Agenda item

LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE No. 1

Thursday, 1 October 2020

 

Membership:                  Councillors Heather Acton (Chairman), Susie        Burbridge        and Maggie Carmen

 

Legal Officer:                 Horatio Chance

Policy Officer:                Aaron Hardy

Committee Officers:     Tristan Fieldsend & Cameron MacLean

Presenting Officer:        Kevin Jackaman

 

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE 20/06120/LIPN

 

Present:                      Mr Jeremy Bark, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP)          Solicitors (representing the Applicant), Leanne                                     Catterall, The Crown Estate Commissioners           (Applicant), PC Brian Lewis (representing the        Metropolitan Police Service), and Daisy    Gadd   (representing the Licensing Authority).

Representations:      Representations were received from the Metropolitan Police                                     Service and the Licensing Authority.

Applicant:                  The Crown Estate Commissioners

Ward:                          West End

CIA[1]:                           West End

 

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence to operate as an Asian themed Food Hall/Court offering a wide range of Asian cuisines, including the sale of alcohol.  There would be a seated area, a delicatessen area, a café and a small dedicated Karaoke area. As this was a new premises application, there was no premises licence history.

Proposed Activities and Hours

Films (Indoors)

Monday to Thursday:           11:00 hours to 23:00 hours

Friday & Saturday:               11:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Sunday:                                12:00 hours to 21:00 hours

Live Music (Indoors)

Monday to Thursday:           11:00 hours to 23:00 hours

Friday & Saturday:               11:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Sunday:                                12:00 hours to 21:00 hours

Recorded Music (Indoors)

Monday to Thursday:           11:00 hours to 23:00 hours

Friday & Saturday:               11:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Sunday:                                12:00 hours to 21:00 hours

Anything of a Similar Description to that Falling Within Licensing Categories (e), (f) or (g)

Monday to Thursday:           11:00 hours to 23:00 hours

Friday & Saturday:               11:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Sunday:                                12:00 hours to 21:00 hours

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Tuesday to Thursday:          23:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Friday & Saturday:               23:00 hours to 00:30 hours

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings: alcohol may be sold or supplied for consumption off the premises prior to 11 pm but not afterwards (save for partially consumed and re-sealed bottles of wine).

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On and Off Sales)

Monday to Thursday:           08:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Friday & Saturday:               08:00 hours to 00:30 hours

Hours Premises Are Open to the Public

Monday to Thursday:           07:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Friday & Saturday:               07:00 hours to 01:00 hours

Sunday:                                10:00 hours to 22:30 hours

Representations Received

Metropolitan Police Service (PC Reaz Guerra)

Licensing Authority (Angela Seaward)

Summary of Issues Raised by Objectors

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) raised concerns that the application, if granted, would undermine the Licensing Objectives; add to existing problems of crime and disorder in the area; and that there was insufficient detail within the operating schedule to promote the Licensing Objectives.

The Licensing Authority raised concerns about how the Premises would promote the Licensing Objectives; On- and Off-Sales of alcohol on Mondays until 23:30 hours without provision for late night refreshment; insufficient detail about the proposed operation of the Food Hall and provision for customers who do not wish to be seated; and how it was proposed to manage the Karaoke area without ancillary food or waiter/waitress service.

 

Policy Position

The Premises was located within the West End Cumulative Impact Area and, as such, various policy points had to be considered, namely CIP1, HRS1 and PB2. The Applicant had to demonstrate how the Premises would not add to the cumulative impact in the West End cumulative impact area (CIA).

Policy CIP1

It was the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications in the CIA other than applications to vary hours within the Core Hours under Policy HRS1. Applications for other licensable activities in the CIA were subject to other policies and must demonstrate that they would not add to the cumulative impact in the CIA.

Policy HRS1

Applications for hours within the Core Hours would, generally, be granted. Applications for hours outside Core Hours would be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies.

Policy PB2

It was the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications in the Cumulative Impact Areas other than applications to vary hours within the Core Hours under Policy HRS1.

SUBMISSIONS

The Sub Committee considered an application by the Crown Estate Commissioners (“the Applicant”) for a new premises licence in respect of Asia Collective, 55 Regent St, London W1V 4DY.

Introduction by Mr Kevin Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer

Mr Jackaman introduced the report, noting that additional submissions had been made by the Applicant and that these had been circulated to Members of the Sub Committee.

Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant

On behalf of the Applicant, Mr Bark, made the following submissions.

(a)     The essence of the application was that it was a unique concept comprising a food hall and food court in a prime location which had previously been occupied by traditional retail units which had not proved successful.

(b)     Careful consideration had been given to an appropriate use for the site and, after a lengthy process, suis generis planning approval had been granted to the use of this location as a food hall/court.

(c)      Pre-planning advice had been sought and several meetings had taken place with various parties and a set of conditions had been agreed and subsequently revised in response to further consultation.

(d)     It was acknowledged that there were a few policy implications associated with the application and it was proposed to submit the application for the Sub Committee to consider in the light of those policy considerations and submissions by the various parties.

(e)     It was proposed that it was noteworthy that there were no objections to the application by Environmental Health and it was suggested that this might be attributed to the proposed conditions.

(f)       There had been an error in the application in that Late-Night Refreshment from 23:00 hours to 23:30 hours on Mondays had been omitted. If the Sub Committee was minded to grant the application, the applicant would seek to include the provision of Late-Night Refreshment on Mondays by way of a variation to the licence.

(g)     The application for Regulated Entertainment was solely in relation to the Karaoke area on the mezzanine floor which would have its own set of conditions.

(h)     Referring to the basement area and the premises facade that opened onto Piccadilly Tube, it was noted that there were two “grab-and-go” food premises (a noodle bar and a sandwich shop) which did not need to be licensed but were part of the food hall/food court concept.

(i)       There was also a coffee shop which did not require a licence, and which would probably be the main entrance to the premises, opening at 7.00 am. When the coffee shop closed, the basement level Piccadilly entrance would become the main entrance.

(j)       As agreed with the Police, each of the entrances would have security staff present whenever the entrances were open.

(k)      Regarding the proposed conditions relating to the sale of alcohol, in particular, Condition 4, it was noted that the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the sale and consumption of food on the premises thereby correlating the licence application with the planning permission.

        [Mr Bark then briefly referred to a few the other proposed conditions detailed in the application].

(l)       In keeping with the concept of a Food Hall and Court, there would be about eight stalls and/or kitchens all under one operator creating the feel of an Asian market, and that the stalls and kitchens would change from time to time to offer different types of Asian cuisine to keep the concept fresh.

(m)    In addition to the security officers at the entrances, there would be several “Meet and Greet” personnel to assist customers who would place their orders at the food stall before taking a seat and collecting their order when it was ready. Waiter/waitress service would be available for customers to place orders for drinks. Customers would also be able to place orders using an app.

(n)     There was an area away from the main entrances where vertical drinking would be permitted and which offered a degree of flexibility during events and to accommodate customers who preferred to drink whilst standing, the Asian theme being further enhanced by the offer of Asian themed cocktails.

(o)     The Coffee area on the ground floor would be an Asian coffee venture embracing the concept of sustainability and would be run by a renowned operator.

(p)     Accessibility and affordability were key to the concept with a range of price points for the various cuisines on offer.

Ms Leanne Catterall, Lead Retail Asset Manager for the Crown Estate, Central London Portfolio, made the following submissions.

(a)     She summarised the importance placed by the Crown Estate on finding suitable tenants for their West End properties and proactively managing those properties for the benefit of all through the imposition of appropriate leasehold and licensing terms and conditions.

(b)     Successive retail units had operated from these premises but had not been successful and the premises had been vacant for the previous 18 months. In summer 2018, the location had been identified as a possible site for a high-quality Food Court and planning permission had been granted for such use in January of this year.

(c)      It was proposed that the site would become a destination for users of, and visitors to, the West End, drawing and connecting workers and shoppers from both Regent Street and St James. It was proposed that a wide variety of customers would be attracted to the Food Hall and Food Court thereby contributing to the vitality of the West End.

(d)     In developing the proposals, significant consultation had taken place with local Ward Councillors, Council Officials, Transport for London (TfL), and British Transport Police.

        In response to a question by the Chairman, Ms Catterall confirmed that the site had not previously been used as a restaurant/food led venture.

(e)     Maximal Concepts had been selected as the preferred operator because of its track record of developing, delivering and managing Food Hall concepts in addition, Asia Collective understood the importance of London’s West End as a global destination and, in keeping with the Crown Estate, Asia Collective emphasised the importance of sustainability.

(f)       It was proposed to invest £10 million in the site which would deliver new jobs and contribute to the regeneration of Piccadilly.

Concluding the submissions, Mr Bark made the following points.

(a)     There had been significant pre-application discussions and consultation with various parties regarding the proposals, including dispersal measures which were reflected in the proposed conditions.

(b)     The proposals had been developed with the necessary safeguards in mind, noting that the site was just within the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

In response to several questions by Members, Mr Bark provided the following information.

(a)     Regarding the Karaoke area and the inclusion of vertical drinking, Mr Bark referred Members to Condition 29 (Conditions Relating to the Karaoke Area) in the supplementary papers. He stated that there was seating available in this area which could be either be pre-booked or, if it was free, booked at the time while visiting the premises.

(b)     It was possible to have food in the Karaoke area and there would be waiter/waitress service for customers wishing to order alcohol. In addition, the area would be supervised at all times.

(c)      It was anticipated that customers who wished to have a meal and then go to the Karaoke area would pre-book the area. It was noted that the area contained two seating areas, each seating 15 persons.

Submissions on Behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service

On behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), PC Bryan Lewis made the following submissions.

(a)     The Police objections were based primarily on policy issues. It was noted that the premises were very close to an area that was traditionally one of the busiest areas in Westminster and, therefore, there was a possibility of adding to existing risk factors in the area.

(b)     Those bars where the sale of alcohol was not ancillary to the consumption of food were not within the parameters of the Council’s policies.

(c)      There was a concern about whether drinkers in the Karaoke area could take their drinks from that area to another area; and the provision to be made for people wishing to smoke.

(d)     It was also a concern that, on Fridays and Saturdays, alcohol could be consumed until 1.00 am.

In response to the concerns raised by the MPS, Mr Bark stated that –

(a)     It would be possible for patrons to walk from the Karaoke area to another area as it was intended that they should be able to experience the combined atmosphere of different areas within the premises.

(b)     There would be 155 Members of Staff, of which 75 would be front of house. Approximately 55 front-of-house and 60 back-of-house Members of Staff would be on duty at peak times. Therefore, the premises would be very well supervised in terms of staff numbers.

(c)      If any patron left the Karaoke area whilst carrying a drink, they would be stopped by a Member of Staff who would offer to bring their drink over to them once they were seated. Alternatively, customers could ask a waiter/waitress to bring their drink to them once they were seated.

(d)     Smokers would be directed to designated smoking areas and would be prevented from taking their drinks with them when going to the smoking areas. It was not anticipated that there would be significant numbers of customers wishing to use the designated smoking areas.

        In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Bark stated that discussions had taken place with various authorities regarding the location of designated smoking areas and the numbers that might be permitted in these areas and that this would be the subject of further discussions.

Submissions on Behalf of the Licensing Authority

On behalf of the Licensing Authority, Ms Daisy Gadd, Senior Practitioner for Licensing, made the following representations.

(a)     Referring Members to Paragraph 2.3.2 of the Council policy, Ms Gadd noted that the policy was not to refuse applications with hours longer than core hours, but to determine each application on its merits, noting the matters that should be taken into consideration when considering such applications.

(b)     The area of concern was the Karaoke area identified by the green hatched area on the floor plan. The applicant would have to demonstrate an exceptional circumstance that would allow the Sub Committee to depart from its pubs and bars policy of refusing applications for premises within CIA’s.

(c)      The need to determine whether the application would add to the cumulative impact in the West End CIA.

Responding to the points raised in the Licensing Authority’s submissions and matters raised by Members of the Sub Committee, Mr Bark provided the following information.

(a)     Regarding dispersal measures, although the premises were just within the CIA, it was anticipated that most persons would avail themselves of the adjacent London Underground network when leaving the premises.

(b)     Given the nature of the premises, it was not anticipated that patrons, when leaving, would then be in search of other late-night licensed premises.

(c)      The proposed Condition 4 would, in conjunction with the dispersal policy referred to in Condition 27, and the nature of the likely clientele, provide enough safeguards and mitigate any cumulative effect the premises might have on the area.

(d)     It was anticipated that, if the application was approved, the premises would not be operational for at least another 18 months thereby providing an opportunity to shape the future of this area in a manner similar to that achieved by the Crown Estate in Haymarket.

(e)     There were many features both in the area and in the premises that would aid dispersal including the main exit in the evening being from the basement.

In response to a question by the Chairman regarding dispersal and the main late-night exit from the basement area into the London Underground network, Mr Bark stated that there had been extensive discussions with TfL and British Transport Police on this issue and no objections to the present application had been made by either organisation. Ms Catterall added that it was not the intention that this become a late-night drinking venue and that the Crown Estate included provisions within their lease agreements to ensure adherence to Crown Estate guidelines on the operation and management of premises. Mr Bark added that the proposed conditions prohibited Off-Sales and Hot Food or Drink takeaways after 11.00 pm, and that there would be security staff at the exits to enforce these conditions.

In response to a few questions by Councillor Burbridge, Mr Bark and Ms Catterall provided the following information.

(a)     The Food Hall and Court would comprise a combination of restaurants and takeaway premises rather than a [supermarket type] Food Hall where customers could only shop for items to take away.

(b)     Regarding Off-Sales, this comprised the resealing of bottles of alcohol that customers had part consumed on the premises, and the sale of bottles of premium Asian alcohol that customers could purchase to take with them when leaving the premises. Both On- and Off-Sales would be permitted between 8.00 am and 11:30 pm within the area delineated by the red line on the floor plan in the papers before Members.

(c)     Regarding the restaurant in the blue hatched area on the floor plan, it was the intention that customers could walk around the premises and purchase food from the various stalls and kitchens and take their food to the restaurant area where they could sit and consume their purchases. It would also allow customers who had purchased a drink or drinks only to sit and consume their drink(s) in that area.

(d)     It was not the intention to provide fast food, but a selection of different types of food and proposed Condition 10 was intended to address concerns regarding fast food. Regarding delivery services, there were no proposals for this at present. However, there was an area at the rear of the premises which could accommodate delivery services.

(e)     If there were proposals to allow delivery services, this could be made the subject of an appropriate condition and/or delivery plan agreed with the Environmental Health Service. If approval was to be granted to delivery services, it would have to be subject to a management plan agreed with the Crown Estate.

       Mr Bark stated that a possible condition might be, as follows –

“If third-party deliveries are to take place from the premises then they shall not do so before a Delivery Management plan has been put in place and approved by the Environmental Health consultation team”.

(f)    Regarding the proposed Opening Hours set out in the papers, specifically the following –

Opening Hours to Public

Friday to Saturday: 07:00 to 01:00

Mr Bark stated that this was a typographical error and the timing should read 07:00 hours to 01:30 hours. He noted that some fine dining establishments had 01:00 hours or possibly as late as 02:30 hours as their closing time. As the emphasis was on making the premises primarily food led with drinks being ancillary, he proposed that the 01:00 hours closing time was appropriate to reinforce the premises concept.

(g)   Regarding the requirement to book a table beforehand, Mr Bark said it was anticipated that customers may wish to use an Asia Collective App to make bookings. It was proposed that the number of customers admitted to the premises would be controlled to ensure there was enough seating available for customers.

In response to a question by Horatio Chance, Legal Officer, regarding the exceptional circumstances that would allow the Sub Committee to depart from the Council’s stated CIA policy, Mr Bark provided the following information.

(a)     It was one of the government’s tests that it was not likely that the premises would add to the cumulative impact. He suggested that the application met this test given:

·         The nature of the premises and how it was proposed they would operate;

·         That the operator was a reputable company;

·         That it was the Crown Estate that was the applicant;

·         That there had been no objections from Environmental Health, residents or resident societies, TfL or British Transport Police; and

·         The objections that had been received from the Police and the Licensing Authority were based on policy considerations which the Applicant had sought to address in the course of these proceedings.

(b)     The CIA policy was not absolute, and each application had to be considered on its merits. That there was no definitive list of exemptions in the policy, nor could the policy could cover every type of premises. It was proposed that the premises –

·         Represented an exciting project that would contribute to the revitalisation of the area;

·         That there had been significant consultation and consideration of this project over the previous two years. The difficulty was that the application was butting against policy considerations which were not necessarily designed with this type of application in mind; and

·         The application had been tailored in terms of opening hours, proposed conditions, and the areas to be included within the licence to accommodate the Council’s licensing policies and the concept behind the licence application. In so doing, detailed conditions had been proposed as a means of reconciling the Council’s policies with the proposed operating schedule.

(c)      A final consideration in support of the application, but not one upon which Mr Bark would necessarily rely, was the possibility that, by the time the premises were operational, there may be fewer licensed premises operating in the area. He stated that the project represented a significant investment and one that would contribute to the regeneration of the area.

SUMMING UP

The Chairman then offered the various parties the opportunity to sum up their submissions and representations. PC Lewis and Ms Gadd stated they had nothing further to add to their submissions.

Summing Up: Mr Bark and Ms Catterall

Mr Bark stated that the concept behind the project was excellent and unique in that this had not been done before in London. That the premises were unlikely to add to the cumulative impact and there had not been the number of objections to a project of this size that might otherwise have been expected. This was possibly the result of the extensive consultation and liaison undertaken by the Crown Estate over the last 2 to 3 years.

In conclusion, Mr Bark commended the application to the Sub Committee and thanked the Officers and the Police for their advice during the pre-planning and consultation stages.

Ms Catterall reiterated Mr Bark’s comments, stating that there had been a lot of care and consideration over a long time in bringing this application before the Sub Committee. The Crown Estate wanted to be certain that it was creating relevant spaces for people to enjoy. Ms Catterall concluded by thanking the Sub Committee for its time.

In conclusion, the Chairman thanked the various parties for their contribution. The Sub Committee Members and officers then retired to consider their decision.

DECISION

[The formal Decision Notice, as drafted by the Council’s Legal Officers and approved by the Members of the Sub Committee, is attached as an Appendix to these Minutes].

To approve the application subject to the following amendments.

 

1.     Operating Schedule

Hours Premises Are Open to the Public

Friday & Saturday:            07:00 hours to 00:30 hours

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On and Off Sales)

Friday & Saturday:            08:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Friday & Saturday:            23:00 hours to 00:00 hours

2.     Conditions

(a)   To amend Condition 6 set out in the supplementary papers before the Sub Committee, as follows -

6.     Within the area hatched in green, alcohol may be supplied and consumed by persons who are standing provided that no more than 50 persons are accommodated in this area.

After the word “area”, add the following wording –

“… and properly supervised and managed at all times”.

 

(b)   To amend Condition 12 set out in the supplementary papers before the Sub Committee, as follows –

12.  Customers shall not be admitted to readmitted to the premises after 23:00 on Sundays to Thursdays and 24:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, except for customers permitted to temporarily leave the premises to smoke.

Last entry and/or re-entry, except for customers permitted to temporarily leave the premises to smoke, to be amended to 23:30 hours.

(c)   That a further condition in relation to the provision of delivery services be added to the list of conditions, as follows –

“If third-party deliveries are to take place from the premises then they shall not do so before a Delivery Management plan has been put in place and submitted to the appropriate authorities including the Licensing Authority and Westminster City Council’s Environmental Health consultation team”.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Sub Committee was satisfied that the application, as amended, would not add to the cumulative impact effect in the area and would address concerns expressed by the Metropolitan Police Service and the Licensing Authority.

It was noted that the premises would be situated at an iconic location in premises that had been vacant for some considerable time. In occupying these premises, the proposed use as an Asian themed Food Hall and Food Court would enhance this part of Regent Street with a unique sustainability and food led concept.

The amendments to the operating schedule would assist in the dispersal of a potentially large number of customers before the time when crime and disorder tended to peak in this area.

 

The meeting ended at 3.20 pm.

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN:                                                                      DATE: