Agenda item

Daisy Green Ground Floor 2-4 Noel Street London W1F 8GB (The Premises”) 18/13958/LIPV

1.

Late night refreshments

Indoors, outdoors or both 

Current:

Proposed:

On sales only

No Change

Current Hours

Proposed

Hours

Licensable Area

Start:

End:

Start:

End:

Current:

Proposed:

Monday

23:00

23:30

No change

Ground Floor and Basement

No change

Tuesday

23:00

23:30

 Wednesday

23:00

23:30

Thursday

23:00

23:30

Friday

23:00

00:00

Saturday

23:00

00:00

Sunday

N/A

N/A

Seasonal variations/ Non -standard timings:

Current:

Proposed:

Sundays before Bank Holidays 12:00 to 00:00

No change

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Ms Prue Freeman for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Daisy Green Ground Floor 2-4 Noel Street London W1F 8GB. The Premises was situated in the West End Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). 

The Presenting Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and advised that representations had been received both from the Licensing Authority and The Soho Society. He advised that the representation from Environmental Health had been withdrawn following a satisfactory check and that there was no history of public nuisance at the Premises.

Mr Thomas (Applicant’s Representative) at the start of his submissions advised that Ms Prue Freeman, the Applicant, was unable to attend the Hearing due to personal reasons. He advised that the Premises could be described as a ‘coffee-based café’ which offered a wide range of pastries, salads and vegetarian food. The Applicant was reported to operate a number of similar eateries around the Capital. Mr Thomas advised that the Applicant sought to vary conditions 9 and 10 of the Premises Licence so as to permit private functions in the basement area of the Premises. He commented that this was sought from the Applicant following an increase in demand for this type of provision. He advised that under the previous Premises Licence, licensable activities were permitted in the basement.

Mr Thomas reminded the Sub-Committee that the Applicant was entitled to apply for up to 21 Temporary Events Notice (TENs) during the course of the year and stated that the rationale for submitting the application was to formalise the process. In total, it was anticipated that 50 private functions would occur each year at an average of one per week and be attended by up to a maximum of 100 persons excluding staff. Mr Thomas advised that the majority of the private functions would be corporate led events and that the Applicant would not be promoting this aspect of the business. Mr Thomas noted that the City Council had changed its  Policy on Private Members Clubs and these establishments were not to be considered in the same light as a night club or pub when considering the policy presumption with regard to the CIA as a different test applied. Mr Thomas advised that the alcohol would be ancillary to refreshments and that prospective patrons would be served canapés whilst consuming alcohol.

Ms Roxsana Haq from the Licensing Authority addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that there were concerns with the Application, in particular with the number of private events and the management of them. She confirmed that the Environmental Health historical check for public nuisance at the Premises proved satisfactory and commented that it would be appropriate for the Sub-Committee to impose Conditions which would mitigate concerns if it were minded to approve the application. The capacity of the basement was deemed appropriate to hold the proposed number of patrons.

Mr Richard Brown (Citizens Advice, Westminster) addressed the Sub-Committee. He advised that he was representing The Soho Society. Mr Brown raised grave concerns over the number of applications which had been made to vary the Premises License since 2015. The Applicant was reported to have made successive applications in recent years and these included changing the Premises terminal hour, capacity and bar area. Mr Brown advised that the Sub-Committee should take into consideration these various changes and stressed that the Premises operational hours had been extended and that prospective customers would have access to a bar for longer periods.

Mr Brown noted that the Applicant had advised that the events would be ‘modest’ and ‘discreet’ and commented that these descriptions could not be quantified. He highlighted that the proposed variation of Condition 9 to allow alcohol to be ancillary to refreshments was not a ‘high bar’ and was less restrictive when compared to Model Condition 66 (Restaurant Condition). He advised that potentially there could be public nuisance in particular during the dispersal of patrons. He reminded the Sub-Committee that the Premises was located in the CIA and the potential ‘net effect’ on surrounding areas should be taken into consideration when considering the evidence and the promotion of the licensing objectives, in particular the public nuisance licensing objective. 

In answer to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Thomas advised that he was uncertain on how private events would be marketed by the Applicant and commented that enquiries about this facility are often directly made by Patrons wanting to use the space. Mr Thomas advised that the Applicant would accept a Condition which prohibited the Applicant from advertising this aspect of the business within the Premises and that they would adopt a passive approach when marketing this service. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant’s website listed a contact number for enquiries for the holding of such private events. 

Mr Thomas reminded the Sub-Committee that the CIA Policy was primarily aimed at Public Houses and Bars and not ‘private hire’. He advised that under the previous Premises Licence the basement was licensed for the licensable activities permitted under the licence. He commented that food would be ancillary to alcohol and Condition 9 could further be amended in order for refreshments to be replaced with substantial food. Mr Thomas advised that Noel Street was highly residential and that only a diminutive number of events would occur during the year and would average one per week. Mr Thomas advised that the Applicant was willing to accept a Personal Use Condition and highlighted that the Premises did not have a history of complaints or any public nuisance. He commented that events would not add to the cumulative impact.

Mr Brown welcomed the amendment proposed by Mr Thomas in relation to substantial food being ancillary to alcohol. Ms Haq highlighted that the Applicant had anticipated that there would be up to 50 events per year and commented that this number could increase by a further 21, if TENS were applied for. Mr Thomas advised that the Applicant would not be exceeding the stated number of events, which was 50 per year. The Sub-Committee noted that they could not limit the number of TENs the Applicant could apply for because this would be interfering with a statutory right and furthermore, the only conditions that could be imposed on a TENS are those conditions imposed on a premises licence in any event. .

The Legal Advisor advised that public nuisance could occur at any single event and stated that during these periods there would be a concentration of people within the CIA. The Sub-Committee noted the concerns regarding the dispersal of a large number of patrons and were advised by Mr Thomas that the ‘private events’ would be largely corporate led events and not social events and it was anticipated that patrons would not exit the Premises on mass but steadily throughout the evening.

Mr Thomas advised that the Applicant would be willing to reduce the number of private events to 40 per year and also the number of customers permitted at private events. It was preferred that private events be held within the core hours. He stated that in his opinion the proposed amended conditions would prevent there being any negative impact within  the CIA. 

After carefully considering the Application on its individual merits and the evidence provided by all parties the Sub-Committee refused the Application.  The Sub-Committee noted that although the Applicant was willing to amend Condition 9 so that the sale of alcohol was ancillary to substantial food rather than refreshments and reduced the number of proposed private events and number of customers at such events, on balance, the Sub-Committee agreed that the Application did not demonstrate that there was an exception to policy and would not add negatively to the Cumulative Impact Area. The Sub-Committee had to also consider whether the style, nature and character of the Premises was likely to change if the application was granted, particularly where there is no restriction on vertical drinking. The Sub-Committee took the view that the public nuisance licensing objective would be undermined in terms of the additional numbers entering the CIA and how this would affect residents in terms of noise and dispersal of those customers. The Sub-Committee was disappointed to note that the Applicant did not attend the Hearing nor send a representative so that the various issues identified above by the Sub-Committee could be properly addressed

2.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

On or off sales

Current:

Proposed:

On sales only

No Change

Current 

Hours

Proposed

Hours

Licensable Area

Start

End

Start:

End:

Current:

Proposed:

Monday

10:00

23:30

No Change

Ground Floor and Basement

No  Change

Tuesday

10:00

23:30

Wednesday

10:00

23:30

Thursday

10:00

23:30

Friday

10:00

00:00

Saturday

10:00

00:00

Sunday

12:00

22:30

Seasonal variations / Non – Standard timings:

Current:

Proposed:

Sundays before Bank Holidays 12:00 to 00:00

No Change

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The Sub-Committee refused the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Hours premises are open to the public

Current

Hours

Proposed

Hours 

Premises Area

Start:

End:

Start:

End:

Ground:

Proposed:

Monday

08:00

00:00

No Change

Ground Floor

And Basement

No Change

Tuesday

08:00

00:00

 Wednesday

08:00

00:00

Thursday

08:00

00:30

Friday

08:00

00:30

Saturday

08:00

00:30

Sunday

08:00

23:00

Seasonal variations/ Non-standard timings:

Current:

Proposed:

None

No Change

to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The Sub-Committee granted the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

4.

Layout alteration:

No Change

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The Sub-Committee refused the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

5.

Conditions being varied, added or removed.

9.         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, save for in the area hatched black (such sale of alcohol without a table meal being restricted to 8pm)

9.        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, save for:

a)         in the area hatched black (such sale of alcohol without a table meal being restricted to 8pm);

    or

b)         pre-booked, private events in the basement where the sale of alcohol s ancillary to substantial refreshment.

10.      The supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service to seated customers only.

10.       With the exception of private, pre-booked functions the supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service to seated customers only.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

That the proposed Condition 9 (b) be amended to that the sale of alcohol is ancillary to substantial food rather than refreshments.

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

The Sub-Committee refused the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).