Agenda item

The Coffee Shop, 150-162 Edgware Road, W2

15/04691/LIPV

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol - On the Premises

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Ms Mathias, representing the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee.  She described the layout with The Coffee Shop being in close proximity to the Grosvenor Victoria Casino on the first floor and The Poker Room being on the second floor.  Both of the gambling areas had their own premises licences under the Licensing Act 2003.  There was a Gambling Act 2005 mandatory condition that the principal entrance to the premises was from a street. 

Ms Mathias made the point that the Coffee Shop met the Gambling Commission requirement for there to be a small non gambling area available to the gamblers.  There was a premises licence in place for the Coffee Shop with the exhibition of films and late night refreshment.  Her client was seeking to add on-sales to serve a limited range of alcoholic drinks and also other forms of regulated entertainment.

The Sub-Committee was advised by Ms Mathias that the gaming business operated 24 hours, 7 days a week.  The casino patrons dispersed without local residents being adversely affected.  It was not intended to bring new people into the premises to visit the Coffee Shop.  The premises would not be advertised.  The aim of the application was to improve the overall customer service.  Currently any gamblers who wished to take a break from the Casino on the first floor had to go to the second floor if they wished to have an alcoholic drink as there was not a restaurant or bar on the first floor.

Ms Mathias stated that the local resident who had made a representation objecting to the application had now withdrawn it.  She added that he had visited the premises and had appreciated the nature of the application.  The Police and Environmental Health were objecting to the application on the policy grounds.  Ms Mathias stated that she was fully aware that The Coffee Shop is located in a designated stress area and that exceptional grounds needed to be demonstrated for the application to be granted.  She explained the reasons as to why she took the view that there were exceptional grounds for granting the application.  It was not tantamount to creating a new bar.  Due to gambling regulations, the premises did have to be open to the public but the Coffee Shop would only be used by people who were gambling and it was a small premises.  She had offered a condition that ‘the sale of alcohol must be ancillary to the use of the adjacent premises on the first floor and the premises above on the second floor for the provision of facilities for gambling’.  Gambling needed to take place in a tranquil atmosphere and it was not in the interests of management for there to be a dance floor or raucous bar located on the first floor.  Regulated entertainment was already permitted as part of the Casino/Poker Room premises licences.  Access to the premises would only be via the main door where a SIA doorman was permanently positioned outside and then via reception where staff were located on the ground floor.  There was 460 staff employed in total with three security staff on duty at all times.

Ms Mathias added that there were never any queues at the premises and customers already gradually dispersed over time without incident.  There were no happy hours or hen parties at the venue.  There would be a limited set of drinks provided with three draft beers and a small selection of beers and spirits.  She commented that whilst the drinks were good value, they would be priced more expensively than at a nightclub.  Alcohol was not a big percentage of receipts and gamblers did not tend to be heavy drinkers.  The Grosvenor Casino was a secure adult environment with those under the age of 18 not being permitted into the gambling premises.  Whilst the log book for 2015 had a couple of incidents relating to gambling disputes, there had been no alcohol related incidents.  The report included a visit undertaken by Mr Keegan of Licensing Enforcement where the manager of the Casino had been informed that it was considered low risk.  There were 175 cameras in total at the venue and the Coffee Shop was fully covered by CCTV with footage from the cameras being observed at all times.  There were two security guards in the patrol room.  All staff were required to undertake extensive training and sit a test.  The induction process lasted two days and was refreshed every three years when staff were required to take a new test.  The Casino employed two full time trainers.  Mr Ramskill had been the General Manager at the premises for 13 years and was a personal licence holder and the Designated Premises Supervisor.  Ms Mathias emphasised that both of the gambling areas which had their own premises licences under the Licensing Act 2003 had later hours permitted for licensable activities than was being applied for in respect of the Coffee Shop.

The Sub-Committee then heard from PC Lewis for the Metropolitan Police and Mr Watson for Environmental Health.  PC Lewis stated that he was maintaining his objection due to concerns that this was a bar in the Edgware Road Stress Area which would be open to the public and potentially could be a destination venue for alcohol.  He felt that the price of the drinks was competitive with pubs and he questioned whether the application could be considered an exception to policy.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee he stated that the Casino was not known as a problem premises.  Mr Watson informed Members that he had been involved with the application where the first and second floor gambling premises had been split.  The Coffee Shop had been introduced as part of the application and regulated entertainment had been withdrawn apart from films.  He stated that the Coffee Shop could be used for vertical drinking.  There was seating for 16 people whilst the capacity was 50 people.  Food such as pastries was sold.  It was not possible to have the model restaurant condition on the licence as the Coffee Shop did not have a kitchen.  He confirmed that accessing the Coffee Shop did include passing a SIA doorman at the entrance and staff at reception on the ground floor.  He had been required to sign in before reaching the first floor.  Conditions proposed included that there would be no external advertising.

Mr Watson added that he had maintained his representation as this was a new application for on-sales until 02:00 in the Edgware Road Stress Area.  There was a full range of regulated entertainment.  It had not been described in detail how the Applicant would make use of the regulated entertainment if the application was granted.  Currently two screens showed pre-recorded films but mainly news or live sport.  He queried whether alcoholic drinks could be taken back into the first floor Casino from the Coffee Shop as the first floor did not have a dedicated bar.  He believed three draft beers was quite a large offer considering the Shop was not a large area.  It was for the Sub-Committee to decide whether the application was an exception to policy, due to the Coffee Shop’s association with the two gaming areas which operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Ms Mathias and Mr Ramskill responded to points that had been raised by the Responsible Authorities and to the questions of Members of the Sub-Committee.  Ms Mathias informed Members that it was not the intention for customers to be able to take drinks from the Coffee Shop to the first floor Casino and they would be prevented from doing so.  Alcoholic drinks in the Casino area were from the server hatch area rather than the second floor Poker Room.  The bagpipe player on New Year’s Eve and the dragon dancers on Chinese New Year had been required as this was consistent with what was permitted in respect of the premises licences for the gaming areas.  The premises had a central cellar and it was envisaged that there would be a single pump with a bitter, lager and a draft Guinness.  In response to a question as to whether there would be vertical drinking, Mr Ramskill replied that he was not in the gaming business in order to sell beer.  It was an ancillary aspect to the business.  The venue was a controlled environment where people could not just walk in.  It was also not being advertised.  The protection of the gaming licence was a key consideration.  It was the flagship venue for the company.  The venue operated a registration system including photographic identification of customers.      

Mr Panto asked about the concept of the alcohol being ancillary to gambling.  The Coffee Shop was closely linked to the gambling premises.  In a previous application, under gambling legislation there had to be access to the street and the public were given access for reasons other than gambling.  Now the current conditions were proposing that alcohol was ancillary to gambling.  Ms Mathias made the point that there were other facilities available in the Coffee Shop other than the alcohol.  The public had access to the facilities already for reasons other than gambling.  It was the alcohol element that would be ancillary to the use of the gaming areas. Mr Wroe made the point that there were Gambling Act aspects that were outside of what the Sub-Committee were required to consider.  There were more restrictive conditions being proposed for the current application including a Challenge 21 proof of age scheme.  It was clear that there was a change in how the venue intended to operate.  He advised that any decision made should not prejudice any future decision which might be taken under the Gambling Act 2005.

The Sub-Committee, prior to announcing the decision, asked Ms Mathias and Mr Ramskill whether they would be content with a proposed condition that ‘the sale of alcohol at the premises shall be restricted to persons registered at the adjacent gambling premises’.  This would assist in confirming to Members that the management were keen to ensure that the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the gambling taking place rather than the venue becoming a destination area for the public which had been a concern of the Police.  Following confirmation from Ms Mathias that her client would be content with this condition the Sub-Committee decided to grant the application as an exception to policy in the Edgware Road Stress Area.  The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the intended operation of the premises would promote the licensing objectives.  Suitable security arrangements were in place as had been demonstrated by Mr Watson not being able to access the Coffee Shop without being informed by management that he would need to sign in first.  There would be no external advertising of the Coffee Shop and there would be no off-sales.  Alcohol was ancillary to gambling and not the key reason for people to go to the venue.  There were already premises licences on the first and second floors, which included the sale of alcohol operating to later hours.  The gamblers were already dispersing at later hours from the gaming areas and the Applicant had experience regarding the dispersal of customers. 

2.

Late Night Refreshment

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).

3.

Regulated Entertainment

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).

4.

Opening Hours

Monday to Sunday:     00:00 to 00:00.

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).