Agenda and draft minutes

The Pavilion, Merchant Square, W2

16/01609/LIPN

1.

Provision of films (indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

During the hearing Mr Thomas offered to amend this aspect of the application to Core Hours on Sundays (22:30 hours).

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Thomas and Mr Scrivener.  They stated that European Land owned the land north of the Paddington Basin.  The Paddington Square development was a mixed use pedestrianised area which included office, retail and residential use.  The Pavilion had been constructed as a marketing suite.  However, whilst three main buildings were being built, it was proposed to use The Pavilion to house pop-up events.

Mr Thomas and Mr Scrivener looked to re-assure those present that there would always be security present on the estate.  All guards would have radios and there were CCTV cameras on site.  Mr Thomas stated that planning permission had very recently been granted for The Pavilion until November 2016 and a capacity had been permitted of 60 people.  He added that the advice he had received was that there was the potential for the capacity to reach 100 subject to suitable means of escape.  The Applicant had agreed with Environmental Health that there would be no off-sales and no alcoholic drinks would be taken outside.  Mr Scrivener informed the Sub-Committee that those wishing to smoke would be encouraged to do so in an area on the office side of The Pavilion near to the escape door.  This would be the opposite side of the building from the residents in Merchant Square. 

Mr Thomas and Mr Scrivener made a number of points in response to questions from the Sub-Committee.  They stated that there was no entrance on the office side of The Pavilion but that it would only take a matter of seconds if patrons wished to go to the designated smoking area.  The Pavilion was soundproofed and double glazed so they did not believe that there would be noise breakout or public nuisance caused to residents.  The Applicant had submitted an acoustic report by Spectrum Acoustic Consultants which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Yosma Restaurant, Drury House, 34-43 Russell Street, WC2

16/02519/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Hughes advised during the hearing that the aspect of the application relating to late night refreshment (outdoors) had been withdrawn. He further confirmed that there would be no take away of food and drink after 23.00.

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Hughes, representing the Applicant.  He had been asked by Mr Panto whether he had any objection to Councillor Hyams sitting at the hearing as the Council’s Rules of Procedure states that Members will ‘not normally’ consider applications in their own ward.  There is nothing in law which prevents a ward councillor from considering an application in his or her own ward.  Mr Hughes replied that he had no objection to Councillor Hyams sitting.

Mr Hughes confirmed at the hearing that his client had reduced the proposed terminal operating hours for the Turkish restaurant in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.  This would also be reflected in the closing time. His client was seeking the flexibility to provide breakfast from 08:00 when it was proposed the restaurant would open.

Mr Hughes stated that the Applicant had taken into account the comments of those who had made representations.  There would be no recorded music or any other type of regulated entertainment.  The Applicant had agreed that the premises would operate in accordance with the model restaurant condition, MC66.  The bar area would only be used by customers who were waiting to be seated at a table in the main restaurant area or for those who have finished a table meal.  The service of alcohol in the bar area would be by waiter or waitress.  In consultation with the Covent Garden Community Association (‘CGCA’), timings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Aquavit, 1 Carlton Street, SW1

16/02619/LIPN

1.

Recorded Music (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 Bark, representing the Applicant.  He had been asked by Mr Panto whether he had any objection to Councillor Hyams sitting at the hearing as the Council’s Rules of Procedure states that Members will ‘not normally’ consider applications in their own ward.  There is nothing in law which prevents a ward councillor from considering an application in his or her own ward.  Mr Bark replied that he had no objection to Councillor Hyams sitting.

Mr Bark stated that the application was part of a Crown Estate re-development of the area.  He appreciated that Aquavit was located just within the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  He made the point that it was clear that the premises would be an upmarket restaurant.  His client was seeking hours that were longer than Core Hours but could accept Core Hours.  The main priority was some flexibility in respect of the conditions at the restaurant.

Mr Bark addressed the Sub-Committee in respect of the plans.  Key features in the basement included the main kitchen and also an exit to an internal alleyway which connected to another part of the Crown Estate development.  This would be where collections and deliveries would take place from Jermyn Street.  A condition was proposed that other than where deliveries take place in accordance with the Crown Estate delivery arrangements allowing delivery to the dedicated delivery area no deliveries to the premises would take place between 23:00 and 08:00 on the following day.  In terms of deliveries, a condition was proposed that other than where refusal is disposed of and collected in accordance with the Crown Estate refusal collection arrangements allowing collections from the dedicated area, all waste would be properly presented and placed out for collection no earlier than 30 minutes before the scheduled collection times. Mr Bark stated that the Applicant wished to provide breakfast and servicing would need to take this into account.

On the ground floor, there would be a doorman at the main entrance at all times.  There would be a minimum of two people ‘meeting and greeting’ inside the double doors at all times.  There was a diner/dispenser bar where the Applicant wanted some flexibility and not be fully  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Regent’s University London, Regent’s College, Inner Circle, Regent’s Park

16/02659/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant withdrew late night refreshment on Sundays during the hearing.

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

There is an existing licence for these premises. As a result of an oversight, when the application to convert the Justices’ On Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 was made, only the plan for the basement was submitted and not for all the other intended areas such as the ground floor.  The current application sought to rectify the position so that all areas were covered.  The Applicant was offering to surrender the existing licence if the current application was granted.

Mr Crier, representing the Applicant, stated that the facilities were primarily for the 250 students at the campus but they also could be used for pre-booked private events such as conferences and wedding receptions.  His client had agreed Environmental Health’s and Metropolitan Police’s proposed conditions.  The only change was an amendment to the second sentence of the Police’s proposed model CCTV condition so that after the words ‘all entry and exit points’ would be inserted ‘to and from the campus’ followed by ‘will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition’.  Mr Crier added that there were a number of CCTV cameras within the building.  However, they were not at every single exit and entrance.  The University was gated and this was controlled by security.

Mr Crier referred to the local resident’s representation objecting to the application.  He did not believe that granting the application would disrupt the local resident late at night as the proposed hours were within Core Hours.  Functions generally concluded around 22:00.

PC Janes stated his concerns had been addressed as the Police’s conditions had been agreed.  He was content to withdraw his representation.  There was a very low level of crime at the premises. 

Ms Thomas on behalf of Environmental Health drew Members’ attention to the fact that the Applicant had agreed her proposed condition that the supply of alcohol would only be to students or staff of the university or for those people attending a pre-booked private event. She was content that the conditions that the Applicant had agreed promoted the licensing objectives of public safety and preventing public nuisance.  The capacities would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Pappiland Café, Ground Floor, 12 Norfolk Place, W2

15/12126/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Pappiland confirmed at the hearing that he had, following discussions with the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health, reduced the proposed hours to Monday to Saturday 12:00 to 23:00 and Sunday 12:00 to 22:30.

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

This was a new application for on-sales of alcohol so as to boost trade at the coffee shop.  In addition to the reduction in hours, the Applicant had also agreed the conditions proposed by the Responsible Authorities.  Amongst the conditions proposed by the Police and agreed by the Applicant was that alcohol would be ancillary to a substantial table meal.   

PC Janes on behalf of the Metropolitan Police and Mr Drayan on behalf of Environmental Health stated that following the Applicant’s agreement of their proposed conditions and the earlier terminal hours they had no further objections to the application.  Mr Nelson had been informed by Richard Brown who had been representing Mr Zamit that whilst he had wished to maintain his representation he was happy that all of the Responsible Authorities’ proposed conditions had been agreed.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Pappiland some questions regarding the application.  The Sub-Committee had a concern that whilst earlier terminal hours had been agreed for on-sales of alcohol, the coffee shop was still due to close at midnight.  This would mean that there could be a significant drinking up time.  The Sub-Committee asked the Applicant whether he would agree a condition that the consumption of alcohol would cease no later than 30 minutes after the terminal hour for alcohol.  Mr Pappiland replied that he was content to agree this condition.  He was also able to advise that the tables and chairs in the outside area were on the private forecourt (this was confirmed by Mr Drayan) and he had agreed a condition that the tables and chairs would be removed by 22:00.

The Sub-Committee in granting the application considered that the Applicant had sought to address the concerns raised by the parties who had submitted representations objecting to the application.  The proposed terminal hours for the application had been reduced and agreed conditions promoted the licensing objectives including alcohol being ancillary to food and that it would not be consumed more than half an hour after it had been sold.  Members considered that the use of the outside area, where the sale of alcohol would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Simmons, 2 Bateman Street, W1

16/02637/LIPV

Application withdrawn by the Applicant.