Agenda item

Roadster Café, Westar House, 139-151 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5QE (“The Premises”)

18/09700/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol: On sales

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

Simon Tong (Agent, representing the Applicant) began by stating that the intention was to operate a café concurrently with a car showroom which shared the same building. It was submitted that the café would offer customers an additional experience for the car showroom customers, and also members of the public, to enjoy light refreshments and drinks including hot and alcoholic drinks. However, the intention was not to create a drinking establishment on the Premises but an enhanced experience when looking to purchase a showroom vehicle.  The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had worked with the Police and Environmental Health to ensure the appropriate conditions were in place. In addition, the application was well within core hours.

The Sub-Committee asked if customers would be permitted to take alcoholic drinks into the car showroom, and if not, what steps would be taken to prevent them from doing this. Clarification was also sought as to how the outside area would be used, how was it defined and how it was to be managed. It was also asked why the Applicant wished this outside area to be licensed. Further details were also sought as to what type of light refreshments would be available at the Premises.

In reply to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Tong stated customers would not be permitted to take alcoholic drinks into the car showroom, and if they strayed away from the licensed area and towards the car showroom with alcoholic drinks, staff would be present to remind them where the designated areas for consumption of alcohol were. Mr Tong informed the Sub-Committee that the outside area would be used for customers when the weather was good to enjoy the sunshine and warmth and the use of this area would be carefully monitored by staff. However, most of the time, customers would be seated indoors. Mr Tong clarified that the outside area was defined as per the Land Registry plan, however the Applicant would not be using the whole of this area. The Sub-Committee noted that there was no physical barrier as such between the café and the car showroom. Mr Tong added that car showrooms did not attract a particularly large footfall, so it was not envisaged that the café would be busy with a large amount of customers

Yuhua Yu (Designated Premises Supervisor, Applicant Company) advised that the refreshments on offer would include sushi, sandwiches including toasted sandwiches, paninis and other light snacks. Cold food and cold and hot drinks, but not alcoholic drinks, could also be taken away.

Dave Nevitt (Environmental Health) addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that the outside area was small and physically opened onto the car showroom. Both areas had free access to W/Cs. Mr Nevitt stated that a condition had been agreed with the Applicant on the basis that alcohol can only be supplied by waiter/waitress services to customers seated at a table. As the application stood, customers could consume alcohol without it being ancillary to food in both the proposed indoors and outdoors licensed areas, however only on sales of alcohol were being sought. Mr Nevitt confirmed that he was happy with this arrangement and that the application was designed to attract a lunchtime and afternoon trade. The outside area was located on a busy road with a high ambient noise level and so Mr Nevitt did not have concerns that the use of the outside area would unduly impact upon residents.  Mr Nevitt stated that there was a side entrance along Wynham Street which would need careful managing if it was used for deliveries and waste collections, as residential properties were nearby.

At this point, Mr Tong advised that both deliveries and waste collection would take place at a designated service area to the rear of the Premises.

Mr Nevitt replied that this was less likely to impact upon residents, although some residential properties would outlook this area. However, he felt that model conditions in respect of deliveries and waste collection would be sufficiently covered to deal with the relevant issues arising. Mr Nevitt stated that there was capacity for approximately 70 covers and the W/C provision was sufficient. In terms of policy, he noted that the Premises was not located in a cumulative impact area.

Richard Brown (Solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau, representing Jane Ronge and Louise Mancini) then addressed the Sub-Committee and stated that the two residents he was representing lived in Knox Street. He commented that all streets south of Marylebone Road where the Premises was located were residential, hence the residents’ concerns and therefore he felt an application of this type was inappropriate considering its location. It was stated that a number of residents had not been aware of the application or were not sure what was proposed. Mr Brown stated that the Premises had A3 planning use which did not allow for any primary cooking on site. He therefore queried why there were kitchens shown in the plans which could give rise to an unpermitted activity. In respect of the Premises’ link to the car showroom, he stated that they were effectively part of the same building. The café was not only orientated towards car showroom customers and office workers, but also the public in general and this could attract a number of customers to what is a residential area. The area was also particularly quiet at the weekend, yet the Applicant was proposing to be open during these times, whilst the nearby public house would be closed on these days.

Mr Brown asserted that the 70 covers the Premises would have meant there was potential for a lot of people to be dispersing south down residential streets after they left the café. He acknowledged that the hours proposed were modest, however there was nothing to stop the Applicant in submitting a variation to extend these hours and there was potential for the Premises to be drinks led. Mr Brown sought details on staff numbers and who would operate the café. The outside area where drinking and smoking could take place may also lead to littering and he asked what preventative measures did the Applicant have in place to address these specific issues. He contended that waste collections and deliveries would impact upon residents and he queried why waste collection would be permitted at later hours in the evening according to the current conditions proposed when the Premises would close at 19:00hrs. Mr Brown felt consumption of alcohol should be an ancillary activity to others such as a table meal and he went further to suggest that the whole building should be ancillary to its use as a car showroom. In respect of the tables and chairs in the outside area, Mr Brown felt that this would attract passers-by and he suggested that there be a condition stating that this furniture should be removed by an appropriate terminal hour. He also suggested that model condition 24 be added requiring the Applicant to provide a telephone number of the manager of the premises to residents and also a condition that staff remind customers to be quiet when leaving the premises as this would be more effective than solely displaying notices making such a request.

The Sub-Committee noted that the primary cooking issue raised by Mr Brown was a planning matter and therefore not relevant to licensing. Further clarification was sought regarding the café operator and its relationship with the car showroom, staff numbers and arrangements for the outside area in dealing with smoking and potential littering. The Sub-Committee asked if the Applicant would consider agreeing to the building being ancillary to its main use as a car showroom. Clarification was also sought as to whether the café could use the same waste collector used by the car showroom and would the Applicant agree to a condition that the tables and chairs be removed from the outside area when the Premises closed.

The Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee asked what training staff would undertake to ensure that customers did not take alcoholic drinks into unlicensed parts of the building.

In reply to the questions raised, Mr Tong advised that the plans were out of date and there was no intention to carry out primary cooking on site. The Sub-Committee were advised that the total number of staff at the Premises would be around six to eight persons with those involved in serving food and drink preparation around two or three. The outside area would be regularly monitored and the frontage cleaned which in any case was desirable in order to protect the image of the car showroom and the MG car brand that it represented. Ashtrays would also be installed for smokers. Mr Tong advised that the operator of the café was part of the same company that managed the car showroom, but they operated as separate businesses. In respect of the nearby public house, Mr Tong asserted that this was much closer to residential properties than the Premises and he referred to Mr Nevitt’s point that the Premises was located along a road with a high ambient noise (Marylebone Road) and so its activities were unlikely to impact upon residents. Mr Tong stated that as the building provided retail services, it was important that both the car showroom and the Premises were open at the weekend, as it would be for other retailers, such as a clothes shop. The proposed hours were in accordance with those suggested by both the Police and Environmental Health and were well within core hours. Mr Tong clarified that there was no physical barrier between the café and the car showroom. The Sub-Committee noted this and was reassured by the undertakings the Applicant gave in relation to staff properly monitoring and managing both areas effectively so there would be no breaches of the licensing objectives. In this connection the Sub-Committee decided to impose a condition on the Premises Licence (appearing as condition 23 below) to the effect that “Notices shall be prominently displayed on each table stating that no alcohol shall be taken into the car showroom area at all times”. The Sub-Committee took the view that the licensing objectives would be promoted with this condition imposed on the Premises Licence but did insist that the Applicant would have to manage the situation efficiently when it came to customers potentially straying into those unlicensed areas of the Premises where licensable activities were not permitted for the system to work effectively and the rules properly enforced by members of staff.

Mr Tong advised that the café would use the same waste collector as used by the car showroom and he agreed on behalf of the Applicant to a condition preventing waste collection between 20:00 and 08:00 as acceptable. Staff training would be tailored to ensure the licensing objectives were met and would be on-going, whilst a training manual would also be produced and adhered to by staff. The waiters/waitresses would also remind customers of the designated areas for consuming alcohol when they served drinks at their tables and car showroom staff would also be reminded that customers were not to take alcoholic drinks in there. Mr Tong indicated on behalf of the Applicant that a condition requiring that tables and chairs be removed from the outside area when the Premises closed as acceptable and he advised that these could be brought inside the Premises, adjacent to the access point. The Sub-Committee imposed Condition 22 below on the Premises Licence which states that all outside tables and chairs are to be removed by 19:00hrs daily.

The Sub-Committee granted the application, subject to additional conditions, including model condition 24 relating to the Applicant providing a telephone number of the manager of the premises to residents and model condition 20 stating that all tables and chairs shall be removed from the outside area by 19:00hrs, as agreed by Mr Tong on behalf of the Applicant at the hearing. The Sub-Committee added another condition stating that notices shall be prominently displayed on each table stating that no alcohol shall be taken into the car showroom at all times in order to help ensure that this did not happen. Conditions relating to deliveries and waste collections were amended to prevent these activities taking place between 20:00hrs and 08:00hrs following Mr Tong indicating his approval on behalf of the Applicant of these changes at the hearing.

In determining the application, the Sub-Committee acknowledged that the Premises was not located in a cumulative impact area, the proposals for licensable activities were well within core hours, the Police had withdrawn their representation and Environmental Health had indicated that they were content with the application. The Sub-Committee considered that the conditions it has imposed on the Premises Licence are appropriate and proportionate and would address residents’ concerns and assist the Applicant in upholding the promotion of the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm) and accordingly the application was granted.

2.

Hours premises are open to the public

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 19:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 19:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).