Agenda and minutes

Hush, 8 Lancashire Court, W1

14/09685/LIPV

1.

To add a temporary bar server in the external courtyard

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The Chairman on behalf of the Sub-Committee asked Mr Thomas, representing the applicant, if alcohol was currently being consumed on the terrace at the restaurant.  Mr Thomas confirmed that it was and that the only variation applied for was the introduction of a mobile external structure to allow for the provision of alcohol without customers having to use the restaurant’s inside bar.  Mr Thomas confirmed that his clients sought approval for the variation until 31^st March 2015.

Mr Thomas advised Members of the Sub-Committee that he had discussed with a local resident, Ms Judy Kuttner, (who had not made a representation) her concerns that a temporary variation may allow the use of the outside area beyond 23:00 and / or encourage drinking by those who are not seated.  As there is a current condition on the licence that states drinking outside shall be restricted to those who are seated at a table and to 23:00 only, Mr Thomas stated that the variation applied for would have no adverse effect.  At 23:00 all outside tables and chairs are currently packed away and any mobile bar would be rendered similarly unusable.

Mr Thomas advised that a compromise condition had been discussed with the Police that after 21:00 whilst the external bar was in use, the sale of alcohol would only be to persons dining and who are seated.  He made the point that he was content with the condition being attached to the licence if Members considered it was necessary to promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee asked for further clarification as to why the variation had been applied for until 31^st March. Mr Thomas replied that, firstly, the applicants were sensitive to the needs of their neighbours and did not want to apply for an outside bar throughout the year. Secondly, the applicants were not sure whether this idea would be good for business and that when they applied in mid-November, 31^st March seemed like a suitable trial period to test the business model. Mr Markoras explained further that it was his idea to create the feel of a winter ski-lodge in order to maximise usage of the outside area in winter and, as such, the applicants would have no need to do so in the summer when the area is already being used.

PC Sollars, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, was keen to point out that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Shadow Lounge, Basement And Part Ground Floor, 3-7 Brewer Street, W1

14/08411/LIPN

1.

Regulated Entertainment: Indoors

Performance of Dance

Provision of facilities for Dancing

Provision of facilities for Making Music

Performance of Live Music

Anything of a similar description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

Monday to Saturday 09:00 to 03:00

Sunday 09:00 to 23:00

Playing of Recorded Music

Private Entertainment consisting of dancing, music or other entertainment of a like kind for consideration and with a view to a profit

Monday to Sunday 00:00 to 00:00

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.

The Applicant, Alan Poulton Limited, who is the leaseholder for Shadow Lounge, submitted a new application to apply for a secondary licence at the premises.  Mr Thomas, representing the Applicant, confirmed at the hearing that the licensable activities and hours applied for mirrored those of the existing licence for the premises (14/03475/LIPV).

Ms Joyce for Environmental Health advised that she had submitted a representation so that the Sub-Committee would consider the policy implications of the application.  She did not have any specific concerns in respect of the application.

The Sub-Committee accepted the points that there could be more than one premises licence and as had been determined in the Extreme Oyster case, the landlord had a right to apply for a shadow licence.  Members of the Sub-Committee however were required to determine whether granting a further licence would promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee granted the secondary licence application with exactly the same conditions attached as the existing licence for Shadow Lounge (14/03475/LIPV) apart from updated mandatory conditions.  Members had no desire to make the conditions more restrictive or less restrictive than those on the existing licence.  The proposed hours that were granted on the secondary licence reflected those on the primary one.  The Sub-Committee granted the application as an exception to policy on the basis that as the existing licence for the premises was already in operation there would not be an adding to cumulative impact in the West End Stress Area. 

2.

Late Night Refreshment: Indoors

Monday to Saturday 23:00 to 03:30

Sunday 23:00 to 00:00

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).

3.

Sale of Alcohol: On the premises

Monday to Saturday 10:00 to 03:00

Sunday 12:00 to 23:30

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Friends Supermarket, 82 Lupus Street, SW1

14/10384/LIPN

1.

Sale of Alcohol: Off the Premises

Monday to Saturday – 08:00 to 23:00

Sunday – 10:00 to 22:30.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

This is a new application for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises Monday to Saturday 08:00 to 23:00 and Sunday 10:00 to 22:30 at the supermarket.  A licence for the premises had previously been revoked at a review hearing in 11 September 2014, with a key factor in this decision being that excise duty had not been paid on substantial quantities of alcohol that had been stored in the basement.

Mr Edwards, representing the Applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that following the revocation of the premises licence, Mr Ludi, a Director of the Applicant company had sold his restaurant elsewhere in London and acquired the leasehold for these premises.  Mr Edwards stated that the business was currently operating under the terms of the licence which had been revoked by the Sub-Committee in September 2014 but was continuing to have effect because the decision had been appealed by the previous licence holders, Mr Razzique and Mr Rahman.  Mr Edwards sought to assure the Sub-Committee that Mr Ludi was not connected or related to Mr Razzique and Mr Rahman, other than by virtue of them remaining as the landlords of the premises.  Mr Ludi would not be used as a ‘front’ and Mr Razzique and Mr Rahman would have no stake in the business.  It had originally been intended that a brother of Mr Razzique and Mr Rahman, Mr Abdus Subhan would be a director of the Applicant Company, Lupus 82 Ltd.  However, he had resigned as a director and the plan was for him to be an employee at Friends Supermarket.  Mr Edwards asserted that it would be unreasonable to prevent Mr Subhan being employed at the premises as he had not been involved in any wrongdoing. Mr Edwards produced evidence of the business being transferred to Mr Ludi in a business assignment document dated 2 January 2015.

Mr Edwards also addressed the Sub-Committee briefly on the proposed conditions.  His client, Mr Ludi, had no issue with operating a Challenge 25 scheme.  He was requesting that single cans could be sold at the premises on the basis that there had not been street drinking issues caused by the premises previously.  He was also asking that a notice on the tills would suffice and that his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.