing.

Co-Operative, 4 Merchant Square, W2

17/08350/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

This was an application by a convenience store to sell groceries, sundry items and alcohol for consumption off the premises. The Sub-Committee granted the application, subject to conditions as set out below.

Prior to the hearing the Applicant had agreed proposed conditions with Environmental Health, South East Bayswater Residents’ Association and Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society.  They had all subsequently withdrawn their representations as the Applicant had addressed their concerns.

Following the withdrawal of the representations, Councillor Floru’s representation, submitted in his capacity as a ward councillor, was the sole remaining one.  The Sub-Committee considered that the Applicant had addressed the concerns set out in his written representation including amending the proposed hours for off-sales to Core Hours.  The Applicant had also agreed to ensure that there were no sales of super strength beer or cider above 5.5% or miniatures of alcohol.  There would also be no self-service of spirits.  A Challenge 25 scheme would be in operation at all times.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application, with the proposed conditions attached to the premises licence, would promote the licensing objectives.

2.

Hours premises are open to the public

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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).

Chutney Mary, 72-73 St James’s Street, SW1

17/09962/LIPV

1.

Condition being varied

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The existing premises licence for Chutney Mary enabled the Applicant to operate the premises as a restaurant (in keeping with the Council’s model restaurant condition) except for a maximum of 20 seated customers being permitted to have alcohol (served by waiter/waitress) without food until 19:30 each day in a hatched area set out in the plan.  The Applicant was now seeking to extend the supply of alcohol without food in an extended hatched area until 22:00 each day (served by waiter/waitress) and to a maximum of 30 seated customers.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Baylis, representing the Applicant.  He described Chutney Mary at St James’s Street as a high end restaurant which has an average spend of £90 per head.  He stated that his client had no intention of turning the premises into a bar.  Chutney Mary was indeed more commercially viable as a restaurant.  There had been the option for customers to be able to have a drink without food at the premises until 19:30 for the last six months or so and no issues had arisen for local residents. 

Mr Baylis referred to e-mail correspondence with a local resident which had been submitted to the Sub-Committee.  This was in order to demonstrate that the Applicant was in dialogue with local residents.  Local residents, including the resident whose email correspondence had been forwarded to the Sub-Committee, had objected to a previous application in 2016 to enable up to 30 seated customers to be able to consume alcohol  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Unit 4 – Happy Bar And Grill, Trocadero, 13 Coventry Street, W1

17/08106/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms Tricker, representing the Applicant.  She informed the Sub-Committee that off-sales of alcohol had been withdrawn from the application.  Ms Tricker also referred to the premises operating in keeping with the Council’s model restaurant condition, MC66.  The food provided included chicken seafood, pasta and meat.  There was a holding bar at the premises.  However, alcohol could only be consumed there prior to a meal.  There would be no vertical drinking and no regulated entertainment at the premises.

Ms Tricker stated that there were few residents in the vicinity of the premises and that no residents had objected to the application.  The Applicant as a tenant would be required to minimise any noise due to user clauses in the lease.  There would be hotel bedrooms on the upper floor.

The Applicant had agreed proposed conditions with Environmental Health and the Metropolitan Police and the two Responsible Authorities had subsequently withdrawn their representations.  The remaining representation was from the Licensing Authority.  Ms Tricker said that one of the proposed conditions Environmental Health had agreed with the Applicant was a capacity of 430 for the premises.

Ms Tricker made the point that the proposed terminal hour of 01:00 Monday to Saturday and midnight on Sunday was sought for the restaurant in the West End Cumulative Impact Area in order to accommodate customers post theatre as well as prior to a performance.  She mentioned the Council’s policy on restaurants, including that it was recognised that restaurants have little association with crime and disorder.  Also, the Police had not maintained their representation.

The Sub-Committee asked for clarification regarding the proposed numbers in the holding bar area.  Ms Tricker replied that the requested number was 25 people which she added was less than 5% of the total capacity.  It was possible to have a meal at the bar area.  The concept was to give diners some flexibility.

Ms Tricker commented that customers were likely to leave when the meal was finished.  This she believed would mean that there would be a gradual dispersal of customers so that they would not all leave at 01:00.  Ms Tricker also expressed the view that the application would not add to cumulative impact. It was the Applicant’s aim to attract people who were already within the Cumulative Impact Area, including post theatre customers.  They  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.