Agenda and minutes

Carmina Café, Basement Floor To Ground Floor, 88 Wigmore Street, W1U 3RB

15/03502/LIPV

1.

Variation of conditions

The proposed application is to:

Remove condition 29 and replace with: Alcohol shall be served and consumed on the outside tables & chairs area, by a waiter or waitress service and until 21:00 everyday.

To amend condition 13 to state: The supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated and only served by a waiter or waitress only.

To remove condition 14, “the supply of alcohol shall be by waiter /waitress only” (Applicant has now agreed with the Police that this will remain on the licence)

To amend condition 20 to state: A maximum capacity of 50 persons at the premises.

In addition the application is to permit the sale of alcohol outside the premises on the tables and chairs from 10:00 – 21:00, Monday – Sunday.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Ms Olariu, the Applicant, began by explaining that she had established the premises in 2000 and that over time she had identified a need to be able to provide alcohol to customers seated in the tables and chairs outside the premises.  Currently, condition 29 prevents the sale of alcohol outside the premises. For this reason, she sought an amendment to condition 29 as requested in the application. Ms Olariu confirmed that she wished to table to sell alcohol to customers seated outside from 10:00 to 21:00 daily and that alcohol would be supplied to these customers through a waiter/waitress service.

In response to Members’ queries, Ms Olariu contended that it was important to her business that condition 29 be amended as set out in her application as in the spring and summer months, she stated that around 80% of her customers were seated outside. In response to a Members’ query citing evidence in residents’ representations that customers had been consuming alcohol in the outside area in 2013, Ms Olariu asserted that this was due to customers taking their drinks outside when they went to smoke.

Mr Watson, from Environmental Health, then addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Watson stated that residents had presented Environmental Health with evidence which appeared to suggest there had been the unlawful supply of alcohol to customers seated outside in 2013.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Provider, Development Site at The Percy and Founders, Off Mortimer Street, W1T

15/02407/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On and Off the Premises

Sunday:                                                              12:00 to 21:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr McCann, representing the Applicant, began by stating that most of the proposed conditions had been agreed with Environmental Health.  He informed Members that one area where there was disagreement was their request for a condition stating that the supply of alcohol shall only be sold to a person seated and taking a table meal and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to that meal. Mr McCann stated that it was proposed for the premises to be a small café and he felt that insisting on alcohol being sold ancillary to a meal was excessive and inappropriate.  He added that the Metropolitan Police had already agreed to amend the condition to read that “the supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be sold to a person seated.” However, he also considered that a condition that the supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service was also inappropriate, especially as the Applicant wished to provide a counter service.  Mr McCann also contended that a condition requiring alcohol to be locked behind grills, screens or cabinet doors outside the authorised sale of alcohol was not necessary as this was a condition more appropriate for an off licence. He confirmed that the Applicant sought a capacity of 34 people and he submitted that the 15 people capacity suggested in a condition was overly strict, particularly as a disabled toilet was proposed on the premises.  Mr McCann contended that the remaining conditions addressed the concerns raised by residents in their representations. He argued that as the terminal hour applied for was 22:00, this licence would be unattractive to a different operator should they acquire the premises if they wanted to operate as a bar.  In which case they would need to apply for a variation where further representations could be made.  Mr McCann concluded by stating that the premises was not in a stress area and this should be taken into account when determining the application.

In reply to a Member’s questions regarding the status of the applicant, Mr McCann confirmed that the applicant was also the proposed operator. 

Mr Drayan from Environmental Health then addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Drayan confirmed that he was content for the proposed condition to be amended so that supply of alcohol shall only be sold or supplied to a person seated.  He did consider  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

High Society, Lower North, Westminster Pier, Victoria Embankment

15/03141/LIPN

1.

Performance of Live Music: Indoors

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee agreed to consider both this application, and the next application on the agenda, ‘Wyndham Grand, Westminster Pier, Victoria Embankment’, as the applications were identical, were at the same site and had been submitted by the same applicant.

Mr Bernard, the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee. He advised that conditions had been agreed with the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health who had subsequently withdrawn their representation.  Mr Bernard commented that residents’ representations may well be based on their belief that both High Society and Wyndham Grand would carry out licensable activities whilst moored at Westminster Pier, when in fact, such activities would be carried out only whilst on the move along the River Thames and away from residential areas.

Members enquired what measures were in place to prevent noise and environmental impact and sought confirmation that there would be no licensable activities undertaken at Westminster Pier. In reply, Mr Bernard advised that he had agreed a condition with Environmental Health that there would be no regulated entertainment until five minutes after the vessel has left the pier and that it shall cease five minutes before the vessel returns to the pier. In addition, he advised that he was bound by a Port of London Authority regulation that no licensable activities may take place at Westminster Pier.  In order to address noise and environmental impact concerns, Mr Bernard advised that he was obliged to adhere to a Port of London Authority regulation that a noise limiter be set to 92 decibels and that there was to be no amplified music on the upper deck.  This was a standard river regulation to ensure that safety announcements could be heard.  The High Society vessel also had an unmoveable roof canopy.  Mr Bernard confirmed that both vessels were available only through private charter.

Members enquired if there was a system in place to ensure that the same number of people disembarked from the vessels as had boarded. In reply, Mr Bernard advised that the Captain of the vessel maintained a passenger list to ensure this and there would also be up to two other licensed watermen crew on board.

The Sub-Committee agreed the application, subject to a condition being added that a noise limiter must be fitted and set at a level determined by, and to the satisfaction of, Environmental Health and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Wyndham Ground, Westminster Pier, Victoria Embankment

15/03198/LIPN

1.

Performance of Live Music: Indoors

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

This application was considered at the same time as the High Society, Lower North, Westminster Pier, Victoria Embankment applicationas the applications were identical, were at the same site and had been submitted by the same applicant.

Mr Bernard, the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee. He advised that conditions had been agreed with the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health who had subsequently withdrawn their representation.  Mr Bernard commented that residents’ representations may well be based on their belief that both High Society and Wyndham Grand would carry out licensable activities whilst moored at Westminster Pier, when in fact, such activities would be carried out only whilst on the move along the River Thames and away from residential areas.

Members enquired what measures were in place to prevent noise and environmental impact and sought confirmation that there would be no licensable activities undertaken at Westminster Pier. In reply, Mr Bernard advised that he had agreed a condition with Environmental Health that there would be no regulated entertainment until five minutes after the vessel has left the pier and that it shall cease five minutes before the vessel returns to the pier. In addition, he advised that he was bound by a Port of London Authority regulation that no licensable activities may take place at Westminster Pier.  In order to address noise and environmental impact concerns, Mr Bernard advised that he was obliged to adhere to a Port of London Authority regulation that a noise limiter be set to 92 decibels and that there was to be no amplified music on the upper deck.  This was a standard river regulation to ensure that safety announcements could be heard.  The High Society vessel also had an unmoveable roof canopy.  Mr Bernard confirmed that both vessels were available only through private charter.

Members enquired if there was a system in place to ensure that the same number of people disembarked from the vessels as had boarded. In reply, Mr Bernard advised that the Captain of the vessel maintained a passenger list to ensure this and there would also be up to two other licensed watermen crew on board.

The Sub-Committee agreed the application, subject to a condition being added that a noise limiter must be fitted and set at a level determined by, and to the satisfaction of, Environmental Health and the Port of London  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

38 Groom Place, 38 Groom Place, SW1X

15/03975/LIPN

1.

Sale of Retail by Alcohol

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Rankin, representing the Applicant, began by stating that the Applicant currently operated three licensed premises.  Mr Rankin advised that the Applicant sought to amend the capacity condition so that ground floor capacity would be 20 people and the first floor capacity would be  20 people, with overall capacity remaining at 40 people at any one time. He advised that Environmental Health were in agreement with this proposal. He advised that one resident had withdrawn their representation after discussing the application with the Applicant, meaning only one resident’s representation remained who had also been contacted by the Applicant but had yet to submit a response.  Mr Rankin advised that the roof terrace, referred to in the resident’s representation was not part of the Applicant’s proposals. He confirmed that the Applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by Environmental Health.

Members sought the Applicant’s views in respect of the potential for noise to echo around the narrow streets from customers of the proposed premises. In reply, Mr Rankin advised that the application was within core hours and that only a small number of people would be seated outside. Further to a query from a Member with regard to condition 26, Mr Rankin indicated on behalf of the Applicant that he would be happy to limit the number of patrons to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises to five people at any one time.  Members sought further clarification with regard to the proposed amendment of condition 11 concerning the maximum number of people on the premises who are permitted to consume alcohol without taking a table meal. In reply, Mr Rankin advised that although it was not the Applicant’s intention to operate as a bar, he wished to supply alcohol to a small number of customers who were not eating and that the Applicant would be happy to reduce the number of people permitted for this activity from 15 to 10, if it was the Sub-Committee’s wish.

Ms Alabi from Environmental Health confirmed that all conditions had been agreed with the Applicant, including the amended condition relating to capacity. She also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

16 Henrietta Street, WC2E

15/03198/LIPN

1.

Playing of Recorded Music:

Non-standard Timings: From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee agreed to consider both this application, and the next application on the agenda, ’17-18 Henrietta Street, WC2E’, as both the applications were at the same site and had been submitted by the same applicant.

Mr Thomas, representing the Applicant, began by explaining that both 16 Henrietta Street and 17-18 Henrietta Street presently operated as two separate restaurant bars under one premises licence held by Capital and Counties CG Ltd and Capital and Counties CG Nominee Ltd, who were also the applicants for both sites. The Applicant was applying for separate premises licences for each of the addresses, however the hours of licensable activities would remain the same for each.  New operators were due to take over at both addresses, with Frenchies due to occupy 16 Henrietta Street and Flat Iron, a steak restaurant, at 17-18 Henrietta Street. Mr Thomas stated that Flat Iron already operated two other premises without any issues.  Mr Thomas advised that the current capacity for 16 Henrietta Street was 140 people, however a capacity of 120 people had been agreed with Environmental Health in respect of the application. He added that he felt that the bar area proposed for 16 Henrietta Street was smaller than what currently existed and that Environmental Health had indicated that they were content with these proposals. In the case of 17-18 Henrietta Street, there was no current capacity limit in place. Replying to queries from Members, Mr Thomas stated that he was unable to assist in advising what capacity limit the present operator applied to 17-18 Henrietta Street.   Mr Thomas informed Members that pre-application advice received from the District Surveyor had suggested that the total capacity for 17-18 Henrietta Street was up 420 people, however the Applicant sought a capacity of 220 people.  Referring to the plans, he contended that the proposals for the size of the bar area for 17-18 Henrietta Street was replicated like for like, or even a reduction in size compared to what was currently existed and he added that Environmental Health also took this view.

Ms St Rose, from Environmental Health, then addressed the Sub-Committee.  Ms St Rose stated that the Applicant was not seeking additional hours for licensable activities, nor were they seeking a higher capacity limit for both applications. She confirmed that there was no current capacity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

17-18 Henrietta Street, WC2E

15/03907/LIPN

1.

Variation Description:

The current premises licence (15/02369/LIPT) authorised licensable activities across numbers 16 and 17 – 18 Henrietta Street. The premises historically operated as two restaurants, Covent Garden Grill at number 16 and Porter's English Restaurant at number 17 – 18 under the same premises licence. This application, in conjunction with the new premises licence application for 16 Henrietta Street (15/03912/LIPN), proposes to regularise that position by splitting the licence into two separate licences, effectively removing 16 Henrietta Street from the ambit of this licence, and associated condition 11, and to vary the remaining layout of the ground floor and basement.

Please note, although the application form refers to removing condition 6 from the premises licence, the application was made without the benefit of the transferred licence 15/02369/LIPT and the updated mandatory conditions. Therefore, what was condition 6 became renumbered as condition 11. Condition 11 reads as follows:

The maximum number of persons, including staff, to be present in the licensed premises shall not exceed the number specified from time to time by the proper officer of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. The number specified are:

(a) as to the ground floor in Porters Bar (no. 16) 100 persons

(b) as to the basement in Porters Bar (no. 16) 40 persons

This application has been made following pre-application advice from the City Council’s District Surveyor and Environmental Health Officer.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee agreed to consider both this application, and the next application on the agenda, ’17-18 Henrietta Street, WC2E’, as both the applications were at the same site and had been submitted by the same applicant.

Mr Thomas, representing the Applicant, began by explaining that both 16 Henrietta Street and 17-18 Henrietta Street presently operated as two separate restaurant bars under one premises licence held by Capital and Counties CG Ltd and Capital and Counties CG Nominee Ltd, who were also the applicants for both sites. The Applicant was applying for separate premises licences for each of the addresses, however the hours of licensable activities would remain the same for each.  New operators were due to take over at both addresses, with Frenchies due to occupy 16 Henrietta Street and Flat Iron, a steak restaurant, at 17-18 Henrietta Street. Mr Thomas stated that Flat Iron already operated two other premises without any issues.  Mr Thomas advised that the current capacity for 16 Henrietta Street was 140 people, however a capacity of 120 people had been agreed with Environmental Health in respect of the application. He added that he felt that the bar area proposed for 16 Henrietta Street was smaller than what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Revue Bar And Peep Show, 1 Tisbury Court, W1 – Review application

15/02078/LIREVP

Review hearing adjourned at the request of the Licence Holder.

Revue Bar And Peep Show, 1 Tisbury Court, W1 – Sexual Entertainment Venue renewal

Application adjourned at the request of the Applicant.