Agenda item

Grays and Feather, Wellington Street, Basement and Ground Floor, 26 Wellington Street, London, WC2E 7DD (“The Premises”)

19/03269/LIPV

1.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

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 Grays and Feather Wellington Street Ltd for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Grays and Feather, Wellington Street, Basement and Ground Floor, 26 Wellington Street, London, WC2E 7DD.

Mr Spielger, representing the applicant, advised the Sub-Committee that the application before it primarily consisted of three areas. The first element was to vary the Premises opening hours by extending the morning hours to 08:00 and extending the terminal hour to 23:30 on Friday and Saturday evenings. Secondly, it was proposed to remove the condition requiring the supply of alcohol to be to a person seated taking a table meal and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal only. The Applicant sought to replace this condition which one requiring the supply of alcohol to persons who had entered the Premises before 20:00 being ancillary to them taking substantial refreshment. Thirdly, permission was sought to allow private events to take place at the Premises.

Ms Wardle and Mr Gray, the applicants, provided a brief history of the Premises advising that it was a family run business established in 2011 with a particular focus on sparkling wines. The ethos of the Premises was to educate people on various sparkling wines from around the world and their food pairings. It was stated that a relaxed environment was provided where alcohol was supplied in a controlled environment that would help promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Premises did not function as a pub. Currently, tasting events were prohibited and permission to permit these was sought to cater for this demand. To future proof the licence is was suggested that it be made personal to the Applicants. Ms Wardle advised that it was hoped the variation would be granted to allow tasting and network events to be held on site in order to improve the future viability of the operation.

Mr Spiegler advised that pre-application consultation had been undertaken with the responsible authorities and the Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA). The application sought to amend the opening hours with no changes proposed to the hours relating to licensable activities. No objections had been raised to the earlier opening hours but it was recognised there had been to the additional 30 minutes sought on Friday and Saturday evenings. In response a dispersal policy had been introduced to provide reassurance that the later hours would not create nuisance to residents in the local area. In terms of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy section HRS1 was quoted and regarded as being relevant. The policy stated that applications seeking hours within core hours would generally be granted whether they were located in a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) or not. The extension in hours on Friday and Saturday evenings would still be 30 minutes less than core hours. Policy CIP1 was also highlighted as it stated that applications would be refused other than applications to vary hours within core hours. The policy recognised that extensions in hours within core hours did not add to cumulative impact and therefore the application could be considered policy compliant.

Mr Spiegler advised that following consultation with the CGCA the proposed condition requiring the supply of alcohol to those persons arriving at the Premises before 20:00 hours to be seated taking substantial refreshment had been amended. It was originally proposed for the hour to be 21:00 hours but this had been scaled back following the concerns raised. It was recognised that there were queries over what constituted substantial refreshment and as such the food menu available at the Premises was highlighted. It was noted that the menu consisted of both smaller and larger plates of food but what was being proposed was that alcohol could be sold with the smaller portions of food. After 20:00 hours alcohol could still only be available to persons taking substantial refreshment. Mr Spiegler acknowledged that the application as it was currently did not meet policy RNT2. However, the character of the Premises could be considered to be consistent with certain elements of the policy and would therefore not add to cumulative impact. These elements included the character of the Premises as it would not attract customers who would be involved in substantial drinking. The flexibility being sought on the licence would only be to customers arriving at the Premises before 20:00 hours. The supply of alcohol would be ancillary to substantial refreshment, although this could take the form of smaller plates of food. An additional condition was also proposed requiring the supply of alcohol to be ancillary to the Premises operating as a wine parlour and merchant. This tightly controlled and future proofed the licence ensuring the Premises could not be transformed in the future to an establishment which would add to cumulative impact. Another condition would require the supply of alcohol to be by waiter or waitress service only for members of the public entering the Premises therefore preventing any public vertical drinking from taking place. For these reasons the application could be considered an exception to policy and unlikely to add to cumulative impact.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee Mr Lynch, the Premises General Manager, provided further details on the type of private events envisaged for the Premises. The events would focus on wine tasting events where attendees would enter the venue and participate in tasting small volumes of sparking wine with canapes. The events at the Premises would consist of networking, celebrations and a various mix of social and business gatherings. Mr Spiegler confirmed that they were not the type of events to add to cumulative impact as they would not be promoted or involve such activities as hiring a DJ. It was suggested that these events would be restricted to the basement area of the Premises which held a maximum of 50 customers. The functions would not extend to late, would not be available for members of the public to attend and it was suggested that they be limited to only 25 per year. A dispersal policy had been introduced with a proposed condition requiring one to be in place. If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application the licence would be ancillary to the Premises being used as a wine parlour and merchant therefore preventing its use being changed and adding to cumulative impact. It was suggested that all parties were close to agreeing what conditions should be added to the licence. To reach this stage however compromises had been made by the Applicant to address concerns raised, but following these it would make further concessions difficult to accede to. Finally, Mr Spieger highlighted the letters of support which had been submitted by local businesses on behalf of the application which demonstrated the positive impact the Premises had had on the Covent Garden area.

Miss Gadd, representing the Licensing Authority, confirmed that their representation was maintained as the Premises was located within a CIA and had the potential to operate as a bar. A main area of concern centred on the proposed amendment to the conditions which would relax the current restrictions requiring the supply of alcohol to be ancillary to persons being seated taking a table meal. The application had to be considered under the pubs/bars policy and exceptional circumstances had to be demonstrated in order for the application to be considered an exception to policy. It was therefore a decision for the Sub-Committee to decide if the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances.

Mr Koduah, representing Environmental Health, confirmed that following the concessions made by the Applicant he had no major concerns with regards to the application. There were two issues he wanted to bring to the Sub-Committee’s attention however. Firstly, an overall capacity of the Premises of 60 persons, excluding staff, had been agreed and this was deemed as meeting health and safety requirements. Private events would be held in the basement and these would have a capacity of 50, so therefore the number of persons permitted on the ground floor during these events would be limited to 10. As there were no means of escape from the basement this was considered necessary to ensure the safety of customers. Secondly, if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application Mr Koduah advised of some proposed amendments to the wording of EH’s proposed dispersal condition. The Applicant was asked if it was planned to apply for any Temporary Event Notices and Mr Spiegler advised that it was not intended to apply for any although this could not be ruled out in the future.

Mr Brown, from the Citizens Advice Bureau Licensing Advice Project, representing the Florin House Residential Management Co Ltd addressed the Sub-Committee. He expressed sympathy with the licence holder over the difficult financial situation many premises were currently facing and confirmed that there were no issues over the operation of Grays and Feather. However, when the licence holders submitted an application in 2016 the Sub-Committee at the time imposed model condition 38 on the licence, instead of the full model restaurant condition, in order to provide the Premises with a degree of flexibility. However, concern was expressed that the proposals would permit an even greater degree of flexibility. The Sub-Committee was advised that the planning permission granted required customers to be off the Premises by 23:00. There was no opposition to the proposed earlier opening hours or to sections a and b of the third proposed condition. It was also recognised that the condition requiring the Premises to operate as a wine parlour and merchant would limit its operation however it was noted that it did not contain any reference to food. To provide reassurance and allay concerns it was therefore suggested that the variation only apply to Grays and Feather and not the entire licence. It was also suggested that the conditions be amended to ensure that it was clear that the private, pre-booked events took place only in the basement area. Other potential amendments to the proposed conditions included a requirement that after 22:00 hours the supply of alcohol be ancillary to persons taking a table meal. Also, it was suggested that the number of private events taking place after 22:00 hours be restricted with persons attending such functions being off the Premises by 23:00 hours. Mr Spiegler advised that the Applicant was content for the variation application to apply only when Grays and Feather held the Premises licence if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application

The Sub-Committee was interested to learn further about why the application could be considered an exception to policy. Mr and Ms Wardle advised that their Premises provided a “unique” experience specialising in sparkling wines. The experience was educational in its manner with written materials available to inform customers and improve knowledge of the wines available. The nature of the Premises and its design made it apparent it was not functioning simply as a wine bar but was providing a relaxed, intimate atmosphere which was not set up for the purposes of vertical drinking. Mr Spiegler also confirmed that the variation could be restricted to Grays and Feather holding the licence so this was an important factor the Sub-Committee could take into consideration when determining matters. The Premises would only sell sparkling wine but was unique in that this did not include champagne.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the evidence provided by all parties and agreed to grant the application with several amendments. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the Premises could not be considered a standard wine bar but was instead providing a unique experience with a form of specialised branding by the selling of sparkling wines and educating its customers in relation to their history and various wines it had on offer. It specialised in sparkling wines only with an educational perspective to inform customers of the produce. The nature and character of the establishment would not encourage vertical drinking and instead would provide an appropriate, relaxed setting to sample the wine. It was therefore considered that the application could be considered an exception to policy. The Sub-Committee deemed the proposed conditions appropriate to ensure that any impact on local residents would be minimised. This included restricting the supply of alcohol to the Premises being used as a wine parlour and merchant. Alcohol would also be supplied by waiter/waitress service, except for private events held in the basement area to which members of the public would not be admitted. The Sub-Committee also considered it important that the variation should only be permitted whilst the licence was held by Grays and Feather, therefore making it personal. It was considered that these conditions were restrictive enough to permit the removal of conditions 22 and 33 and ensure that any potential disturbance to residents would be mitigated appropriately. The operator was considered responsible, as evidenced by the letters of support supplied by local businesses, which in addition to the nature of the operation was unlikely to add to cumulative impact in the local area.

Having taken into account all the evidence the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application had addressed the concerns raised and could be considered an exception to policy for the reasons given above.  Even though the Premises was located within a CIA the nature of the operation and the conditions offered by the Applicant were restrictive enough to ensure it was unlikely to add to cumulative impact in the CIA,was suitable for the local area and ultimately promoted the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee therefore considered that the conditions it imposed on the licence were appropriate and proportionate and granted the application accordingly.

2.

Conditions being Varied, Added or Removed

Conditions to be Removed:

Condition 22 - The supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only.

Condition 32 - 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.

Conditions being Added:

1. The supply of alcohol on the premises shall be ancillary to the use of the premises as a wine parlour and merchant.

2. The supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only, except during pre-booked and bona fide private functions or events to which members of the public are not admitted.

3. The supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall be restricted   to persons:

  a.      Seated taking a table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal; or

      b.      That have arrived at the premises before 20:00 who are seated taking substantial refreshment there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their substantial refreshment; or

      c.      Attending a pre-booked and bona fide private function or event in the basement to which members of the public are not admitted. The number of private events taking place after 22:30 shall be limited to 25 per annum.

     4.           The premises shall implement and maintain a dispersal policy designed to ensure that    persons leaving the premises do not cause a public nuisance to people living above or in the vicinity of the premises.  All staff will be trained in its implementation.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee agreed to amend proposed condition 3 to require all licensable activities permitted under 3(b) and (c) should be permitted whilst the premises licence was held by Grays and Feather Ltd.

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

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