Agenda and minutes

Belgrave Square Garden, Open Space, Belgrave Square, SW1

17/14880/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):

Prior to the hearing, the Applicant advised all parties that there were amendments to the application.  Firstly, under “conditions consistent with the operating schedule” in the Licensing Sub-Committee report (condition 11), the number of events for which licensable activity would be necessary was reduced from 15 to 12.  Secondly, in terms of non-standard timings, it had originally been proposed that there should be a maximum of 5 occasions per calendar year when licensable activity may continue until 01:30. The applicant now proposed to reduce this to a maximum of 3 occasions per calendar year when licensable activity may continue until 01:00.

The Sub-Committee was addressed at the hearing by Mr Baylis.  He disputed that there had been any element of ‘subterfuge’ or a lack of consultation in relation to what was sought from the application as he believed may have been suggested by Belgravia Society’s written representation.  He clarified that he had been instructed by Grosvenor Estate.  The Applicant was Belgrave Square Garden Events Committee and the application was being fully supported by Grosvenor Estate who own the Belgrave Square Garden Open Space.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Hughes.  Mr Hughes explained that residents of Belgrave Square are automatically entitled to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Wingstop Restaurants, Basement To Second Floor, 138-140 Shaftesbury Avenue, W1

18/00145/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Ms Tricker, representing the Applicant, advised that the Applicant had withdrawn late night refreshment (outdoors) / takeaway as it was no longer being sought after 23:00.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms Tricker, representing the Applicant.  She advised Members that there were two amendments to the application.  Firstly, the terminal hour for off-sales on Sunday was reduced from 23:00 to 22:30 and secondly, late night refreshment (outdoors) / takeaway was no longer being sought after 23:00. 

Ms Tricker explained that the Applicant was unable to accept the Council’s model restaurant condition, MC66, in full.   She described the operation of the premises with customers placing their orders at the counter.  They would sit down awaiting the food to be prepared/cooked at the premises.  Once it was ready, they would collect it from the counter and consume any food or drink whilst seated.  There would be no waiter or waitress service at the premises although there was several staff there.  There was no bar at the premises and alcohol would not be displayed there.  It would be served from behind a counter.  Ms Tricker estimated that alcohol sales would be approximately 2% to 3% of turnover.

Ms Tricker referred to the proposed conditions, emphasising that the premises would not be drink led.  On sales would be ancillary to the meal.  Off sales would be in sealed containers, ancillary to a takeaway meal and not consumed on the premises or in the immediate vicinity of the premises.  Ms Tricker commented that the off sales condition was an important element for the Police and Mr Kaner for Covent Garden Community Association.  The Police had requested that off sales were not consumed in the immediate vicinity of the premises prior to the withdrawal of their representation.  The Police had also requested that there was no drinking outside the premises which had been agreed by the Applicant.  She added that the conditions also required a Challenge 25 policy to be established.  No super-strength beers would be sold at the venue and there would be no self-service of alcohol.  There would be three types of beer sold which would be ancillary to a meal.

Ms Tricker stated that the main seating area was on the first floor.  There were no licensable activities in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

New Paella restaurant to be situated in Eastcastle Street (within the larger unit known as The Plaza, 116-128 Oxford Street, W1).

17/14610/LIPN

1.

Playing of Recorded Music (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Grant, representing the Applicant.  He explained that InPaella is the venture of Quique Dacosta, the internationally renowned chef whose flagship restaurant in Alicante, Spain has held 3 Michelin Stars since 2012.  The Applicant company is in partnership with Iberica Restaurants who are working with Snr Dacosta and they current operate eight restaurants in the UK, including two in Westminster. 

Mr Grant referred to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy setting out at paragraph 2.5.12 that the ‘wide variety of restaurants is a feature of Westminster and contributes to its status as a world class city’ and commented that the project would provide world class dining facilities.

The Applicant was seeking Core Hours for licensable activities with an additional half an hour in relation to the closing time.  Mr Grant stated that the reason for the request for an extra half hour was in order that customers would be able to have a more relaxed dining experience.  There would be gradual dispersal from the restaurant. 

Mr Grant advised that the proposed capacity is 190 (80 on the ground floor and 110 on the first floor).  The planning permission granted in March 2017 had envisaged a capacity of 250.  He expressed the view that the application would, due to the nature of the premises, enhance the area rather than detract from it and would not add to cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  He also drew Members’ attention to InPaella replacing a number of fast food restaurants that had previously operated from The Plaza’s food court.  These outlets had occupied 1440m² in comparison to the current premises’ 865m².  The remainder of the space in The Plaza, which was the subject of a major re-development in Eastcastle Street, would be a retail unit.  The address of the premises would be Eastcastle Street.

Mr Grant said that the hours for the planning permission granted by the Council were in keeping with the opening hours to the public being applied for in the current application.  He made reference to the case of Forster v SoS for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 609  in order to make the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Trattoria Da Aldo, Basement And Ground Floor, 51 Greek Street, W1

18/00322/LIPV

1.

Layout alteration

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

This was an application to vary the premises licence for a restaurant situated in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  The first aspect the Applicant sought to vary was changes to the premises layout, which now included an external area (sales to which would now constitute “on sales” within the terms of the licence).  The second was to amend a condition on the existing licence, increasing the maximum capacity from 40 including staff to 54 excluding staff.  The third was to add a works condition to the licence.

The Licensing Authority submitted a representation objecting to the increase in capacity in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  The conditions on the existing licence required alcohol to be ancillary to a table meal and supplied by waiter or waitress service.  During the hearing, in response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Spiegler, representing the Applicant, confirmed that his client was content for the Council’s model restaurant condition, MC66 to replace these conditions on the premises licence in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.  Mr Spiegler supplied the information that the maximum number of staff employed at Trattoria Da Aldo would be 12. 

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Sycamore.  He welcomed the fact that the Applicant had offered the Council’s model restaurant condition.  He also welcomed clarification of the capacity in relation to the number of staff who would be employed at the premises.  Mr Sycamore did make the point that the existing hours of operation (which had not changed) were in excess of Core Hours and that more people would be dispersing into the Cumulative Impact Area in the event of an increased capacity.  However, it was for the Sub-Committee to consider whether the addition of MC66 addressed concerns.

The Sub-Committee granted the application for the layout alteration, the increased capacity and the works condition.  Members considered that the additional conditions, in particular the model restaurant condition, ensured that the application would not add to cumulative impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.