Agenda and minutes

Kirazu, 3 Winnett Street, London, W1D 6JY (“The Premises”)

18/06896/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol: On sales

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Shannon Pring (Presenting Officer) confirmed that Environmental Health and the Police had withdrawn their representations following agreement of conditions with the Applicant Company.

Daniel Mansell (Barrister, representing the Applicant Company) began by stating that the premises had operated over the last 2 years predominantly as a takeaway with a small number of seats available for sit down meals. The Applicant Company now intended to operate the premises as a small restaurant with 17 covers. It was proposed to offer alcohol which would be served by waiter/waitress service only to customers and would be ancillary to food and no consumption of alcohol would be permitted outside. Mr Mansell stated that Yuya Kikuchi, the Director of the Applicant Company, would be present on the premises at all times it was open and was the chef. Mr Kikuchi was respected in the food industry and had received a 4 star rating in a Time Out magazine review.

Mr Mansell stated that the premises was a quiet venue and the application was well within core hours. No children would be permitted on the premises and a Challenge 25 policy would be adhered to. No taxis would be permitted to wait for customers outside and signage would be displayed reminding customers to be quiet when they left the premises. Mr Mansell advised that the premises had also operated under a number of temporary event notices (TENs) without any concerns being raised by Environmental Health and the Police. Although the premises was in a cumulative impact area, he did not think it would add to cumulative impact due to the nature of the premises as a small restaurant operating within core hours. There were also stringent conditions proposed to assist the Applicant Company in upholding the licensing objectives.

Mr Mansell then referred to the matters raised in the local resident’s written representation and refuted the claims that had been made. In respect of a premises previously operated by the Applicant Company, 47 Rupert Street, no issues had arisen and the premises had not operated contrary to any planning regulations. The current premises had not operated late as a bar and Mr Mansell suggested that the local resident may have confused this with when the premises was operating under TENs. Mrs Kikuchi, the designated premises supervisor, would be on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Urban Baristas, Ground Floor, 11 Queensway, London, W2 4QJ (“The Premises”)

18/07658/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol: On sales

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Shannon Pring (Presenting Officer) confirmed that in addition to the Police’s earlier withdrawal, Enviromental Health had also subsequently withdrawn their representation after both responsible authorities concerned had agreed conditions with the Applicant.

Peter Mayhew (Agent, representing the Applicant Company) began by stating that the premises currently operated as coffee bar/restaurant offering speciality, high end coffees and a small food menu. The Applicant Company’s intention was to extend the food offer and include sale of alcohol, whilst also extending the hours of operation.  Mr Mayhew stated that there were no proposals for late night refreshment or regulated entertainment. The application had initially sought an earlier commencement hour for the sale of alcohol at weekends, however this had now been amended so that all hours applied for were within core hours. Mr Mayhew advised that the hours for the sale of alcohol had been revised following discussions with the Police and John Zamit who was representing Bayswater Residents’ Association (BRA) and South East Bayswater Residents’ Association (SEBRA). The Applicant had also agreed 7 conditions with the Police. Mr Mayhew informed Members that Dave Nevitt from Environmental Health had initially raised a few concerns when visiting the premises, however he was now satisfied with the proposals. Positive discussions with Mr Zamit had also taken place and 2 conditions relating to deliveries and collection of waste and recycling had been proposed following these.

Mr Mayhew stated that correspondence with Daisy Gadd (Licensing Authority) had taken place and the Applicant Company had addressed her concerns about the application not being within core hours by amending it accordingly. There had also been discussions with the Licensing Authority concerning their request to include the model restaurant condition 66 on the premises licence. Mr Mayhew stated that the model restaurant condition was not desired by the Applicant Company as it would not allow them to operate the premises’ principal activity as a coffee bar during the daytime. He suggested that proposed model conditions 38 and 39 restricting the consumption of alcohol to be ancillary to a meal and to be supplied by waiter or waitress service only would be sufficient and ensure the premises would not be drinks led and satisfy the City Council’s restaurant policy in its Statement of Licensing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Ground and First Floors, 1 Heddon Street, London, W1B 4BD (“The Premises”)

18/07624/LIPN

1.

Late night refreshment: Indoors

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):

Prior to proceedings commencing, Craig Baylis (Solicitor, representing the Applicant Company) agreed on behalf of the Applicant Company to the Chairman’s suggestion that the applications for the Ground and First Floors, 1 Heddon Street, London, W1B 4BD and Second Floor, 1 Heddon Street, London, W1B 4BD be considered together as it involved the same Applicant Company on the same site.

Michelle Steward (Presenting Officer) confirmed that Environmental Health had withdrawn their representations for both of the above applications after agreeing conditions with the Applicant Company.

Mr Baylis began by informing the Sub-Committee that The Crown Estate owned all the properties in Heddon Street and its intention was to redevelop the area to be more upmarket and there would be a focus on restaurants as opposed to bars. He advised that 1 Heddon Street was to become a serviced office desk space for 365 office workers and would operate in a similar way to the ‘We Work’ model.

Turning to the first application, Ground and First Floors, 1 Heddon Street, he advised that it was to operate as a café principally for the office workers in 1 Heddon Street, although it would also be accessible to the public. The Applicant Company had held useful discussions with Environmental Health who had withdrawn their representations after agreement had been reached on conditions. Mr Baylis stated that the alcohol offer was limited and ancillary to food. In respect of the Licensing Authority’s request that proposed condition 25 in the report stating that the supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only, Mr Baylis contended that this was unnecessary as all alcohol would be served by staff to customers and staff would monitor the premises whilst customers consumed what they had purchased.

Mr Baylis then presented the second application, Second Floor, 1 Heddon Street and stated that the intention was for this to operate as a separate function space that could only be accessed by the office workers of 1 Heddon Street and their bona fide guests and not for public access. He indicated on behalf of the Applicant Company that he would be happy for an appropriately worded condition to be added to restrict this use thus. The booking of the function space would be undertaken via an app that was only accessible to the office workers of 1 Heddon Street. Mr Baylis stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Second Floor, 1 Heddon Street, London, W1B 4BD (“The Premises”)

18/07618/LIPN

1.

Late night refreshment: Indoors

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):

Prior to proceedings commencing, Craig Baylis (Solicitor, representing the Applicant Company) agreed on behalf of the Applicant Company to the Chairman’s suggestion that the applications for the Ground and First Floors, 1 Heddon Street, London, W1B 4BD and Second Floor, 1 Heddon Street, London, W1B 4BD be considered together as it involved the same Applicant Company on the same site.

Michelle Steward (Presenting Officer) confirmed that Environmental Health had withdrawn their representations for both of the above applications after agreeing conditions with the Applicant Company.

Mr Baylis began by informing the Sub-Committee that The Crown Estate owned all the properties in Heddon Street and its intention was to redevelop the area to be more upmarket and there would be a focus on restaurants as opposed to bars. He advised that 1 Heddon Street was to become a serviced office desk space for 365 office workers and would operate in a similar way to the ‘We Work’ model.

Turning to the first application, Ground and First Floors, 1 Heddon Street, he advised that it was to operate as a café principally for the office workers in 1 Heddon Street, although it would also be accessible to the public. The Applicant Company had held useful discussions with Environmental Health who had withdrawn their representations after agreement had been reached on conditions. Mr Baylis stated that the alcohol offer was limited and ancillary to food. In respect of the Licensing Authority’s request that proposed condition 25 in the report stating that the supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only, Mr Baylis contended that this was unnecessary as all alcohol would be served by staff to customers and staff would monitor the premises whilst customers consumed what they had purchased.

Mr Baylis then presented the second application, Second Floor, 1 Heddon Street and stated that the intention was for this to operate as a separate function space that could only be accessed by the office workers of 1 Heddon Street and their bona fide guests and not for public access. He indicated on behalf of the Applicant Company that he would be happy for an appropriately worded condition to be added to restrict this use thus. The booking of the function space would be undertaken via an app that was only accessible to the office workers of 1 Heddon Street. Mr Baylis stated that the function  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.