Agenda item

Present:                   Mr Alun Thomas, Thomas & Thomas Partners LLP (representing the applicant); and Ms Imogen Davies (for the applicant).

Representations:    Representations had been received from Mr Francesco Girino (local resident), and Mr Ron Whelan (local resident) on behalf of the Mayfair Residents’ Group.

Applicant:                Browns (South Molton St) Ltd

Ward:                       West End

CIA[1]:                         Not applicable

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence.

INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the Members of the Sub Committee and the Council Officers who would be supporting the Sub Committee. The chairman then explained the procedure that would be followed at the meeting before inviting the Presenting Officer, Ms Michelle Steward, to present the report.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Ms Michelle Steward, Senior Licensing Officer

Ms Steward summarised the application as set out in the report before the Sub Committee, noting that representations had been received from The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS);[2] the Environmental Health Service; a local resident; and the Chairman of the Mayfair Residents’ Group.

Mr Alun Thomas, Thomas & Thomas Partners LLP

Mr Alun Thomas, on behalf of the applicant, presented the application, noting that the applicant was the tenant of the ground floor premises, the entrance to which was on the corner of Brook Street and Avery Road. He stated it was a small restaurant premises which accommodated 28 covers with a garden area which had a capacity for 40 covers.

Mr Thomas noted that the premises had been granted planning permission and that the hours applied for in the present licence application were in line with those granted in the planning application. The premises would be operated by a company called Native which had operated other premises in London and elsewhere. The rear garden was subject to a 10 PM curfew, as per the planning permission, and proposed conditions had been agreed with the Environmental Health Service.

Mr Thomas stated that discussions had taken place with Mr Francesco Girino, the local resident whose representation was before the Sub Committee. He stated he thought agreement had been reached with Mr Girino on the issue set out in his representation and that he had written to the construction company responsible for the development of the site about noise issues on behalf of Mr Girino.

Regarding the request by Mr Girino that the opening hours and times be reduced, Mr Thomas noted that the premises were not within a cumulative impact area and that the applicant had addressed the issue of licensable activities as set out in the policies in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, noting that the hours applied for were within the Council’s core hours and that the premises met the definition of a restaurant, reflected in the proposed inclusion of Model Condition (MC) 38 and MC41 which incorporated the main elements of MC66.[3]

Regarding the representation by Mr Whelan that there had been an intensification of the number of late-night licensed establishments in the area, Mr Thomas stated that, as far as he was aware, none of the licensed premises listed in the report as being within 75 metres of the applicant’s premises were new premises, only that there had been a variation of a premises licence for one of the premises. As to Mr Whelan’s other concern about operating hours, Mr Thomas stated that the application was within the Council’s core hours and in accordance with the premises’ planning approval.

In response to several questions, Mr Thomas, and Imogen Davies provided the following information.

(a)  Regarding the outside area, although an application had been made to use this area from 8 AM to 10 PM there would be no outside music and, at present, the area was only used for lunch and dinner which was by way of table service. Because the premises were part of a retail store, it was anticipated that there may be a number of customers dining on their own in between shopping.

(b)  The retail operation comprised Browns, a high-end fashion retailer presently located on South Molton Street which was relocating to Brook Street. By the nature of its business, Browns did not have large numbers of customers visiting its South Molton Street store at any one time, and it was not anticipated that there would be a large number of customers visiting the store on Brook Street.

(c)  The courtyard area was made up of tables for two persons. There were no outdoor heaters and, therefore, when the weather was cold, it was unlikely that customers would choose to sit outdoors. [It was subsequently noted that there were a lot of trees in the courtyard area and that smoking was not permitted in this area].

[At Mr Thomas’s behest, Ms Davies, referring to the menus in the papers before the Sub Committee, provided the Members of the Sub Committee with information about Native; when it started, its business model, and its ethos].

(d)  Mr Thomas, referring to the plans in the papers before the Sub Committee, described the layout of the premises, including access and egress to and from the premises and the courtyard area, and the location of Mr Girino’s property and its proximity to the courtyard area.

(e)  Referring to MC’s 38 & 41, Mr Thomas noted that these included most of the requirements of MC66. The main difference was that there was no requirement that customers be shown to their table by a member of staff. The red line on the plans, which delineated the licensed areas, included back of house areas where alcohol might be stored. The inclusion of these areas within the licensable areas was to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Licensing Act.

(f)    Referring to the Plan on page 14 of the Agenda Pack, Ms Davies confirmed that there was no public access to the kitchen area and that the only downstairs area that customers could access was the customer toilets.

(g)  Regarding private events, Ms Davies stated that it was anticipated that these would be small events, given the limited size of the premises, and that there would probably be only be one such event each month. Mr Thomas added that the applicant would not wish to limit the number of private events that might be held as it was possible that Browns might wish to hold some low-key fashion events in the garden. Ms Davies confirmed that food would be provided all private events.

Mr David Nevitt, Environmental Health Service

Mr Nevitt summarised the application, noting that the key regulatory provisions included MC38, requiring the premises to operate as a sit-down restaurant. He noted that there was no requirement for MC66 as the premises were not within a CIA. The other key regulatory provision was the restriction on the hours of operation. Mr Nevitt noted that the application was in line with the planning approval and that the application included a number of conditions governing how the premises would operate during those hours. He also noted that the courtyard area including a number of walls, screens, plants and other structures which limited any impact use of the courtyard area might have on local residents.

Mr Nevitt stated that there was a list of conditions that had been agreed between the applicant and the Environmental Health Service including a works condition[4] and that he was satisfied that the proposed conditions, operating hours and physical layout of the courtyard area were sufficient to meet any noise concerns. In conclusion, Mr Nevitt stated that was thought that the residents who had made representations might be in attendance and it was to address their concerns that the Environmental Health Service had maintained its representation.

Proposed Conditions

Referring to the proposed conditions in the papers that were before the Sub Committee, the Chairman asked if both the Environmental Health Service and Mr Thomas, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the conditions.

Mr Nevitt and Mr Thomas confirmed that the conditions were agreed. In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Nevitt indicated that the Police had seen the proposed conditions and had no further comment.

SUMMING UP

At this stage of the proceedings, the Chairman invited the various parties who had made representations to sum up their representations, if they so wished.

Mr Nevitt, Environmental Health Service

Mr Nevitt stated that he believed that the concerns of residents had been addressed and that there were sufficient measures in place to protect the interests of local residents and to promote the Licensing Objectives.

Mr Thomas, on Behalf of the Applicant

In response to a request by the Chairman to address a number of issues in his summing up, Mr Thomas provided the following information by way of summing up.

(a)  Condition 12, which stated –

“Save for private and pre-booked events, alcohol shall only be sold to person seated and by waiter/waitress service.”

Corresponded with Condition 10, which stated –

“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.”

If the Sub Committee so wished, the applicant would have no objection to Condition 12 being amended to include a reference to the sale of alcohol being conditional upon a requirement that food be provided.

(b)  MC’s 38 & 41 and the adherence to core hours with an exception for the opening hours, Monday to Thursday, which were 30 minutes outside of core hours, as per the hours approved by the planning permission, and in accordance with the Council’s revised Statement of Licensing Policy with regard to gradual dispersal of customers.

In conclusion, Mr Thomas stated that both he and Ms Davies would endeavour to answer any questions Members may wish to ask.

In response to a request for a possible wording for a revised Condition 12, Mr Thomas proposed the following –

“Save for private and pre-booked events with food…”.

Alternatively –

“Save for private and pre-booked events where food is provided…]

In conclusion, the Chairman confirmed that the Sub Committee would reflect on the suggested wording for a possibly revised Condition 12.

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow Members to retire to consider their decision. He stated that the Sub Committee would not announce its decision today but that a summary of the decision would be sent to the various parties within five working days.

The Chairman then closed the live part of the virtual meeting.

DECISION

It was the Sub Committee’s decision to approve the application, as set out in the Summary Decision attached to these minutes as an appendix.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having read the report by the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before it; the written submissions of the applicant and residents objecting to the application; and, having heard a presentation on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s responses to several questions, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to grant the application.

In reaching its decision, the Sub Committee was of the view that the points made by Mr David Nevitt on behalf of the Environmental Health Service in his presentation to the Sub Committee were cogent and compelling. Specifically, the inclusion of Model Condition 38 requiring the premises, which was not in a cumulative impact area, to operate as a sit-down restaurant; the operating hours being within the Council’s Core Hours, as set out in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy; and the effect of the landscaping in the courtyard in reducing noise.

The Sub Committee was further reassured that it was appropriate to grant the application as approval of the licence was subject to the following conditions –

1.     A “Works” condition viz:

21: No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until the works have been assessed as satisfactory by the Environmental Health Consultation Team at which time this condition shall be removed from the Licence by the Licensing Authority if there are minor changes during the course of construction new plans shall be submitted to the Licensing Authority.

2.     A condition limiting the capacity/number of covers permitted:

20. No licensable activities shall take [place] at the premises until the capacity of the premises has been determined by the Environmental Health Consultation Team and the licensing authority has replaced this condition on the licence with a condition detailing the capacity so determined.[5]