Agenda and draft minutes

Boulevard, Ground Floor, 12-14 Lodge Road, London, NW8 7JA (“The Premises”)

18/13847/LIPN

1.

Late night refreshment

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

Michael Nickson (Agent, representing the Applicant) began by confirming that the application was to provide late night refreshment until 01:00 hrs Monday to Sunday, which did not include proposals for takeaway, nor would any fast food be served. There were also no proposals to supply alcohol or regulated entertainment. Mr Nickson advised that the Applicant had already acquired planning permission for the activities applied for above and that the application had been welcomed by a neighbouring hotel and a number of local residents. The Applicant had proposed a number of conditions and every effort was being made to adhere to licensing policy. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed conditions with the Police, who had withdrawn their representation. Mr Nickson stated that the Applicant had written to ward Councillors and local residents offering to meet with them to discuss their concerns, but had received no response and he then read out the letter that had been sent.

Mr Nickson stated that the Premises was located in a busy area next to a large hotel and there was also a 24 hour convenience store nearby. The terminal hour for late night refreshment was modest at 01:00 hrs. In respect of shisha smoking, this may happen in the outside area of the Premises, but its principle business was to operate as a café which also offered late night refreshment. In respect of some of the conditions proposed by Environmental Health, Mr Nickson contended that some of these were inappropriate and therefore the Applicant had not agreed to proposed conditions 21, 22, 25, 27, 28 and 29 in the report suggested by them. He stated that the outside area was clearly defined in the plans and there were large concrete bollards and planters demarking the Premises from the public area. Mr Nickson stated that after 23:00 hrs, there would be a member of staff to manage the outside area, including entry to the Premises. He felt that moving outside tables and chairs indoors after 23:00 hrs would be impractical, a condition suggested by Environmental Health.

HebbahShaban (Director, Applicant Company) then addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that she had acquired the Premises in September 2018. There had been extensive refurbishment and the walls and ceiling had been soundproofed. She reiterated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Bateaux London, Attached to Embankment Pier, Victoria Embankment, London, WC2N 6NU (“The Premises”)

18/13847/LIPN

1.

Late night refreshment

Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30

Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Chris Gaunt (Solicitor, representing the Applicant) began by stating that the Applicant offered a range of services employing around some 35,000 people. One of the functions the organisation carried out was in hospitality, including operating boat cruises along the River Thames, which left from the pier that the Premises was located at. The Applicant intended to bring the pier into more regular use as a café that would be open to both boat cruise customers and the public. The food offer would be limited by the facilities on site and would include a charcuterie, pastries and other such products and it would not operate as a restaurant. The drinks list would include fine wines, spirits and bottled beer and there would be a waiter/waitress service. Discussions had taken place with the Police and Environmental Health about proposed conditions which had subsequently been agreed. The Sub-Committee noted that the Police had withdrawn their representation after agreeing conditions.

Mr Gaunt referred to the plans, including the hatched area and he confirmed an amendment to the application to confirm that the proposal to provide recorded music now only applied indoors as the outdoors element had been withdrawn and there would be no loudspeakers positioned outside of the Premises. It was submitted that the recorded music to be played inside the Premises, would normally be background music apart from when functions were taking place. Mr Gaunt explained that the Premises would operate like a conventional cafe earlier in the day, whilst as evening approached more customers would be consuming wine and other alcoholic drinks. Every effort had been made to ensure that the conditions proposed were clear and unambiguous.

Turning to the representations made, Mr Gaunt stated that the Premises was located in a busy location and he felt that the amendments to the original application and proposed conditions had addressed the concerns raised. Both Environmental Health and the Police had indicated that they were satisfied with the conditions related to addressing the potential issues regarding noise. The Sub-Committee was advised that with regard to dispersal, the boat cruisers picked up and dropped off customers at set times and the Applicant was experienced at managing this during these periods. In terms of the Premises, the capacity was 110 persons and as customers would leave at different times, this would lead to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Big Mamma, 40-41 Rathbone Place, London, W1T 1JN (“The Premises”)

18/15108/LIPN

1.

Late night refreshment

Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30

Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

James Anderson (Solicitor, representing the Applicant) began by advising that the Applicant operated a number of restaurants, including seven in Paris and one in Lille and was in the process of opening a new restaurant in Shoreditch, London. It was submitted that the business was French owned, but offered primarily high quality Italian food and the staff were also mainly Italian. The Applicant considered the site to offer a significant opportunity for its business. The intention was for the Premises to operate as a restaurant, however the model restaurant condition was not desirable as the Applicant’s business model offered customers the choice as to whether they wished to dine or not. This meant that customers would have the flexibility upon deciding if they wanted to have a meal at any time, rather than having to decide upon entering the Premises. Mr Anderson stated that in the circumstances  the Sub-Committee should therefore consider the Applicant’s preference for model condition 38, which states that the supply of alcohol shall be to seated customers and ancillary to a table meal, was more appropriate for most areas of the Premises, save for a hatched area as demarcated on the plans. The hatched area would be the only area where customers could drink alcohol without it being ancillary to food, however even this area had some seating but customers would still be served alcohol through a waiter/waitress service.

Mr Anderson concluded his initial submission by stating that the application was within core hours, apart from a slightly earlier commencement hour for the sale of alcohol on Sundays. However, there was a condition proposed relating to the supply of alcohol between 10:00 and 12:00 on Sundays stating that it must be ancillary to a table meal. Mr Anderson felt that the application was well balanced, taking all its aspects into consideration.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises was located on the opposite side of the road to where a cumulative impact area was in force and that Rathbone Place had become significantly busier in recent years. The capacity of the ‘bar area’ was sought and how this would be managed effectively. Details were also sought as to how queues would be managed to aid dispersal, in view of the fact that the Applicant’s other premises could attract a large  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.