Agenda item

Aquavit, 1 Carlton Street, London, SW1Y 4QQ (“The Premises”)

18/02000/LIPV

1.

Conditions being Varied, Added or Removed

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 Aquavit London Ltd for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Aquavit, 1 Carlton Street, London, SW1Y 4QQ.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.

Ms Le Fevre, representing the applicant, explained that the application was for a purpose built Premises which had been redeveloped by the applicant at a cost of £7 million. The Premises was surrounded by office and non-residential accommodation. The applicant had a track record of being a responsible operator and whilst this was not considered an exception to Policy the Sub-Committee could be assured the Premises would be managed properly. Ms Le Fevre confirmed that the Premises would only operate as a restaurant. It was located just within the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA), vehicles would not be able to enter this area to access the Premises and customers would have to exit away from the CIA. No residential representations had been received which provided a degree of exceptionality to the CIA policy. Significant conditions, were already attached to the licence and these included ensuring the supply of alcohol was served by waiter/waitress service only and ensuring substantial food would continue to be available in all parts of the Premises would not be amended,. Food and drink could not be sold for consumption away from the Premises after 23:00 hours and all outside tables and chairs would continue to be rendered unusable after 23:00. There would also be no change in capacity, which would remain at 270 for the entire Premises.

Ms Le Fevre confirmed that what the applicant was seeking was a relaxation on condition 11. This would seek to allow the sale of alcohol to customers who were not seated in the private dining rooms located on the mezzanine floor and in the bar area on the ground floor. The bar area would still contain 53 seats but it was hoped to permit a small number of customers to stand and consume alcohol.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee regarding the private dining rooms Ms Le Fevre explained that the larger room had provision for 55 seated customers and the smaller one 15. If the application was granted a small number of customers would also be permitted to stand. The maximum capacity on the mezzanine level was 125 and this was subject to the overall capacity of the Premises of 270. Only a limited number of private events, approximately two per week, would be held. The Premises would retain the conditions making it a genuine restaurant, the areas where the relaxation would occur would be clearly limited and sufficient controls would be put in place. The customers frequenting the Premises were unlikely to undertake sustained drinking until later hours and permitting customers to stand and consume alcohol would not be a significant part of the operation.

Ms Le Fevre recognised that the application was against the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP) however assurances were provided that the Premises would not operate as a bar or encourage vertical drinking. To provide further reassurance the applicant was happy for the model restaurant condition to be attached to the whole Premises after core hours if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application. The Sub-Committee was interested to learn further, why the application should be considered an exception to the Council’s policy. Ms Le Fevre accepted the Premises was located within a CIA however due to the nature of the operation and its location on the periphery of the CIA any impact the variation would have would be away from the CIA. All the other existing conditions on the licence would be retained which were consistent with a restaurant operation. Finally, the applicant was also willing to accept the model restaurant condition on the Premises after core hours.

Mr Nevitt, representing Environmental Health (EH), confirmed that the Premises had been trading successfully for approximately eighteen months during which no complaints or concerns had been received. Temporary Event Notices (TENs) had also been operated from the Premises without any cause for concern. When making a decision on the application however careful consideration had to be given to the Council’s SLP. Firstly, paragraph 2.4.13 of the SLP made clear that even if there were no residents in close proximity to the Premises, the CIA policy was concerned about what the potential impact would be over a wider area. Secondly, paragraph 2.5.3 related to concerns over restaurants turning into bars, even in part, and therefore the Sub-Committee had to judge whether the relaxation would change the character of the Premises. The Sub-Committee’s attention was brought to the original Sub-Committee decision in May 2016 where a relaxation of the model restaurant condition was requested and refused as it was considered against the SLP. If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application however, it was requested that no vertical drinking shall be permitted and alcohol shall be served by waiter/waitress service.

Miss Gadd, representing the Licensing Authority, had concerns over the application as section PB2 of the Council’s SLP advised that such applications should be refused. The application was seeking to allow at least 53 customers in the ground floor bar area and more on the mezzanine level to consume alcohol and not be required to be seated. The policy was clear in that it discouraged vertical drinking in a CIA unless the applicant could demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

PC Janes, representing the Metropolitan Police, confirmed his representation was maintained, as he was of the opinion that permitting the use of a bar in the Premises for drinking without food would add to cumulative impact in the area. It was confirmed however that the Premises was not a cause for concern in terms of crime and disorder.

The Council’s Policy Adviser provided the Sub-Committee with further background information on the Premises. A previous Sub-Committee had considered the Premises’ initial application in May 2016 where it had been decided to grant the hours for the sale of alcohol to core hours and not until 01:00 hours as applied for. A subsequent variation application had been submitted, and granted, where the operator had agreed to give up the bar area in return for permitting the sale of alcohol until 01:00 hours.

Ms Le Fevre recognised that the SLP was concerned with a Premises’ character changing by degrees of relaxation. However, in this instance there was no change in character as the restaurant conditions requiring the supply of alcohol to be by waiter/waitress service only and ensuring substantial food was available throughout the Premises would remain unchanged. The applicant was content to accept the full restaurant condition after 23:00 hours, which would preclude the Premises from becoming a drink-led venue.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and the evidence provided by all parties. It was noted that the Premises was located in a CIA and was seeking to establish a substantial bar area where customers could consume alcohol without being ancillary to a meal before 23:00. The Sub-Committee recognised that this was contrary to the Council’s SLP and was of the opinion that allowing alcohol to be consumed without food on the ground floor before 23:00 hours would be creating a bar area which would significantly alter the character of the Premises. Allowing the consumption of alcohol on the mezzanine level would also be contrary to policy. Permitting customers to consume alcohol without taking a meal until 23:00 hours was considered inappropriate in the circumstances and likely to add to cumulative impact in the local area and would undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that it had not been proven that the application was a genuine exception to policy and therefore it was  refused accordingly.