Agenda item

Honest Burgers, 31 Paddington Street W1

16/07420/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On and Off Sales

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 23:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Sunday (before Bank Holidays): 10:00 to 23:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Ms Kapila (Counsel, Applicant Company) began by advising that the Applicant Company had agreed a condition with Environmental Health that no deliveries shall take place between 23:00 and 08:00. She referred to the fact that no other responsible authorities had made a representation and that the application proposed moderate hours for licensable activities and opening hours and which were well within core hours. Furthermore, the premises was not located in a cumulative impact area. Ms Kapila stated that the application was for a restaurant and she referred to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy that recognised that food-led establishments caused less concerns than drink-led establishments. The premises was small and would accommodate around 50 covers. The Sub-Committee heard that there was a restaurant next door to the premises and other premises nearby which had later hours than those proposed in this application. Ms Kapila stated that the premises would provide high quality food and all food and drinks, including alcohol would be provided to seated customers by waiter and waitress service only.

Ms Kapila informed Members that the Applicant Company operated 15 restaurants in London, with three located in Westminster, two of which were in cumulative impact areas. All of these restaurants operated to later hours than that proposed in this application and operated successfully, working with local residents to address any issues. Ms Kapila stated that the Applicant Company acknowledged that it had breached a condition of its planning permission in commencing refurbishments at an earlier hour than that permitted and had ceased undertaking refurbishments at this time as soon as it realised it had committed this breach. The refurbishment had cost £500,000 and this demonstrated the Applicant Company’s commitment to provide a high quality restaurant.

Referring to the residents’ representations, Ms Kapila asserted that some were not directly relevant to this application, such as concerns raised in respect of the outside tables and chairs, as these were part of the premises and not on the public highway. In respect of concerns about increased crime and disorder in Sherlock Mews, these problems already existed and although the source of this was not known, it was unlikely to be caused by restaurants, as acknowledged in the Statement of Licensing Policy. The Applicant Company had also amended its application accordingly to address the concerns raised by local residents. Ms Kapila felt that the application would not undermine the licensing objectives as the premises would provide casual dining and would be food-led. In addition, the Applicant Company’s other restaurants had operated without any problems. Ms Kapila explained that off sales of alcohol would be facilitated by using Deliveroo and this would only represent a very small proportion of the overall sales. The alcoholic drinks sold were comparatively expensive and so would not be the type of premises a customer would visit to drink only. Ms Kapila stated that there would be no reason why the customers visiting the premises would choose to then go to Sherlock Mews when they left. With regard to concerns raised about queues, it was proposed that an ‘app’ be used by customers to indicate when they wanted to dine and in the Applicant Company’s experience, its premises did not experience long queues. Ms Kapila emphasised that the Applicant Company was keen to work with residents and one of the conditions of the contract with Deliveroo who would deliver takeaways was that the delivery drivers do not wait in or around Sherlock Mews.

Ms Kapila referred to the conditions proposed by Environmental Health and agreed by the Applicant Company. She stated that Environmental Health had considered that a condition requiring that all alcohol be ancillary to a meal was not merited in this case. The business model of the premises was focused on selling burgers and the Applicant Company’s other premises also operated in this way. Ms Kapila then referred to the conditions proposed by local residents and made the following observations about those below:

- Closing time shall be the same as the terminal hour for sale of alcohol ie 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 22:30 on Sunday: It was normal and good practice to allow 30 minutes ‘drinking up’ time.

- The sale of alcohol should be ancillary to a substantial meal: This was unnecessary as deemed by Environmental Health

- The premises licence holder shall not permit a queue to form outside the premises: This condition was too vague to be enforced and the definition of queue had not been clarified.

- The premises licence holder shall not permit customers who are awaiting access to the premises to wait in, or around the entrance to, Sherlock Mews: It was questionable whether this was within the control of the premises licence holder, however appropriate signage could be provided.

- The premises licence holder shall not permit delivery drivers attending or waiting to attend premises for the purpose of collecting or delivering items do not congregate in or around the entrance to Sherlock Mews: This would be difficult to enforce.

- Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall be limited to 2 persons at any one time and shall be restricted to a designated smoking area defined as to the right of the premises, away from

Sherlock Mews: That this be amended to 5 persons at any one time.

Ms Kapila confirmed on behalf of the Applicant Company its agreement with all other conditions proposed by local residents.

The Chairman acknowledged that it was not proposed that the premises be drinks-led, however in the event of the premises being sold, he stated that it could then be used as a bar and he sought the Applicant Company’s views on this.

In reply, Ms Kapila stated that measures such as a review were open to local residents and the responsible authorities should problems arise in the event of the premises being sold. In any event, the hours proposed were modest and a future premises licence holder would need to seek a variation to extend hours.

The Chairman asked whether the Applicant Company would be satisfied with amending some of the conditions proposed by local residents so that the premises licence holder had to use best endeavour to ensure a queue does not form outside the premises and do not queue in or around Sherlock Mews and that delivery drivers do not congregate in or around the entrance to Sherlock Mews.

Mr Panto (Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee) then asked if the Applicant Company would be satisfied with a condition that the sale and consumption of alcohol shall be ancillary to the principle use of the premises as a restaurant.

On behalf of the Applicant Company, Ms Kapila confirmed that it would be satisfied with the amended and additional conditions as suggested by the Chairman and Mr Panto respectively.

Members asked for further information on what steps the Applicant Company would take to control where the Deliveroo staff waited and in restricting any noise they made, where customers would smoke and in preventing queues.  A Member remarked that deliveries carried out by Deliveroo were an issue in Westminster and it was suggested that a condition preventing gathering of Deliveroo staff would be desirable. It was also queried whether consideration would be given in Deliveroo staff using electric vehicles as these were quieter than mopeds. The Chairman added that any reasonable efforts to ensure delivery drivers or riders did not wait in or around Sherlock Mews would help address the concerns raised by residents.

In reply to issues raised by Members, Mr Samuelsson (Commercial Director, Applicant Company) advised that the app available to customers to download enabled them to see when their table would become available and so prevent them from arriving at the premises before it was ready and thus having to queue. He acknowledged that whilst not all customers would use the app, they would be encouraged to do so. In respect of smoking, he suggested that a notice could be displayed requesting that customers smoke outside the front of the premises and not in Sherlock Mews. Mr Samuelsson referred to Ms Kapila’s earlier comment that the contract with Deliveroo included a condition that their staff not wait in or around Sherlock Mews and the Applicant Company could cancel orders if Deliveroo breached this condition. If Deliveroo staff made excessive noise, the Applicant Company could ask them to leave, however the roads including Sherlock Mews were public highways so it was beyond the power of the Applicant Company to enforce this.

Mr Watson (Environmental Health) then addressed the Sub-Committee. He began by acknowledging that the application had been amended with the hours for sale by retail of alcohol reduced and proposals for late night refreshment withdrawn. He informed Members that the Applicant Company had sought pre-application advice and that the premises was still under construction. Mr Watson confirmed that capacity would be limited by condition to not exceed 60 persons. He advised that there was no fixed bar on the premises and the Applicant Company would have to apply for a variation to have one. Mr Watson requested that condition proposed by Environmental Health concerning the location of loudspeakers remain, however the condition proposing no sales of hot food or hot drink for consumption off the premises after 23:00 could be removed as proposals to provide late night refreshment had been withdrawn. He acknowledged that delivery drivers and riders could be a source of public nuisance to residents and he also understood the residents’ concerns about smoking having spoken with them on this matter, although the reducing of proposed hours would help. In view of this, Mr Watson felt that conditions that the premises licence holder best endeavour to ensure that the delivery drivers or riders did not congregate, and customers did not smoke, in or around Sherlock Mews were appropriate. 

Mr Watson confirmed that Environmental Health had no record of complaints concerning the Casa Becci restaurant next door, nor Zizzi’s restaurant a few doors further down. With regard to concerns about extractor fans, he advised that some premises were using older fans that were noisy and residents could take action by lodging complaints to Environmental Health on this matter. However, in respect of the Applicant Company’s premises, this was a new build and the level of noise from extractor fans would be restricted.

Ms Bebbington (Local Resident) then addressed the Sub-Committee. She began by thanking the Applicant Company for inviting residents to a meeting and to listening to their concerns. She stated that she was happy with the subsequent steps the Applicant Company had taken and the conditions agreed with Environmental Health. Ms Bebbington stated that she felt reassured that the premises would not be a drink-led bar and acknowledged that the Applicant Company wanted to be a good neighbour. She explained that Sherlock Mews was bottle-shaped with a narrow entrance and widened out further down. Customers from the restaurants would go to Sherlock Mews to make mobile phone calls and smoke which could cause significant noise. Furthermore, staff from the restaurants would sometimes cause noise when they were drinking after the premises had closed. Ms Bebbington requested that a condition that consumption of alcohol be ancillary to a meal be added to the premises licence. She concluded by stating that residents were concerned about the proliferation of applications for licenced premises in the area and this could lead to further disturbance for residents in future.

Ms Bhavna Madhav (representing Dr Rohit Madhav, Local Resident) informed Members that she lived near the entrance of Sherlock Mews and stated that delivery vans caused public nuisance by parking outside her home. On some occasions, she was not able to manoeuvre her child’s buggy outside the front door as the delivery van was parked too close to it.

The Sub-Committee also considered the written representations made by Ms Reid (Local Resident), Ms Bruckner (Local Resident), Mr De La Piqueire (Local Resident), Mrs De La Piquerie (Local Resident), Mr Page (Local Resident), Ms Colebourn (Local Resident), Mr Riordan (Local Resident) and Dr Madhav (Local Resident) who were not present at the hearing.

In acknowledging the concerns raised by residents, the Chairman suggested that a condition that the premises licence holder best endeavour to ensure that staff did not congregate in or around Sherlock Mews either during opening hours, nor after the premises had closed may be desirable.

Mr Panto suggested that the Sub-Committee consider adding a condition that all off sales of alcohol shall be in sealed containers and ancillary to a takeaway meal.

The Sub-Committee granted the application, subject to conditions as proposed by Environmental Health and agreed by the Applicant Company, some of the conditions as proposed by local residents, including amendments to some of these conditions, and some additional conditions. The additional conditions included: that the sale and consumption of alcohol shall be ancillary to the principle use of the premises as a restaurant; that the premises licence holder shall best endeavour to ensure that customers do not queue in or around Sherlock Mews, and; that the premises licence holder shall best endeavour to ensure that delivery drivers or riders do not congregate in or around the Mews whilst they are waiting for deliveries, and that deliveries be via bicycle or electric vehicles. Other additional conditions to be added included that no staff shall congregate in or around Sherlock Mews neither during opening hours, nor after the premises is closed to the public and that all off sales of alcohol shall be in sealed containers and ancillary to a takeaway meal. The Sub-Committee also amended the condition in respect of the telephone numbers of the premises being publically available so that this also be advertised on the windows of the premises in lettering not smaller than two inches.

In granting the application, the Sub-Committee acknowledged that the application was well within core hours and was not in a cumulative impact area. However it considered that the conditions added would help address the concerns raised by residents and assist the applicant company in upholding the promotion of the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

The Chairman also advised residents that they could register their complaints with their Ward Councillors, Environmental Health or the Council’s City Inspectors in respect of any problems being experienced in Sherlock Mews.

2.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 23:30

Sunday: 10:00 to 23:00

Sunday (before Bank Holidays): 10:00 to 23:30

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).