Agenda and minutes

Café Italia, 326 Vauxhall Bridge Road, SW1

16/06647/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

There was an existing premises licence at 326 Vauxhall Bridge Road for on and off sales Monday to Saturday 10:00 to 23:30 and Sunday 12:00 to 22:30 and also late night refreshment: indoors Monday to Saturday 23:00 to 23:30.  The Applicant had applied for a new premises licence for on and off-sales Monday to Saturday 10:30 to 23:30 and Sunday 10:30 to 22:30 and late night refreshment: indoors Monday to Saturday 23:00 to 23:30.  Mr Evans, representing the Applicant confirmed that there had been improvements to the mezzanine area.  His client, as a result of expanding the layout to include the mezzanine floor in addition to the ground floor where the premises had operated to date, was seeking an increase in capacity from 16 to 30 persons.  Mr Evans informed Members of the Sub-Committee that he had agreed all of Environmental Health’s and the Police’s proposed conditions.  This included a condition that all outside tables and chairs would be rendered unusable by 21:00 each day. The Police had now withdrawn their representation.

Mr Watson for Environmental Health referred to the fact that there was an existing premises licence for the ground floor area which had been granted by the Sub-Committee in May 2013.  The new application had been submitted to take into account works that had taken place in the mezzanine area.  He advised that Café Italia is a café and that it does not have planning permission to operate as a restaurant.  There was no full height extract ventilation.  The food available included pastas and cold meat.  Mr Watson stated that the Applicant had agreed with the Police a new condition which was not on the existing premises licence that alcohol was ancillary to a seated customer having a table meal.  A further condition the Applicant had agreed with the Police was that off-sales of alcohol would be ancillary to a take-away meal.  He confirmed that the Applicant had agreed all of his proposed conditions, including the maximum capacity including staff of 30 persons.  Mr Watson added that since 2013 there had been no complaints relating to the premises.  The only visit carried out by inspectors was in relation to the licensing of tables and chairs outside.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Watson clarified that the tables and chairs on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Duke of York, 45 Harrowby Street, W1

16/08637/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

As referred to by Mr Sycamore in his presentation, this was an application by the landlord to replace a previous licence which lapsed when the premises licence holder went into liquidation.  The landlord was applying for the same hours for licensable activities except for recorded music which was previously unrestricted.  Mr Grimsey, representing the Applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that prior to 2015 his client, the landlord had not had anything to do with Duke of York.  The previous licence holder had it was believed been tenants at the premises since 2011.  Mr Grimsey stated that it soon became clear that the previous licence holder was not an ideal tenant and within a few months the landlord had issued possession proceedings against the tenant.  The Duke of York was in a state of disrepair and rent payments had not been made.  Mr Grimsey added that the landlord had been given a possession order which was appealed by the tenant and the landlord had won the appeal.  The Applicant sympathised with the local residents who had made representations as the performance of the tenant had left a lot to be desired.  The tenant’s company had gone into liquidation as a result of a restructuring and the implications had not been thought through which had led to the previous licence lapsing.

The Sub-Committee asked the Applicant a number of questions in respect of the outside area.  Mr Grimsey confirmed that the area to the front and the side of the Duke of York was private land and that the tables and chairs were therefore on land owned by the landlord.  He appreciated that there was a need to reduce the width of the benches.  He also confirmed that one of the residents who had originally objected to the application, Mrs Lloyd, had now withdrawn her representation as a result of it having been agreed that the tables and chairs would not be used after 22:00 rather than the 23:00 previously proposed.  Mr Grimes stated that the landlord company wanted as little noise outside as possible.  The company was currently in discussions with leaseholders about the proposed operation.  The Chairman emphasised the importance of the tables and chairs being rendered unusable at 22:00, whether it was with fold-up furniture or benches being covered up.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Nevitt for Environmental Health.  He had maintained his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Kebab Centre, 368 Harrow Road, W9

16/07884/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

This was a new application for late night refreshment Monday to Thursday 23:00 to 01:30, Friday to Saturday 23:00 to 02:00 and Sunday 23:00 to 01:30.  The Applicant’s Representative, Mr Bowhill, addressed the Sub-Committee regarding the premises.  There was the main shop unit which was used for the preparation and the cooking of the food, the basement where the food was stored and to the rear, the garden or yard area which was now excluded from the premises.  The private forecourt between the shop and the public highway was included as part of the licensed area.  Mr Bowhill confirmed there would be no external seating there.  Mr Bowhill had been concerned that if this had not been included in the licensed area, there would be a gap between the highway and the public entering the premises.  The Sub-Committee reassured Mr Bowhill that since there were no licensable activities in the private forecourt it did not need to be part of the licensed area.

Mr Bowhill referred to the residences in Chippenham Mews where the three residents had objected to the application starting approximately 20 to 30 feet beyond the garden / yard area.  He asked his client, Mr Jafari, to explain the operation of the premises.  Mr Jafari informed those present that the rear garden/yard was only used for storage purposes.  He expressed the view that there was no noise except the air conditioning fan.  There were five chairs and two tables inside the premises where people could sit and eat.  He estimated that approximately 10% of customers consumed food or non-alcoholic drinks at the seating area, 30% had takeaways and 60% received deliveries from the premises.  He had worked at the premises since 2009.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Jafari about the nature of the deliveries.  He replied that the company used its own car and motorbike to deliver the food.  The deliveries started during the afternoon.  He was looking at employing a delivery company to assist. In response to further questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Jafari stated that currently staff smoked in the rear garden/yard during the daytime and the pavement outside during the evening.  He confirmed it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Drama, 35 Hertford Street, W1

16/08072/LIPV

1.

Regulated Entertainment – Exhibition of films, Performance of Dance, Performance of Live Music

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 Roberts, representing the Applicant Hilton Worldwide Limited.  He stated that his client operated the Drama nightclub alongside the Hilton Park Lane Hotel.  All the staff were employed by Hilton.  He believed there was good evidence to suggest that the premises had been very well run over the last couple of years.  There had been no complaints brought to the Applicant’s attention by either the Police or Environmental Health.  The premises had been refurbished internally, was a high end establishment and his clients worked well in partnership with the hotel.

Mr Roberts said that the application had been submitted in order to provide a bit more flexibility in terms of the operating hours.  The premises tended to open from 23:00 onwards when the clientele began to arrive.  His client sought an additional hour on the last entry time in order to avoid a peak time influx of patrons arriving at 01:00.  It was felt that a 02:00 last entry time for those who had not pre-booked would result in customers not all arriving at the same time.  The Applicant was also of the view that in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant a terminal hour of 04:00 for the sale of alcohol and a closing time of 04:30, it would enable customers to disperse more gradually during the later hours.  Mr Roberts added that currently customers were staying until 03:30 at Drama nightclub and they all left at the same time.

Mr Roberts made the point that his client was proactive in terms of managing queuing.   It was the Applicant’s belief that Ms Haiat who had submitted a representation was writing on behalf of the management company for the residential block at the corner of Hertford Street / Down Street rather than being a local resident.  He disputed the suggestion made in her representation that there were long queues heading towards the residential block.  It was his assertion that the controlled queuing was actually towards Park Lane and that dispersal of customers was actively managed so that they left towards Park Lane.  The Applicant was keen that there was a good relationship with neighbours and to avoid any nuisance being caused to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.