Agenda and minutes

The Phoenix, 51 Moscow Road, W2

15/09852/LIPV

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Warne advised that the proposed hours for late night refreshment had been amended so that they were in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy (Monday to Thursday 23:00 to 23:30 and Friday to Saturday 23:00 to 00:00).

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Warne, representing the Applicant.  He advised that the application had been amended so that the proposed hours for licensable activities and the closing time were in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.  This meant that the application was to sell alcohol for an extra 30 minutes on Monday to Thursday and an extra hour on Friday and Saturday and to provide late night refreshment for an extra 30 minutes on Friday and Saturday. There were no changes proposed relating to the licensable activities or the hours of trading on a Sunday. The Applicant was also seeking to remove the restriction on trading hours for Good Friday so that the hours on that day reflect what is generally permitted on the licence for a Friday.

Mr Warne stated that the existing premises licence had few conditions attached to it.  It was his case that the additional proposed conditions and what he termed the ‘robust operating schedule’ mitigated the later hours sought.  A significant number of conditions had been agreed with Environmental Health and the Police.  The conditions were designed to address any issues relating to dispersal (including that from twenty minutes prior to closing the premises, the duty manager will patrol outside the front of the premises to ensure a quiet customer dispersal) and outside drinking (including  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

WeWork Soho, Second Floor, 2 Sheraton Street, W1

15/12010/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant amended the terminal hour for the sale by retail of alcohol on Sundays from 23:00 to 22:30 (in line with the Council’s Core Hours policy).

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Baylis, representing the Applicant that his client’s business was the provision of serviced office space with facilities such as wi-fi, printers and stationery.  The office space was hired by individuals or companies for a minimum period of one month.  It had not been appreciated that when the business had starting operating in April 2015 a premises licence for on-sales was required as it had been assumed that the alcohol was being given away.  However, the accessibility to alcohol was actually part of the package that was paid for by clients.

Mr Baylis stated that the alcohol provided on the second floor of the premises only was very much an ancillary facility for those who wished to use the office space there.  Beer was offered from a tap and this would be locked with a key outside licensable hours.  The pantry area where the alcohol was provided was supervised.  Mr Mittal informed Members that a swipe card was needed for entry to the second floor.  There were security guards and a receptionist to prevent people who had not paid the monthly hire fee entering the area.  Alcohol would not be permitted to be taken to or consumed on other floors.  CCTV covered 80% of the second floor area with the exception of the landlord’s communal area.  There was CCTV coverage of the beer tap area at all times.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Baylis and Mr Mittal a number of questions in relation to the representation submitted by the local resident, Mrs Rhodes.  She had raised concerns about the use of the kitchen area which she stated was 15 feet away from her bedroom window.  Mr Baylis made the point that his client was not playing music up to 04:30 and there was not significant activity taking place in the early hours of the morning.  It was the case that the second floor is a 24 hour a day office space and that the lights would therefore be used at all times.  The use of the lights or the kitchen was not specific to the application. Mr Mittal commented that he believed the offices were fitted with sensors so that the lights in certain areas switched off.  Some of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Honest Burgers, Ground and First Floor, 33 Southampton Street, WC2

15/12104/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):

Members of the Sub-Committee noted that following discussions with the Applicant, a number of residents’ representations had been withdrawn prior to the hearing.  Conditions had been agreed between the Covent Garden Community Association and the Applicant, prior to the former withdrawing their representation.  These included that the premises would operate in accordance with the Council’s model restaurant condition, MC66.

Mr Yeo, representing the Applicant, explained the circumstances as to how the previous premises licence had been surrendered.  The previous licence holder had not been granted a new lease by the freeholder, Transport for London and had refused to transfer the licence without receiving a sum of money.  Their terms had not been accepted and the licence had been surrendered by Bistro 1 on 24 September 2015.  Mr Yeo made the case for the application to be granted on the basis that the licence had lapsed and the same hours were being applied for as those on the lapsed licence.  He referred to paragraph 2.1.8 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy that ‘in cases where licences have lapsed through insolvency or death, the council will generally grant a new licence on similar terms to the lapsed licence as a replacement. However the council will take into account the previous history of the premises, the length of time the premises have been closed, and any problems at the premises, and will impose conditions that reflect current good practice for the type of business proposed at the premises’.

Mr Yeo also stated that his client had experience of operating at 13 sites in London, including two in Westminster that are located in cumulative impact areas.  He wished to emphasise that this was a quality burger restaurant which should not be equated with fast food.  The previous premises licence was for a restaurant/bar with a hatched area where the alcohol had to be ancillary to a table meal whereas the current application was for a restaurant only where the consumption of all alcohol had to be ancillary to a substantial table meal.  There had not been a capacity limit on the previous licence whereas the Applicant was proposing 30 on the ground floor and 50 on the first floor.  The Applicant had agreed a condition that there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Unit A2, Moore House, Inner Basin, Gatliff Road, SW1

15/11867/LIPV

Burger King, Platform 7 & 8, Unit 18, Paddington Station, Praed Street, W2

15/12117/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

It was agreed at the beginning of the hearing that the three applications submitted by the Applicant, Select Service Partner Ltd for the three Burger King premises at Paddington Station and Victoria Station would be heard by the Sub-Committee together.  Within this framework, the relevant parties were requested to address the Sub-Committee on the specific applications.  Mr Zamit and Mrs Virgo submitted representations on the Paddington Station application and they and Mr Brown, who was representing them, addressed the Members only on this application.

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Ms Smith, representing the Applicant.  She informed those present that Select Service Partner (‘SSP’) operates branded catering and retail units in stations and airports and had done so for many years without problems.  There had not been any issues in any Burger King units.  In addition to Burger King, some of their portfolio of brands included Whistlestop, Upper Crust and Camden Food Company units.  Burger King had recently been granted applications to sell alcohol in Fenchurch Street and East Croydon Stations.

Ms Smith stated that there had not been any objections to the aspect of the application regarding late night refreshment.  The Applicant was already permitted to provide this and in the event the current application was granted, the existing premises licence would be surrendered.  All three applications for Paddington Station and Victoria Station involved the sale of alcohol.  This was for a single brand of lager.  Ms Smith explained that the reason for the application was that it was convenient for customers to be able to purchase the food and alcohol in the same unit at the premises.  She referred to the station map for Paddington Station and advised that it was possible to purchase alcohol elsewhere in Whistlestop at Unit 22 and Sainsbury’s at Unit 5.  It was her submission that neither Paddington Station nor Victoria Station were located in the Council’s cumulative impact areas and there was therefore no presumption to refuse the applications.  The applications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Burger King, Unit 9, Main Concourse Victoria Station, Terminus Place

15/12090/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

It was agreed at the beginning of the hearing that the three applications submitted by the Applicant, Select Service Partner Ltd for the three Burger King premises at Paddington Station and Victoria Station would be heard by the Sub-Committee together.  Within this framework, the relevant parties were requested to address the Sub-Committee on the specific applications. 

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Ms Smith, representing the Applicant.  She informed those present that Select Service Partner (‘SSP’) operates branded catering and retail units in stations and airports and had done so for many years without problems.  There had not been any issues in any Burger King units.  In addition to Burger King, some of their portfolio of brands included Whistlestop, Upper Crust and Camden Food Company units.  Burger King had recently been granted applications to sell alcohol in Fenchurch Street and East Croydon Stations.

Ms Smith stated that there had not been any objections to the aspect of the application regarding late night refreshment.  The Applicant was already permitted to provide this and in the event the current application was granted, the existing premises licence would be surrendered.  All three applications for Paddington Station and Victoria Station involved the sale of alcohol.  This was for a single brand of lager.  Ms Smith explained that the reason for the application was that it was convenient for customers to be able to purchase the food and alcohol in the same unit at the premises.  She referred to the station map for Unit 9, Victoria Station.  This appeared on page 178 of the report and Unit 9 was actually numbered 15 on that plan. It was situated close to platforms 6 and 7. This application involved both on and off sales and Ms Smith added that the on sales could be consumed in a small area with nine seats adjacent to the sales counter. Draught beer would be available for on-sales which was not the case with the Paddington application or the application for Unit 21 at Victoria.  She advised that it was possible to purchase alcohol elsewhere in Whistlestop.  It was her submission that Victoria Station is not located in the Council’s cumulative impact areas and there was therefore no presumption to refuse the application.  The applications would need to promote the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Burger King, Unit 21, Main Concourse Victoria Station, Terminus Place

15/12095/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

It was agreed at the beginning of the hearing that the three applications submitted by the Applicant, Select Service Partner Ltd for the three Burger King premises at Paddington Station and Victoria Station would be heard by the Sub-Committee together.  Within this framework, the relevant parties were requested to address the Sub-Committee on the specific applications. 

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Ms Smith, representing the Applicant.  She informed those present that Select Service Partner (‘SSP’) operates branded catering and retail units in stations and airports and had done so for many years without problems.  There had not been any issues in any Burger King units.  In addition to Burger King, some of their portfolio of brands included Whistlestop, Upper Crust and Camden Food Company units.  Burger King had recently been granted applications to sell alcohol in Fenchurch Street and East Croydon Stations.

Ms Smith stated that there had not been any objections to the aspect of the application regarding late night refreshment.  The Applicant was already permitted to provide this and in the event the current application was granted, the existing premises licence would be surrendered.  All three applications for Paddington Station and Victoria Station involved the sale of alcohol.  This was for a single brand of lager.  Ms Smith explained that the reason for the application was that it was convenient for customers to be able to purchase the food and alcohol in the same unit at the premises.  She referred to the station map for Unit 21, Victoria Station.  This appeared on page 195 of the report and Unit 21 was actually numbered 41 on that plan. It was situated adjacent to platforms 12 and 13. This application was for off sales only and there was no dedicated seating area unlike Unit 9.  She advised that it was possible to purchase alcohol elsewhere in Whistlestop.  It was her submission that Victoria Station is not located in the Council’s cumulative impact areas and there was therefore no presumption to refuse the application.  The applications would need to promote the licensing objectives.  The proposed hours for the sale of alcohol were within the Council’s Core Hours policy.

Ms Smith commented that she was aware of the Council’s policy in respect of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.