Agenda and minutes

Restaurant, 1 Grosvenor Gardens, SW1

15/07477/LIPN

Application adjourned at the request of the Applicant Company.

Restaurant, 17 Bedford Street, WC2

15/07395/LIPN

1.

Late night refreshment

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 00:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Thomas, Solicitor representing the Applicant Company, began by stating that Mr Corrett from the Applicant Company had some 25 years’ experience of operating restaurants. The Sub-Committee heard that the Clos Maggiore restaurant operated by Mr Corrett had recently won the prestigious Wine Spectator Grand Award. Mr Thomas stated that the Applicant Company had consulted with over 500 relevant stakeholders over the course of the application and had agreed many conditions with the Council’s Environmental Health Department. He commented that the planning application relating to the premises that had been granted had addressed many of the concerns raised by residents and responsible authorities. The application sought a modest additional 30 minutes beyond core hours for licensable activities from Sunday to Thursday, whilst Friday and Saturday were within core hours. Mr Thomas then referred to proposed plans for the restaurant, including the proposed front entrance, bar holding area, restaurant area, private dining area and the service bay to the rear of the premises.

Mr Corrett of the Applicant Company then addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Corrett explained that the proposal was to create a quality dining restaurant with an Italian feel and at a similar level to restaurants such as The Wolseley, Cecconi’s, Scotts and The Ivy. The proposed holding bar/lounge area would have a limited capacity and would allow the opportunity for customers to have a drink before or after dinner or even dine in the area. Mr Corrett stated that the restaurant layout would be spacious and luxurious and intended to attract a higher spend clientele. Much of the business would focus on the pre and post theatre customer that appreciated fine dining. Mr Corrett felt that the proposals would be of benefit to Covent Garden by attracting quality diners to the area. Mr Corrett added that most customers would arrive and leave by public transport and taxis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Diageo Plc, 6^th Floor Bar, Golden Square, W1

15/07959/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):

Mr Rankin, Solicitor representing the Applicant Company, Diageo PLC, began by advising that the company operated a bar at its current central office in St James’s Square. The Applicant Company was to move to the Golden Square address and wished to apply for a premises licence to operate a bar on the 6^th Floor of the premises.  If the application was granted, the premises licence at the current central office location would be surrendered. Mr Rankin stated that the total footprint of the proposed bar would be the same as the existing bar at the St James’s Square office and that it was not intended to use the bar on a daily basis, with its main purpose to hold either lunchtime or dinner events. He felt that the conditions proposed would address concerns over use of the external terrace. Access to the premises, including the bar, would be monitored by 24 hours security every day and involve a signing-in procedure. Mr Rankin advised that proposals to provide plays, live music, recorded music and anything of a similar description had been withdrawn.  He also advised that all conditions had been agreed with the Metropolitan Police, and most conditions with Environmental Health, save for proposed conditions 33-42 on pages 100-101 in the report, which he was happy to leave to the discretion of the Sub-Committee. Mr Rankin advised that off sales of alcohol had been applied for in order to allow customers to take away promotional products as gifts and that a condition had been agreed with Environmental Health restricting off sales to sealed containers. He suggested that conditions 15 – 18 on page 99 of the report addressed concerns over the use of the terrace, including the condition stating that the terrace will not be used in connection with licensable activities at any time.  Ms Toomey of the Applicant Company advised in response to queries from Members that the terrace could hold between 10 to 12 people. She added that drinks would not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Timber Yard, Ground Floor and Basement, 4 Noel Street, W1

15/06558/LIPN

1.

Films

Monday to Sunday: 08:00 to 23:00

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

Mr Elliott, Operational Director and Co-Founder of the Applicant Company, began by stating that the Applicant Company operated three premises in London. This premise was a large speciality coffee shop that also provided a creative workspace and held events and business network meet ups. Mr Elliott informed the Sub-Committee that the events held were based on themes the Applicant Company felt were relevant to Soho and the first event had been held on 2 November 2015. The events had taken place following applications for temporary event notices. The Applicant Company had gained a good reputation in its field and had won seven awards in the last year, including Independent Operator of the Year. Mr Elliott explained that because of the nature of the premises, seldom were there children present.

Mr Elliott stated that the Applicant Company was working to address the concerns raised in the representations and it was noted that the Metropolitan Police had since withdrawn their representation, following agreement of their requested conditions. The Soho Society and two local residents making representations had been written to and one of the local residents had been invited to the premises and had enjoyed their visit. Mr Elliott added that the premises offered a non-threatening environment to its customers and to facilitate their work.

Ms Turner Coppin, Managing Director and Co-Founder of the Applicant Company, then addressed the Sub-Committee. She explained that the application had been made as the Applicant Company wished to offer its customers wine or beer with their food and any alcohol provided would be by waiter/waitress service. After 21:00, the premises would only remain open for pre-booked, private events.

Mr Wroe, Policy Officer, sought clarification that the Metropolitan Police had withdrawn their representation and this was confirmed by the Licensing Officer in attendance. In answer to a further question from Mr Wroe, Mr Elliott confirmed that the application applied to both the ground floor and the basement, and with the agreement of the Chairman, Mr Elliott circulated the updated plans to the Sub-Committee and Environmental Health.

Ms Thomas of Environmental Health then addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Thomas referred to Environmental Health’s proposed conditions in the report that had been agreed by the Applicant Company. She advised that a condition regarding hours for deliveries was the only condition where agreement had not been reached. Ms Thomas formally removed her requesting of a condition stating that there shall be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Boxcar Butchers, 23 New Quebec Street, W1

15/07388/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:

Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 23:30

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

Mr McCann, Solicitor representing the Applicant Company, began by advising of revisions to the application to bring forward the terminal hour for sale by retail of alcohol to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and for late night refreshment and opening times to 23:30 Monday to Saturday. With the agreement of the Chairman, Mr McCann submitted updated plans for the premises to the Sub-Committee and the Council’s Environmental Health Department.  He advised that the Applicant Company had extensive experience of running licensed premises and the application proposed to operate a butchery combined with a restaurant and to hold butchery classes.  The Sub-Committee heard that W/C provision had been increased and further conditions had been agreed with Environmental Health, including that the outside tables and chairs were not to be used after 23:00. Mr McCann stated that acoustic measures would be undertaken to prevent noise breakout and no regulated entertainment was proposed in the application.

Mr Nevitt from Environmental Health then addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Nevitt stated that the local resident who had made a representation lived in a flat above the whole of the premises which it also overlooked. Mr Nevitt had been in contact with the local resident through telephone and email to discuss the application. Mr Nevitt stated that he was satisfied with the acoustic measures taken by the Applicant Company to prevent noise breakout from the ceiling of the premises to the local resident’s flat and the potential impact of lights on the ground floor had been mitigated by the use of glazed lamp lights.  He confirmed that he had agreed a condition with the Applicant Company that tables and chairs were not to be used after 23:00 and a maximum capacity of 50 people for the premises overall, had also been agreed, subject to completion of the necessary works required to the premises. Mr Nevitt felt that considering the premises was small, with the hours for licensable activities reduced from the original proposals and the measurers being put in place to be suitable for the premises layout, that he would be satisfied if the application was granted subject to the proposed conditions.

The Sub-Committee noted that the local resident had been unable to attend the hearing and considered his written representation as part of the decision making process.

Members enquired whether there had been substantial insulation to the premises to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Caviar House Restaurant, Ground Floor, 161 Piccadilly, W1

15/07336/LIPN

1.

Proposed Variation

To vary the area authorised to include the external area on Piccadilly as indicated on the attached plan to permit the sale and consumption of alcohol on the public highway. Planning permission granted ref: 15/03612/FULL to use an area measuring 8.3m x 1.2m for the placing of 4 tables and 8 chairs. Application for a tables and chairs licence submitted on 17th August and is pending determination. There are no changes to hours or licensable activities proposed.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Smith, Agent to the Applicant Company, began by stating that the Council’s Environmental Health Department and the Metropolitan Police had withdrawn their representations on the application for variation following the Applicant Company agreeing to their proposed conditions. Mr Smith advised that there had been some dialogue between the Applicant Company and St James’s Conservation Trust, however no response to the Applicant Company’s attempts to contact the Ritz Hotel had been received. The Sub-Committee heard that the premises had operated as a licensed seafood bar for a number of years and had a capacity of approximately 40 people. The variation sought approval to permit the sale and consumption of alcohol to customers seated at the four tables of two chairs each in an external area of public highway on Piccadilly. Mr Smith then referred Members to the plans in the report and explained that it was intended to place the tables and chairs to areas bordered by pillars to the left and right, whilst the central area bordered by pillars would display food. He confirmed that the Applicant Company had already obtained a tables and chairs licence and the appropriate planning permission for the external area concerned.

Mr Smith stated that the premises offered high quality food and no fast food was provided. The Applicant Company had agreed a condition with the Metropolitan Police that after 18:00, alcohol was only to be supplied to customers seated at the outside tables and chairs if it was ancillary to a meal, whilst the terminal hour under the tables and chairs licence was 22:00. Mr Smith added that usually the external tables and chairs would only be used up until 21:00. The external tables and chairs were moved back into the restaurant after use and no regulated entertainment took place at the premises.

Members referred to the plans in the report and enquired about the size of the external tables and sought further explanation regarding the use of the premises for private entertainment on the existing premises licence.

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Juice and Public, 9 Wardour Street, W1

15/07298/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol: On Sales

Monday to Thursday: 11:00 to 23:00

Friday and Saturday: 11:00 to 00:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons of different from those set out in the report)

Mr Cabala of the Applicant Company stated that the premises operated as a small juice and coffee bar providing healthy food. The Applicant Company wanted to offer more substantial food and sell alcohol that would be provided by table service. Mr Cabala stated that because of the highly competitive market the Applicant Company was competing in, the ability to supply alcohol would play an important role in the success of the premises.  With the approval of the Chairman, Mr Cabala circulated the Applicant Company’s menu to the Sub-Committee and Environmental Health. He advised that the menu offering included tapas style dishes, platters, breakfast and brunch.

Mr Nevitt of Environmental Health then addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Nevitt informed Members that he had discussed the application with the Applicant Company. Mr Nevitt had concerns that the premises was located in a stress area and that if it became a bar, it could be against policy. He felt that clarity was needed if the premises was to be considered as a restaurant, as not all items on the menu could be considered offering substantial food. If the premises was to operate as a restaurant, Mr Nevitt would be seeking the full restaurant model condition to be added to the premises licence. He had advised the Applicant Company that as there was only one W/C on the premises, an additional W/C would be required in order that they could operate to their desired capacity of 30 people, not including staff.

Mr Nevitt stated that points for consideration included how would the Applicant Company provide substantial food and did they intend to offer take away. These issues may affect the wording of the model restaurant condition and Mr Nevitt advised that an alternative condition stating that “the supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal” could be included instead.

Mr Novysedlak of the Applicant Company stated they would wish to provide take away, particularly as this comprised a large part of their trade at lunchtimes.

Mr Wroe, Policy Adviser, stated that it was policy not to grant further premises licences for public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.