Agenda item

Essentials Food to Go, 7-14 Coventry Street, London, W1D 6DG

16/11957/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment - Indoors

Monday to Sunday: 23:00 – 05:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

None applied for.

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 Global VIPs Ltd for a new premises licence in respect of 7-14 Coventry Street, London, W1D 6DG.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and confirmed that the applicant had agreed to all the conditions proposed by the Responsible Authorities save for an SIA condition proposed by the Police.

Mr Ahmad explained that he had been a shopkeeper for some twenty-seven years operating a premises located at Leicester Square Tube Station. This application was for a premises located at Coventry Street which was a small convenience store with the application intended to cater for users of the 24 hour night tube. It was described how the application was simply to allow the sale of hot food, serving mainly samosas, sausage rolls and other pastries until 05:00 hours.

Mr Kanapathi, representing the applicant, recognised that the premises was located in a Cumulative Impact Area (“CIA”), however, it was submitted that this application should be considered an exception to policy on the basis that the  premises was very small in nature, it was already open twenty-four hours a day and no cooking would take place at the premises, simply the reheating of food in a microwave oven. It was stated that in the past Temporary Event Notices (“TENS”) had been applied for at various times, including New Year, without any reported issues or disturbances. The area was not residential, the shop was serviced by CCTV and no alcohol would be available for sale at any time. No noise emanated from the premises and although there was the potential for litter this would only be a small amount and would not create any nuisance. The application had been measured against all the licensing objectives and it was felt that this application would not only uphold them but also promote them. Should the licence be agreed, conditions had been agreed with the Responsible Authorities, apart from an SIA condition, and Mr Kanapathi highlighted how these would restrict the sale or display of hot food or drink to no more than 10% of the total sales area. Mr Ahmad clarified for the benefit of the Sub-Committee the location of the microwave oven and where the hot food display would be situated within the store.

Ms Thomas, representing EH, confirmed that the store currently operated twenty-four hours a day, in a busy location and was able to warm-up pre-prepared food items. Proposed conditions had been agreed with the applicant to restrict the operation of the business to ensure it did not become a regular fast food premises.

PC Lewis, representing the Metropolitan Police, advised that the Police’s representation was maintained on the basis the application was located within a CIA and was contrary to the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”). Conditions had been proposed which were agreed with the applicant except for one relating to a SIA licenced door supervisor. PC Lewis confirmed that the premises was small with no recorded instances of nuisance or disturbance.

Mr Nelson, representing the Licensing Authority, confirmed that its representation was maintained as the application was located in a CIA and the hours proposed were beyond core hours. It was also highlighted how the proposal would contravene Policies CIP1, HRS1 and FFP2 of the SLP. It was recognised that it was a small operation but it still had the potential to add to the impact in the area. If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application it had to be convinced that this application was a genuine exception to Policy and would not lead to cumulative impact.

In response to a question the applicant informed the Sub-Committee that during the operation of the TENS an average of fifty customers per night would purchase hot food.

The Council’s Policy Advisor clarified that EH’s proposed conditions would only limit the display of hot food to 10% of the sales area and not the quantity of sales.

The Sub-Committee stated that it fully understood the needs of the local community when considering an application of this type but had to consider the application on its individual merits based on the evidence before it. The Sub-Committee must strike the right balance when considering the application. Whilst the Sub-Committee noted that some of the proposed conditions promoted the licensing objectives, it was the Sub-Committee’s decision overall that what was proposed was in fact nothing over and above what a responsible operating running a licensed Premises should be doing to promote the licensing objectives.

After carefully considering the application the Sub-Committee thanked the applicant for his well-presented proposal and expressed their sympathy for his desire as a small business owner to seek to provide a better customer offer in the local area. However, it was recognised that the premises was located in a CIA for which strict policies applied in order to ensure against the proliferation of establishments providing late night refreshment. The hours requested were far in excess of the core hours policy and it was felt the provision of late night refreshment for the hours requested would add to the cumulative impact in the area. For the Committee to grant an application that could be considered an exception to policy the Sub-Committee had to be satisfied that what the Applicant was proposing to do was unique and set themselves aside from the other Premises within the City which would merit a departure from the Policy presumption. The SLP restricted licensed Premises for a reason within the CIA and it was not considered appropriate that the application should be granted without proper scrutiny by the Sub-Committee. Accordingly, based on the facts before it the Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the applicant had not demonstrated that the application was an exception to Policy and it was therefore refused accordingly. The Sub-Committee noted and acknowledged the service Mr Ahmad had provided residents and visitors to Westminster for twenty-seven years and wished him all the best in his future endeavours.

2.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Sunday: 00:00 – 00:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

None applied for.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The application was refused (see reasons for decision in Section 1).