Agenda and draft minutes

Cumberland Food & Wine, 11 Great Cumberland Place, W1

14/09194/LIPV

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

This application had previously been adjourned at a Sub-Committee hearing on 18 December 2014 in order to ascertain whether the outside area, where the Applicant wished to have a small café with tables and chairs, was part of the premises’ demise.  Prior to the hearing an officer in the Council’s Highways Planning Department had contacted the Licensing Service to advise that the frontage on Great Cumberland Place was part of the Applicant/Licence Holder’s demise but that the Bryanston Street side of the building was not.

Having received this information, Mr O’Maoileoin, representing the Applicant, informed the parties that his client was amending the application so that the licensable area applied for would only include the agreed private forecourt area on Great Cumberland Place.  It would no longer include the Bryanston Street side of the building which was withdrawn from the application and this was shown in an updated plan submitted by the Applicant.  

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

Cumberland Food and Wine currently operates as a convenience store providing off-sales.  The Applicant’s amended application sought on-sales of alcohol in an outside area with tables and chairs between 10:00 and 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 12:00 to 22:30 on Sundays in the private forecourt on Great Cumberland Place.  Mr O’Maoileoin stated that the hours sought were less than the Council’s Core Hours and were in keeping with the terminal opening hours of the premises.  His client was seeking a maximum of 23 covers.

Mr O’Maoileoin referred to the fact that the Police had withdrawn their application, as they had agreed conditions including the updated CCTV model conditions. He confirmed that on-sales would be restricted to the outside area as no consumption of alcohol or food took place in the store due to its restricted space.  There was no intention to change the layout on the ground floor.  Alcohol in the outside area would only be available to seated customers served by waiter or waitress and ancillary to a table meal there.

Mr O’Maoileoin explained that there were kitchen facilities in the basement but no primary cooking would take place on the premises.  The food was pre-prepared off site which could be pre-heated in the oven in the kitchen.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, he clarified that the food provided in the outside area would be different from what was sold within the store.  The food available inside was limited to five or six products such as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Unit 2.10 and 2.11 Kingly Court, W1

15/06161/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Thomas and Ms Webb provided some brief background to Kingly Court.  It was a purpose built retail centre and no residents lived in Kingly Court itself.  There were a number of restaurants there with licensable activities within core hours.  Shaftesbury, the Applicant, owned over 250 buildings with licensed premises.  There was some control over tenants, over 40 CCTV cameras and 24 hour security within Kingly Court.  Shaftesbury’s plan was to have different restaurants in Kingly Court reflecting cuisines from across the world. 

Mr Thomas next addressed the Sub-Committee on the premises that was the subject of the application, Unit 2.10 and 2.11 / Le Bab.  Concerns had been expressed in the representations objecting to the application that customers would be required to use the communal toilets.  Mr Thomas confirmed it had initially been proposed that customers would use them as they were within a matter of yards from the units.  However, following discussions with the parties, including Environmental Health, it had been decided to install toilets within Le Bab.  Mr Thomas made the point that as part of the discussions with Environmental Health a capacity of 40 people had been agreed based on the two toilets.  It was a matter for the Sub-Committee to consider whether the capacity would be set out now or following an inspection by Environmental Health.  It was likely that a further application would be required to slightly change the layout.   

Mr Brunet, the Executive Head Chef who had previously worked at Le Gavroche in Mayfair, explained the concept behind Le Bab.  He had travelled with his business partner to the Middle East and they had tasted kebabs there which were very different from those consumed in many high street premises.  Their aim was to combine ethnic and national kebab influences with Michelin star style gastronomic thinking.  Mr Brunet stated that the kebabs would be a substantial and refined meal.  The kebabs would be a dining experience with grilled meat, garnish and sauce and no wraps.  It would deliver on quality and be in the mid-range bracket cost wise.  The team would be looking to attract a restaurant crowd rather than a takeaway crowd.  It would be food led which was prepared fresh with an open kitchen.  Customers were shown to their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.