Agenda and minutes

Isolated Pitch F3026(a), 9-9A Gerrard Street, W1

16/02334/LIPRS

This was a proposal by Mr Andre Cheong, Managing Director at New Loon Moon Ltd to create a new isolated street trading pitch to be located on the left entrance of the building located at No. 9a Gerrard Street.  Mr Cheong’s current pitch, F3026, was on the opposite side of the premises.  This was not an application to grant a street trading licence specifically to Mr Cheong or any other operator.  As the report stated, this was a request to designate the area as a licence street which was a prerequisite to the granting of any street trading licence. If Members were minded to grant the proposal, applications to fill the area designated would be subject to a separate process.

The Chairman and Ms Adnath on behalf of the Licensing Service drew Mr Cheong’s attention to the fact that Policy ST5 (iii) of the City of Westminster Statement of Street Licensing Policy states that ‘the Licensing authority will not designate any new isolated street trading pitches, apart from in exceptional circumstances’.  The Chairman asked Mr Cheong, when addressing Members on the proposal, to refer to what Mr Cheong believed were the exceptional circumstances as to why the Sub-Committee should grant the proposal. 

Mr Andre Cheong explained that the store behind the proposed pitch was the oldest store in Chinatown.  There was more than 35 years of history there.  He had taken over the store nearly 21 years ago.  In 2000 he had been granted a street trading licence on pitch F3026 outside the store to enable him to sell costume fruits and vegetables.  The store opposite had also been granted a street trading licence.  Mr Cheong commented that at that time there was not the trend which exists now for street food.  He believed a characteristic of Chinatown is the ‘hustle and bustle’ and that food is available appearing to be fresh from the market.  He expressed the view that Chinatown was very different from Oxford Street and those in the area, including tourists, were not looking for it to be pristine.  This included the pavements.  Mr Cheong also made the point that New Loon Moon was a supermarket which had featured in programmes made by many of the well-known chefs on television, including Jamie Oliver and most recently John Torode in March 2016.  The outside area had been included in Mr Torode’s programme.   

Mr Cheong stated that the character and uniqueness  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Street Trading Pitch 1771, Marylebone Road, NW1

16/04480/LIIS

Mr Kitchiner had submitted a planning application which sought permission to relocate the existing street trading pitch designation to a position approximately five metres away within Marylebone Road and for approval of a semi-permanent kiosk.  Items sold at the removable kiosk were wrapped ice cream, soft ice cream, soft drinks and crepes. Planning permission had been granted on 2 June 2015.  Mr Kitchiner had then approached the Licensing Service to relocate the existing pitch designation in line with the Planning decision.

Mr Kitchiner had advised the Council that he was not ready at this point in time to put the new kiosk in place.  This was likely to take place in November 2016.  Members of the Sub-Committee were being asked to delegate to an authorised officer of the Licensing Service the authority to determine the date that the actual variation of the designation would take effect.

Mr Kitchiner confirmed at the hearing that he was proposing to move the kiosk to an improved location for line of sight and orientation.  The Committee asked for clarification on why he would not be undertaking the work until at least November 2016.  He replied that there were matters to finalise in respect of the relocation of the Legible London Totem sign.  Highways were also carrying out works to the pavement in the area. It was felt that it was better not to undertake the relocation of the new receptacle during the summer months when Madame Tussauds was particularly busy.  He advised that the estimated date that the new receptacle would be in place was 8 November.

The Sub-Committee noted that there had been no objections to the application.  Members were content with the design of the kiosk and to permit the variation of the original designation of Pitch 1771 so that it was relocated to the proposed site five metres away.  Members also delegated to an authorised officer of the Licensing Service the ability to determine the date that the actual variation of the designation will take effect.

The formal decision of the Sub-Committee is to vary the designation of Pitch 1771 in Marylebone Road on a date to be determined by the licensing service under delegated powers to the position indicated on the plan attached to the report as Appendix D, the size of the pitch remaining as Length, 3.65 metres and Width 1.52 metres.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Whyte & Brown Limited, Units G2, 1.4, 1.5 & 1.6, Ground Floor Unit G2, Kingly Court, W1

16/03381/LIPV

1.

Condition to be varied

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee noted that this was an application for a variation of the premises licence to increase the capacity of the premises from 120 to 140 excluding staff.  Mr O’Maoileoin, representing the Applicant, confirmed that customers entered from Beak Street into Kingly Court and the outside area was within the courtyard.  It was proposed that a maximum capacity would be set of 140 excluding staff.  Within that maximum capacity there could be up to 100 people on the first floor, 30 people on the ground floor and 50 people in the outside courtyard.  Clarification had been provided to Mrs Callingham, a local resident, regarding the capacities and it was believed she had withdrawn her representation.

Mr O’Maoileoin explained that prior to the restaurant opening a fire risk assessment had recommended a capacity of 160.  At the time it had been decided to include a condition when the original premises licence had been applied for specifying a capacity of 120 excluding staff.  Also included as a condition on the premises licence was a restaurant condition.  Mr O’Maoileoin informed the Sub-Committee that since the restaurant had opened it had been very successful.  The Licence Holder had sought pre-application advice from Environmental Health in order to discuss the possibility of having a capacity of 160 at the restaurant.  The difficulty with this was the number of lavatories on the premises.  The Licence Holder had put forward the idea of using some of the communal lavatories.  Environmental Health did not agree this approach.  It was therefore agreed to compromise on a maximum capacity of 140.

Mr O’Maoileoin made the point that Environmental Health and the Metropolitan Police were not objecting to the application.  He had attempted to contact The Soho Society to discuss their objection but had not received a response.    He expressed the view that the written representation did not refer specifically to the application.  The Soho Society’s comments about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Aviva, 10-11 Great Newport Street, WC2

16/04563/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Rees-Gay, representing the Applicant Company.  He stated that taking into account the concerns of Mr Gilkes, local resident, his client was amending the opening hours so that they were within the Council’s Core Hours apart from Sunday mornings when it was proposed that the premises would open at 10:00.  He explained to those present that Aviva is the freeholder of the premises.  The application was for the restaurant on the ground and basement floors.  A high quality operator was being sought to run the restaurant.  Above this were the 14 residential flats that were in the process of being sold.  The Applicant Company wished to ensure that local residents in the area, including those in the flats above, were not adversely affected.  There would be no regulated entertainment played at the restaurant.  There would be no vertical drinking. There was no outside area.  A minimum number of 150 covers was being offered to ensure the premises would remain a restaurant.  There was no presumption against the application in policy terms.

Mr Rees-Gay stated, in relation to the representations, that it was his belief that the Police and Environmental Health had made a representation based on the premises being located in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  The Applicant had agreed conditions with the Police and Environmental Health and it was Mr Rees-Gay’s view that the Responsible Authorities had maintained their representations so that the Sub-Committee could consider the matter.  He referred to Mr Gilkes’ representation and specifically Mr Gilkes’ concerns regarding the terminal hour for licensable activities being midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, noise from bottles being placed outside for collection after midnight and beer barrel deliveries being made prior to 07:00. 

Mr Rees-Gay made the point that his client had e-mailed Mr Gilkes that the premises would be a restaurant and that the Applicant wished to ensure that there were no issues raised for local residents.  It had been explained in the e-mail that the entrance/exit of the restaurant would be in Great Newport Street and deliveries would take place there and not to the rear or to the side which was more likely to have an impact on local residents.  There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Smack Soho, Kemble House, 58 Dean Street, W1

16/03523/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

This was an application for a new premises licence for off-sales from midday to 22:00 Monday to Saturday.  Mr O’Maoileoin informed the Sub-Committee that Smack Soho is owned by the Burger & Lobster Group and has been operating for over six months without alcohol being sold.  He described the premises as a retail/delicatessen unit under Use Class A1.  Various lobster fillings were provided within a range of rolls.  Salads were pre-mixed.  There was also a selection of soft drinks, teas and coffees.

Mr O’Maoileoin stated that the lunchtime trade was almost entirely to office workers.  In the evening, the clientele included pre and post theatre.  The Police had suggested to the Applicant that any sales of alcohol were not self-service.  Alcohol would be kept behind the service counter where food was purchased.  It was intended to limit alcohol to beer and wine.  Wine would be contained in small bottles and organic beers and wines were part of the offer. 

In keeping with the application for off-sales, customers would not be able to consume alcohol at the seating area inside the premises.  Mr O’Maoileoin explained that one reason why on-sales had not been applied for was that there would potentially be an issue with planning as it could be considered that there was movement from Use Class A1 to A3.  Also, the area where customers could eat was very limited in size.  The likely number of people that could be accommodated in the seating area was approximately 12.   If on-sales were provided to customers there would be an emphasis on the Applicant to provide toiletry facilities in a very small unit and this would not make the business commercially viable.  Mr O’Maoileoin stated that based on information from similar businesses, his client did not believe that there would be a significant demand for alcohol, particularly as a large percentage of the trade was office workers purchasing food at lunch time.  It was the view of the Applicant that if office workers did buy alcohol it would be on their way home ancillary to a takeaway meal.  It had been proposed as a condition that alcohol could only be sold ancillary to a takeaway meal.

Mr O’Maoileoin made the point that whilst the premises would not become an off-licence, the Applicant had been prepared to offer restrictions similar to those attached to premises licences for off-licences.  These included that no super-strength beer, lagers, ciders or spirit mixtures sold and there would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.