Agenda item

La Goccia, The Petersham & The Deli, King Street, Covent Garden

17/03369/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

This was an application for a new premises licence to operate two restaurants and a delicatessen (‘deli’) within the King’s Court development.  Mr Hicks informed the Sub-Committee that there was on site security at all times and there was a sizeable cleaning team there.  The Capital and Counties development also had its own CCTV system.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Hicks advised that the external courtyard was in the region of 2000 square feet.  Mr Thomas added that it was intended to have external seating in the courtyard for the two restaurants with a capacity of 30 for both of these areas.  The external tables and chairs would be rendered unusable at 23:00 each day.  Mr Hicks was also able to provide the information that the gated courtyard area would be closed from 00:30 to 06:00.  Mr Thomas stated that this would mean that the restaurants would have to vacate at 00:30 and that this would prevent anti-social behaviour within the area.  It was explained to the Sub-Committee that there would be retail units and residential units within the mixed development, including in a building above the restaurant.  Mr Hicks said the strategy for the residential units were likely to be decided after the summer.

Mr Mir provided the Sub-Committee with some background information setting out the vision on the three premises which were the subject of the application.  In respect of the Petersham restaurant, Petersham Nurseries had started as an operating garden centre in Richmond.  A tea house had been added there and then a restaurant with a top chef, Skye Gyngell and then a retail store.  It was the aim to run an a la carte restaurant in Covent Garden along the same lines as Petersham Nurseries.  Mr Mir explained that there are three fundamental principles in relation to the operation.  It cares about nature, the origins of the goods and also having a relaxed aesthetic.  Mr Mir also spoke about La Goccia restaurant and the deli, the other premises being featured in the application which were all under the same ownership.  La Goccia was intended to be a family friendly, open all day operation which would offer a menu of Italian small plates.  The deli would have Italian products including pastas and cheeses. 

Mr Thomas addressed the Sub-Committee on the requirements for the three individual premises.  Off sales only were being sought for the deli.  La Goccia and The Petersham were subject to the Council’s model restaurant condition, MC66.  Mr Thomas referred to off sales for the three premises commencing at 08:00 which is in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy Monday to Saturday.  In respect of the on-sales commencement hours, Mr Thomas commented that an earlier start time (08:00 had been applied for in respect of the three premises) was often granted for restaurants where alcohol such as champagne or a Bloody Mary was ancillary to a table meal as it was in this case.

Mr Thomas referred to an area of dispute between the Applicant and the parties objecting to the application being the terminal hour for alcohol of midnight Monday to Thursday which is half an hour beyond Core Hours.  He commented that he was of the view the Applicant was within policy in terms of the use as the La Goccia and The Petersham are restaurants, notwithstanding that they are located in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  The proposed terminal hour for late night refreshment and closing time was 00:30 Monday to Saturday.  The proposed closing time on Sunday was 23:00.

Mr Thomas said that the Responsible Authorities had initially made a representation because the Applicant had proposed to have the Council’s Model Condition 38 on the premises licence.  He had met officers and also Mr Kaner of Covent Garden Community Association.  The Applicant had now offered the full restaurant condition MC66.  He made the point that there is a holding bar. However, this could only be used prior to consuming a meal and customers would have to be seated.  There would be a maximum of 30 people in the bar area.

Mr Thomas referred to Mr Nicholson’s written representation and his objection to the lateness of the closing time.  Mr Nicholson had expressed concerns about intoxicated customers and Mr Thomas remarked on this point that there were no such issues at the Petersham Nurseries restaurant in Richmond and it was unlikely to happen at the London restaurant.  Mr Nicholson had also expressed concerns that the application would set a precedent for bars in the neighbourhood who would want to increase their hours.  Mr Thomas responded at the hearing that all applications were considered on their merits and the Sub-Committee was unlikely to grant an application for a bar down the road as a result of this application being granted.  Mr Thomas stated that when he had met Mr Kaner, Mr Kaner was largely content with the application but wanted to ensure procedures regarding deliveries were in place.

Mr Thomas took the Sub-Committee through the updated proposed conditions.  These included that off-sales from the deli area would only be permitted from 08:00 to 23:00 on Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 22:30 on Sundays which was in keeping with Core Hours.  He advised the Sub-Committee that there was a servicing plan under the planning permission.  It was now proposed that there would be no deliveries, movement of waste or recyclable materials, including bottles and also collections of waste or recyclable materials, including bottles between 23:00 and 07:30.  Mr Thomas added that Mr Kaner had requested that these did not take place between 20:00 and 08:00 but this was not acceptable to the Applicant. 

Mr Thomas confirmed that it was not proposed that there would be any takeaway, which is set out in MC66 and was included elsewhere in the proposed conditions.  He explained that he had included a works condition in the proposed conditions to take into account the phased opening of the three premises in the application.  The Sub-Committee was advised that the deli would open first in September 2017 and the restaurants following suit in December 2017.  He suggested that as the works progressed, the plans would be updated to show the areas that were ready and those that were not ready to operate.  The whole area was hatched black at the moment as it was not ready to operate. When the deli was signed off, the hatching would be removed from the plan.  When the restaurants were ready, the hatching there would be removed from the plan.

Mr Thomas wished to address the Sub-Committee on the Council’s policy.  He said that he anticipated that the Responsible Authorities’ representations would refer to the hours for licensable activities being later than Core Hours Monday to Thursday and in respect of the opening times.  It was the Applicant’s case that restaurants in the main caused much less impact than other types of uses such as pubs and nightclubs.  He took the view that restaurants in the Council’s policy were generally encouraged and the Sub-Committee was more likely to be minded to grant beyond Core Hours.  He referred to transport being accessible via the Covent Garden underground station.  Only background music was played.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Thomas and Mr Mir a number of questions.  Mr Mir was asked whether the food offer was similar to Petersham Nurseries.  He replied that the food offer was bespoke to the King Street site.  However, it would be the same calibre of food and sustainable.  Mr Thomas and Mr Mir were asked about the access between the three premises.  Mr Thomas advised that it was possible to go between the two restaurants.  The holding bar existed for both restaurants.  All the servicing and back of house facilities were shared.  Mr Mir stated that he was looking to replicate the customer experience in Richmond – where there were two complimentary offers.  The Petersham restaurant could be accessed from Floral Street.  The holding bar was next to La Goccia but could be used for the Petersham.  La Goccia could be accessed from King Street or Floral Street either via the alley or through the retail store.  Both restaurants could also be accessed via the courtyard.  In terms of the deli, Mr Thomas informed the Sub-Committee that it could be accessed via King Street or the courtyard or indirectly via Floral Street.  Mr Thomas was asked about the security in relation to the restaurants.  He replied that there were members of staff.  It was confirmed that there wereno SIA security staff because La Goccia and the Petersham were restaurants.  The Petersham was more likely to be booked rather than customers walking in on the off chance.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Thomas and Mr Mir whether there was any intention to have takeaway deliveries from the premises which could potentially cause nuisance to local residents.  Mr Mir replied that there was no intention to have an arrangement with an external company for takeaway deliveries. 

The Sub-Committee heard from the Responsible Authorities.  PC Lewis stated that the Police had maintained their representation as the hours were beyond the Council’s Core Hours in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  There were not any specific concerns in respect of crime and disorder. 

Ms Thomas on behalf of the Council’s Environmental Health department (“EH”) confirmed that her representation was based on the premises being located in the West End Cumulative Impact Area and proposed hours being later than Core Hours.  She referred to MC66 having been proposed and that the holding bar did have controls with customers only drinking there prior to a substantial table meal at either of the two restaurants and having to be seated.  Ms Thomas asked Mr Thomas whether there was any plan to use the holding bar prior to a meal between 08:00 and 10:00 Monday to Sunday.  He replied that it was unlikely to be a problem for the Applicant if the holding bar was not used prior to 10:00. 

Ms Thomas also referred to there being no takeaway after 23:00 and no regulated entertainment.  The Sub-Committee was advised that the courtyard would not be used for licensable activities after 23:00 and any alcohol consumed there would be ancillary to a substantial table meal.

Mr Sycamore for the Licensing Authority drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the fact that there was an overall capacity proposed in excess of 300 people.  Even though Mr Thomas had sought to describe what was available in terms of transport and Capital and Counties security, it was still the case that a substantial number of people would be leaving the premises and dispersing into the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  The Applicant needed to justify that the application including the two restaurants would not add to cumulative impact.  Mr Sycamore referred to paragraph 2.5.14 of the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy setting out that ‘new restaurant premises will generally be granted the core hours’. It was for the Sub-Committee to consider whether any hours should be granted beyond core hours.  He welcomed that MC66 was now being proposed as a condition and that off-sales would now be in keeping with core hours. Mr Sycamore requested that the holding bar should be core hours which would encourage people to wind down.  He also queried whether the deli complied with policy.

Mr Thomas provided clarification that the entire capacity was 330 people.  This took into account La Goccia Restaurant 120 (plus 30 in the holding bar), The Petersham Restaurant 120 and two external areas for the restaurants each with a capacity of 30.  This was believed to be more than the 300 permitted for planning and it would also be necessary to look at whether this was acceptable given the number of toilets.      

Mr Thomas was given the opportunity to respond to the comments of the Responsible Authorities.  He stated that the amended proposed hours for the deli were within core hours.  The holding bar was within policy as it was being used prior to a meal.  Given that the holding bar had to be used prior to customers consuming a substantial table meal the Applicant would not object to the holding bar being restricted to core hours.

A discussion ensued between Mr Sycamore and Mr Thomas as to whether the holding bar was separate from the restaurant and not compliant with Policy RNT2 (restaurants within the cumulative impact areas).  Mr Wroe identified that there was some confusion with the amended condition 2 on the Applicant’s proposed conditions as it began with ‘notwithstanding condition 1’ (condition 1 being MC66.  However, Mr Wroe made the point that the indication from the Applicant at the hearing was that the holding bar was not a separate bar where customers could drink without food.  It would only be used by customers prior to having a substantial table meal at one of the two restaurants.  Mr Thomas confirmed that this was the intention of the Applicant.

After careful consideration of the application, the Sub-Committee granted terminal hours for the restaurants in line with the Council’s Core Hours for the application (the hours granted were late night refreshment 23:00 to 23:30 Monday to Thursday and 23:00 to midnight Friday and Saturday; for off sales 08:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 22:30 on Sunday; for on sales 10:00 to 23:30 Monday to Thursday, 10:00 to midnight Friday and Saturday and 10:00 to 22:30 on Sundays and for the opening hours 08:00 to 23:30 Monday to Thursday, 08:00 to midnight Friday and Saturday and 08:00 to 22:30 on Sundays).  The Sub-Committee also granted Core Hours for the deli which is in keeping with the amended hours proposed by the Applicant.

The Sub-Committee noted that as referred to by Mr Sycamore, the City Council’s policy is that new restaurant premises will generally be granted Core Hours.  The Sub-Committee had no reason to grant less than Core Hours as it appeared as though the premises were likely to be well run and managed, therefore promoting the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee did not grant the full hours applied for beyond Core Hours by the Applicant later in the evening as the Sub-Committee was not satisfied at this point in time that new premises with a substantial overall capacity of 330 would not add to cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.

The Sub-Committee also gave particular careful thought to the conditions. In relation to the holding bar, the Sub-Committee attached the condition that ‘Notwithstanding condition 1 (9 below), in the area hatched on the attached plan, alcohol may be supplied and consumed by up to a maximum of 30 persons who are seated and dining at the premises prior to their meal’.  The Council’s model capacity condition was amended so that ‘No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until the capacity of the premises has been determined by the Environmental Health Consultation Team and the licensing authority has replaced this condition on the licence with a condition detailing the capacity so determined.  Such capacity shall not exceed La Goccia Restaurant 120 (+30 in holding bar), The Petersham Restaurant 120 and two external areas for the restaurants 30 + 30’.

The Sub-Committee did not consider that it was necessary to have a condition which specifically reflected the phased opening of the three premises in the application.  A condition was therefore attached on the basis that ‘No licensable activities shall take place at the premises or part of the premises until the premises or part of the premises have been assessed as satisfactory by the Environmental Health Consultation Team at which time this condition shall be removed from the licence by the licensing authority’.  The Sub-Committee were also keen to introduce a condition which prevented takeaway deliveries, which Mr Mir had indicated that he did not wish to pursue as this was likely to cause nuisance in an already densely populated area.  The condition attached to the premises licence was ‘No delivery service of food or drink shall be provided from the premises’.

2.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant had agreed the Council’s model restaurant condition, MC66, for La Goccia and The Petersham restaurants.  The model restaurant condition sets out that there will be no off sales of alcohol after 23:00.  The Applicant had also proposed a condition that off-sales from the deli area would only be permitted from 08:00 to 23:00 on Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 22:30 on Sundays.  The terminal hour for off sales Monday to Saturday was therefore being amended to 23:00 throughout the site for the two restaurants and the deli.

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

The Sub-Committee granted 08:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 22:30 on Sunday for off-sales and 10:00 to 23:30 Monday to Thursday, 10:00 to midnight Friday and Saturday and 10:00 to 22:30 on Sundays for on-sales.

3.

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):

The Sub-Committee granted 08:00 to 23:30 Monday to Thursday, 08:00 to midnight Friday and Saturday and 08:00 to 22:30 on Sundays.