Agenda item

Kazu restaurants 1 Ltd, Basement and Ground Floor, 61-63 Beak Street, London, W1F 9SL

17/08781/LIPV

1.

Layout Alteration

The application seeks to vary the existing premises licences to incorporate the changes of layout. The changes include:

Ground Floor:

·         Reposition access to the basement level

·         Reconfiguration of fixed seating booths

·         Removal of central staircase

·         Inclusion of dispense bar counter and theatre kitchen counter

·         Reconfiguration of kitchen layout

Basement:

·         Reposition of WC facilities

·         Reconfiguration of fixed seating booths

·         Reconfiguration of back-of-house areas

·         Inclusion of theatre kitchen and counter

·         Inclusion of private dining room

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Kazu Restuarants 1 Ltd for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Basement and Ground Floor, 61-63 Beak Street, London, W1F 9SL.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the two applications submitted to the Sub-Committee, one for a new premises licence (17/06730/LIPN) and the second for a variation (17/08781/LIPV).

Following a discussion with all parties the Sub-Committee agreed to discuss both applications concurrently as the change in layout proposed in the variation application was the same for both applications.

Mr Thomas, representing the applicant, provided details of the layout change to the Sub-Committee. With regards to the variation Mr Thomas explained that it had not been dealt with by way of a minor variation due to objections received. If it was granted however the hours, capacity and all the current conditions on the licence would remain unchanged.

In terms of the new application, Mr Thomas highlighted that the change in layout proposed was exactly the same as the variation application. The application also proposed to extend the sale of alcohol and late night refreshment to core hours. It had originally been sought to permit a thirty minutes ‘drinking up’ time with regards to the opening hours but this had now been reduced in order to reflect the same hours permitted for licensable activities. If the application was granted the capacity of the premises would be reduced from 150 to 120 customers split over two floors. 60 customers would be located in the basement (an increase in capacity of 10 persons compared to the existing licence) and 60 on the ground floor (a decrease in capacity of 40 persons compared to the existing licence). Part of the application sought to refine the current conditions on the licence with no significant changes proposed. Several conditions had already been agreed with Environmental Health (EH) including the installation of a sound limiter at the premises and the surrender of the existing licence if the application was granted. The premises was not currently trading but a concept had been developed and the refurbishment works had commenced. The founder of the applicant company was Robin Lee a very experienced and renowned figure in the restaurant industry.

Mr Goldkorn, the Managing Director of the premises, highlighted how the restaurant would offer high-end Japanese cuisine where it was envisaged customers would spend approximately £60-£80 per person. It was not a casual, takeaway style operation and all customers would be seated at all times. The premises was situated on Beak Street which Mr Thomas explained had recently seen a significant increase in the number of restaurants operating in this area with, conversely, a notable reduction in the number of bars. The operation would provide customers with waiter/waitress service and the premises had been granted A3 planning permission. It would operate as a restaurant however restaurant model condition 66 did not fit into the style of operation intended as the ground floor area would allow customers to drink alcohol without food. As the plans highlighted however the premises would not resemble a bar. The applicant was just seeking to operate as a restaurant whilst allowing a degree of flexibility on the ground floor, as was currently permitted on the existing licence. Substantial sound proofing had been undertaken at the venue and efforts had been made to engage with stakeholders to discuss the application. Issues raised in the representations about the building works undertaken were planning issues and were not a matter for the Sub-Committee. The application was not seeking to change the hours the extract and plant equipment was in use which was currently permitted until 00:00 under the planning permission.

Mr Thomas highlighted that a representation had not been received from the Police and he addressed some of the concerns raised by the residents. The premises had been licenced for at least twenty years representing a historic licencing footprint. The previous operation had been a loud bar and this application constituted an improvement to residents as the nature of the premises would minimise any noise disruption experienced by them. Concerns over the change in the staircase had also been raised however the application was not seeking to change its location. Also any issues of odour would be controlled through the conditions proposed. The application was seeking to operate within core hours and due to the restaurant nature of the operation was less likely to add to cumulative impact. The Council’s Licensing Policy recognised that restaurants would have less impact on an area than bars or pubs. As the premises was proposing to vary its hours within core hours it was not necessary to prove the premises was an exception to Policy and its positive impact was reinforced through the proposed reduction in capacity and subsequent reduction in customers consuming alcohol.

Regarding the variation Mrs Fabbricatore, representing EH, stated that she was content with the toilet provision proposed. She had conducted a site visit and was satisfied with the means of escape available and the controls in place to ensure public safety. In terms of the new premises licence application the existing conditions and those proposed by EH, including a sound limiter condition, were considered appropriate. The reduction in capacity and the number of toilets proposed was also considered satisfactory. The premises had a full height extract system and no complaints had been received regarding this in the previous two years though it was recognised the premises had not been operating during this period. Proposed condition 26 prevented any odours emitting from the premises and this would help ensure it did not become a nuisance to residents. Once the premises did start operating if the extract proved a source of nuisance to residents then appropriate action would be taken by EH.

The Licensing Authority, represented by Mr Sycamore, confirmed the variation application was considered acceptable. In terms of the new premises licence application Mr Sycamore acknowledged that the basement area would have model restaurant condition 66 imposed on it and was therefore content that this aspect of the application was Policy compliant. However, the bar area on the ground floor which would allow customers to consume alcohol without food for a longer period of time was a concern and had been considered to come under Policy PB2. The Sub-Committee therefore had to decide whether reducing the capacity of the premises, bearing in mind it would allow sixty people to consume alcohol on the premises for longer, constituted an exception to Policy.

Mr Brown from the Westminster Citizens Advice Bureau, represented local residents many of which had been living in the area for twenty years. The premises was located below these residential properties and several areas of the application were a cause for concern. It was felt repositioning access to the basement next door to the residential staircase could create disturbance and it was queried whether the removal of the central staircase could result in more customers using the basement area. The plans detailed that there would be two theatre kitchens on the premises and this raised concerns over odours emanating from the extract. Clarification was also requested on whether the seating would be fixed as the plans stated that it was not fixed and indicative only. The application for the new licence was said to benefit residents as even though the hours of operation would increase the capacity would actually decrease, unfortunately the residents affected did not consider that this was a benefit. Noise disturbance was of particular concern; a sound limiter condition had been agreed with EH however it was questioned why if the premises was going to operate as a high class restaurant would such a condition be required.

In terms of policy Mr Brown explained the residents view that although the ground floor could currently operate as a bar it would have to cease operating by 23:00 hours which provided some comfort. If the hours were extended, then the churn of customers to a later hour could create the potential for more disturbance. Mr Brown outlined the main policy areas which were relevant to the application (and specifically drew the members’ attention to policy PN1 and paragraph 2.2.11 of the policy statement) and how the playing of music could cause nuisance. Smoking was also highlighted as a potential nuisance and no conditions had been proposed regarding this. In summary if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the change in layout the residents requested that the extension in hours be refused.

Mr Seghatchian, a local resident, explained how he had lived above the premises for a significant period of time. He detailed the challenges of living in Soho with a young family due to the noise from deliveries, noise from extract equipment and customers standing in the street talking until late in the evening. Currently there was comfort that customers would have to leave the premises by 23:30 but if this was extended, even by thirty minutes, would have a significant effect on residential amenity. With regards to the plans there was ambiguity over the existing stairwell and whether it would create more floor space for customers to congregate at the front of the building. Larger extract and plant equipment would be required to service the premises and this would be located close to Mr Seghatchian’s bedroom window which would cause disturbance, especially if the premises also opened at 08:00 hours. If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application a condition restricting customers smoking outside the premises was requested. Mr Seghatchian wanted the premises to succeed but the applicant had to appreciate the concerns of local residents.

Mr Franco, a local resident, was of the opinion that reducing the capacity of the premises did not mitigate the longer hours requested. People were the primary causes of noise at licenced premises and by allowing them to access the premises and congregate until later in the evening would increase disturbance to residents. The expected increase in odours and noise from extract equipment would also have a negative effect on residents’ amenity as their bedrooms were situated close to where the extract was located. If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application a condition ensuring all plant equipment met the Council’s noise guidelines should be imposed. The change in layout was also of concern as it moved the nexus of the restaurant closer to the residential communal areas. Mr Franco provided examples of the severe disturbance residents had already experienced from workmen refurbishing the premises.

Ms Harold, a local resident, informed the Sub-Committee that she had lived at the property for eighteen years. Ms Harold had formed a good relationship with the previous licence holders but since the current applicant had taken over she had experienced many problems, especially since the refurbishment of the premises had commenced. The longer hours requested would create further problems and the Sub-Committee was requested to refuse both applications.

The Council’s Policy Adviser noted that the current capacity of the venue was one hundred and fifty customers including staff; however, the proposed capacity was one hundred and twenty customers excluding staff. The proposed reduction was therefore potentially not as large as first appeared and the applicant was asked to address this issue. Mr Thomas explained that there would be no more than twenty staff on the premises so this was still considered a significant reduction in capacity.

Mr Thomas, highlighted how the original hours requested for the premises to be open had been reduced in recognition of the representations received and these hours were now compliant with the Council’s core hours’ policy. The applicant had invested significantly in modernising the premises and whilst the sensitivities of the disruption caused by the building works was acknowledged these were irrelevant to the application before the Sub-Committee. The development of the staircase would simply provide a new entrance to the basement and with the acoustic work undertaken would not provide any disturbance to residents. Concerns over the plant equipment was noted however discussions regarding this were still on-going and any changes would eventually have to be approved by EH who would ensure they met all relevant criteria. A condition had also been proposed which would prevent any odours emanating from the premises extract equipment. It was confirmed that all seating on the premises would be fixed and the applicant was content for this to be conditioned on the licence. What was proposed would benefit residents as the premises was moving away from being a noisy bar to becoming a high class restaurant. It was recognised that the ground floor could operate as a bar area, however the nature of the premises would mean disturbance to residents would decrease. With regards to customer churn it was expected that customers would spend approximately two hours at the premises and it was not envisaged that this would be an issue. Mr Goldkorn provided further information on the concept of the premises and explained that if the hours requested were not granted then it would struggle to operate financially. The recent building works had obviously been frustrating to residents but it was hoped the premises would become a good neighbour in the local area.

Mr Thomas explained the problem of introducing a smoking condition on to the licence. The pavement outside the premises was narrow and the street was very busy making it difficult to distinguish if smokers were customers of the premises. Also, as the premises would operate as restaurant customers tended to smoke less than those frequenting pubs or bars. In terms of noise levels experienced by residents the premises should generate less noise than the previous operator but the premises was located in a very busy area and residents were already subject to high ambient noise levels. Mr Goldkorn informed the Sub-Committee that the nature of the premises would not encourage any loitering or queuing of customers outside and would actually improve the current streetscape. Mr Goldkorn presented the Sub-Committee with pictures and drawings of the proposed design of the premises.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered both applications before it. Sympathy was expressed to the residents over the on-going disruption they had experienced over the last two years whilst the premises was being refurbished. Concerning the application for a new premises licence the Sub-Committee noted that in terms of the hours requested what was being proposed was an additional thirty minutes to the current licence to allow the sale and consumption of alcohol on Mondays to Thursdays and an additional hour on Fridays and Saturdays. This was in line with the Council’s core hours’ policy which also identified restaurants as having less cumulative impact in an area than bars and pubs. The Sub-Committee considered this acceptable for the area bearing in mind also that the capacity of the premises was being reduced (albeit by not as many persons as had originally been envisaged).

With regard to the application for a new licence, it was recognised by the Licensing Sub-Committee that there was an existing licence and it was therefore prepared to interpret policy CP1 on the basis that this new application was equivalent, in actual terms, to an application to vary hours within core hours which meant that there was not a policy to refuse the application.      

The conditions proposed by the applicant were considered appropriate to uphold and promote the licensing objectives. In particular, the conditions preventing any noise or odour to be generated from the premises provided reassurance that this would address residents’ concerns on these matters. To provide further protection to residents’ model condition 11 was added to the licence, as agreed with EH, to ensure a sound limiter was installed at the premises. Model condition 41 was also imposed to ensure a substantial food offer was available where alcohol was sold. Finally, a model condition relating to smoking was added so that the applicant would have to ensure any customers leaving the premises to smoke would not cause any disturbance or obstruct the public highway. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that these would put controls in place to ensure there was no loss of amenity to residents. The local residents were reminded that if they did experience any nuisance or disturbance from the premises that they could always instigate review proceedings. Having heard all the evidence, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application for a new premises licence would not add to cumulative impact in the area and would uphold and promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee therefore granted the application accordingly.

Following the granting of the new premises licence, which included the change in layout, the applicant agreed to withdraw the variation application (17/08781/LIPV).

2.

Conditions Being Added

The variation of this premises licence (17/08781/LIPV) will have no effect until the premises have been assessed as satisfactory by the Environmental Health Consultation Team at which time this condition shall be removed from this licence by the licensing authority.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was withdrawn by the applicant, see reasons for decision in Section 1.