Agenda item

Real Ale Ltd, 4 Formosa Street, W9

17/02715/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr King, Managing Director of the Applicant Company.  He stated that the Real Ale team had operated a similar shop in Twickenham since 2005 and that it is also located in a residential street.  The Sub-Committee was advised  that Mr Dolan lives above the store in Twickenham and the team were therefore aware of the need to prevent noise causing nuisance to residents in Formosa Street.  Mr Robert Wright who also lived above the shop had written a representation in support of the application. 

Mr King advised that the Applicant had agreed Environmental Health (“EH”) and Police proposed conditions (the Police had subsequently withdrawn their representation) and commented that they would promote the licensing objectives.  He believed that the store with its sale predominantly of premium craft beers, many of which were not available in supermarkets would offer something new to the City and the neighbourhood which was currently lacking.  He wished to emphasise that the proposed hours had been reduced and regulated entertainment had been withdrawn from the application.  There would be no parties at the premises and it would not be a pub.  It would be a shop for discerning drinkers and would attract customers who were interested in the quality of the product not how much quantity they could drink.  Craft beer was not about binge drinking.  The Applicant stated to the Sub-Committee that they were the beer equivalent of fine wine merchants.  Mr King explained that the Applicant had listened to the needs of the residents and also the requirements of the Police and EH and had significantly changed the application.

Mr King advised that it was proposed that there would be 18 seated customers at the premises.  On sales of beers would only be sold in ½ or ? pint glasses only.  On sales would cease at 21:30.  In order to minimise noise, it was intended to have the majority of customers in the basement.  There would be no outside drinking.  Mr King stated that the Applicant would remain considerate to neighbours.  They did not want people hanging around the shop, blocking the pavement.  It was confirmed that all staff had personal licences. 

Mr Dolan, Deputy Chairman of the Applicant Company, informed those present that in terms of correspondence with the Police, PC Janes had agreed to remove a condition that ‘no super-strength beer, lagers, ciders or spirit mixtures of 5.5% alcohol by volume or above shall be sold at the premises, except for premium beers and ciders supplied in glass bottles’.  It was his understanding that on-sales were not an issue for the Police.  Ms Lawrance confirmed that the correspondence setting out that the Police were content for the proposed condition to be deleted had been received by the Council’s Licensing Service.

Mr Dolan provided some additional information to the Sub-Committee, including that his company was the largest supplier in terms of range of beers and ciders to Marks and Spencers, providing 230 to them nationally.  The philosophy was in particular to help promote small British microbreweries but the company did also stock beers from around the world at the Twickenham shop.  He and the current shop manager lived above the Twickenham shop and he re-iterated that the company was attuned to the needs of local residents.  The company was keen to work with its neighbours in Formosa Street.  The Sub-Committee was advised that in Twickenham, the company supported a number of local charities.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Dolan confirmed thathe was keen to be involved with the community in Formosa Street, including  charitable work.

Mr Dolan explained that the company wished to hold tasting events known as ‘Meet the brewer’ at the premises in Formosa Street.  The Applicant stated that they  held approximately 12 to 18 events a year in Twickenham.  It was proposed that the tasting events would be held in the basement in Formosa Street to reduce the potential for nuisance to be caused to residents.  Tickets for the tasting events would be sold in advance in order that the Applicant would know what numbers would be in attendance.  There would be at least two members of staff on site at any one time.  The Sub-Committee was advised that for tasting events, there would always be at least one member of staff in the basement.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Dolan replied that there were approximately 20-30 people who attended each of the ‘Meet the brewer’ sessions in Twickenham. 

Mr Dolan provided further information in response to questions from the Sub-Committee.  There were likely to be more than two staff on duty at the shop in Formosa Street at peak times such as weekends or Thursday and Friday afternoons/evenings.  In terms of staff training, Mr Dolan stated that the Applicants were happy to provide a telephone number to residents that they could call in the event of any issues arising within the Premises.  In terms of training staff, they were all required to obtain a personal licence and be aware of the contents of the employee handbook.  In respect of training the Sub-Committee was advised that staff were required to shadow the store manager or two assistant managers for a minimum of a month. There was also refresher training for staff.  Mr Dolan was also asked about non-alcoholic beers and gave the answer that the Twickenham shop had one of the largest ranges of non-alcoholic beer for sale in London.  There was a definite move towards non-alcoholic beers and low alcoholic beers.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Koduah, representing the Council’s Environmental Health department (‘EH’).  The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed EH’s proposed conditions.  Mr Koduah advised that he had proposed a condition to prevent tables and chairs outside and also a condition to prevent the premises becoming a pub.  The sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the premises remaining a specialist craft beer shop.  EH was also seeking a capacity of 20 who were able to consume alcohol due to there being one toilet at the premises.  The Sub-Committee was advised that the Applicant was proposing  a maximum of 8 people on the ground floor.  However, the majority of customers would be in the basement and the ground floor would act as a buffer in relation to any noise transmission from the basement given that there were residents above.  EH had suggested a maximum of 5 persons smoking outside after 21:00.  The Applicant had agreed conditions that all waste would be placed out for collection no earlier than 30 minutes before the scheduled collection times and that no waste or recyclable materials, including bottles, would be moved, removed from or placed in outside areas between 23:00 and 08:00 on the following day.

The Sub-Committee asked the Applicant when they intended to put collections of waste or recyclable materials, including bottles outside.  Mr Dolan responded that any waste or recyclable materials would be put outside just as the collection was coming to the door.  It was stated that at the Twickenham shop, waste was picked up at a specific time as part of a commercial agreement.  The Applicant was content to limit the movement of waste or recyclable materials, including bottles, to between 08:00 and 20:00.

Mr Koduah added that taking into account a number of factors, including that EH’s proposed conditions had been accepted, he had some confidence in management being able to deal with matters of concern to residents.  He referred to there being no presumption to refuse the application as Formosa Street was outside the designated cumulative impact areas.  He had no objections or concerns with the application.  He clarified in response to a question from the Sub-Committee that the premises could safely accommodate 60 people but due to there being only one toilet under the British Standard the capacity was reduced to 20 who were able to consume alcohol at any one time.  He was reassured in respect of the safety arrangements, particularly with one member of staff in the basement to assist customers including in the event of an emergency.              

It was clarified to the Applicant that they would be able to have tastings sessions without the need for temporary event notices and that the capacity of 20 who were able to consume alcohol would continue to apply for those sessions.  Mr King and Mr Dolan informed the Sub-Committee that they would not be hiring out the basement area and that they intended to hold the events from 19:00 to 21:00.  They would be held infrequently.

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms Virgo, Chairman, Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society.  She referred to the difficulty of finding a suitable long term business at 4 Formosa Street.  She advised the Sub-Committee there was a certain amount of ‘hubbub’ in the vicinity of the premises with a pub opposite and restaurants with tables and chairs outside. The pavement was narrow and with the increased footfall, walking along it during the evening could be difficult.  Ms Virgo was keen that the number of smokers outside the premises was  limited and recommended that the awning was down whilst the shop was open to limit the potential for smoke and noise causing a nuisance.

Ms Virgo commented that she had been impressed by the Applicants’ commitment to make the business work.  She was hopeful that it would succeed and that the application would be granted.  She believed that as a result of what the Applicant had agreed, the shop would not add greatly to the hubbub.  She was keen that the conditions on the application prevented the premises becoming a pub in the event the business was sold.

Mr Brown, representing Ms Virgo, stated that he had discussed with the other parties present having more robust conditions on the premises licence.   He requested a slight amendment to EH’s proposed condition so that ‘the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall at all times be ancillary to the premises remaining a specialist craft beer retail shop’.  He believed that this would prevent the premises becoming a bar.  He also requested that the number of smokers outside would be limited to a maximum of five at all times and not just after 21:00.

The Applicant was asked whether they were also willing to agree a deliveries condition.  Mr Dolan replied that the ability to have deliveries to the premises between 08:00 and 18:00 would be acceptable to them.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Gray, a local resident.  He advised the Sub-Committee that he lives directly opposite the premises in 4 Formosa Street.  He expressed concerns that the Applicants were seeking a different business model from the one in Twickenham and that therefore the experience of local residents in Twickenham was not necessarily comparable. It was stated that the Twickenham shop was an off-licence whereas people could sit inside the premises and drink.  Mr Gray made the point that the locality of Formosa Street was more residential than at Twickenham.  His chief concerns were noise and drunken behaviour from customers of the premises which would add to the other businesses which already sell alcohol.

Mr Gray clarified that he was not concerned about off sales or infrequent tasting events.  He did take the view that the situation would be improved if the Applicant was content to have the awning down whilst the shop was open.  He also was of the view that it was an improvement that there would not be tables and chairs outside 4 Formosa Street.  His concern was up to twenty customers being able to drink inside the premises seven days a week and up to five of the customers being able to smoke outside at any one time.  He did not see a distinction from a pub and believed the premises could become a destination venue.  Customers would be noisy after they had consumed a few drinks. 

Mr Gray also had some concerns that the new premises would have an adverse impact in terms of re-mortgaging his flat. The Legal Adviser to the Committee  explained that the re-mortgaging of the flat could not be a relevant factor in the Sub-Committee’s decision making because it fell outside the scope of the licensing regime but more importantly had no such bearing on the licensing objectives. 

Mr Gray did bring to the Sub-Committee’s attention that even generally well behaved customers at the tables and chairs outside the Red Pepper at 8 Formosa Street were able to cause a nuisance.  Mr Koduah advised that there had been no complaints received by the Council’s Noise Team in respect of The Red Pepper.  The Sub-Committee recommended that residents contact the Noise Team if they were affected by noise nuisance.

Mr Dolan in response to the comments made at the hearing stated that it was intended to have the awnings down at the shop whilst it was open.  The Applicant were content to limit the maximum number of smokers outside at any one time to three.  He also wished to make the point that the Applicant would not sell alcohol to intoxicated people.  There were proposed conditions to ensure that there would be no noise emanating from the premises and notices would be displayed requesting patrons to leave the area quietly.

The Sub-Committee had noted that there had been representations in relation to the entrance to the residential properties above the premises.  The Sub-Committee had seen a photograph where the florists next door had positioned an A-board in front of the entrance.  The Applicants asked whether customers, particularly smokers, would be directed away from the entrance to the residential properties.  Mr Dolan answered that customers would be directed away from the entrance and it would be kept clear at all times. 

The Sub-Committee had read all the written representations and listened carefully to the comments made by the parties at the hearing.  The Sub-Committee considered that the Applicant had also carefully taken into account matters raised by residents and the Responsible Authorities and had amended their application accordingly both prior to and during the hearing.  The Applicant had agreed conditions proposed by Metropolitan Police and EH and these had included that there would be no tables and chairs outside and limiting the maximum number of smokers outside to five at any one time after 21:00.  During the hearing the Applicant had made further commitments, including limiting the times for deliveries and movement of bottles and reducing the maximum number of smokers outside to three at any one time throughout the operating hours.

The Sub-Committee considered in granting the application that the business model, with the proposed conditions attached to the premises licence would promote the licensing objectives.  The Applicant had made it clear that they would not operate the premises as a pub.  They wished to be viewed as the beer equivalent of fine wine merchants.  They had agreed the condition proposed originally by EH and amended as requested by Ms Virgo/Mr Brown that ‘the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall at all times be ancillary to the premises remaining a specialist craft beer retail shop (selling alcohol for consumption off the premises)’.  It had also been made clear to the Applicant that it was expected that customers would not leave the premises intoxicated.  If any noise emanated from the premises and adversely affected residents, the Applicant would be in breach of the condition attached to the premises licence.

The Sub-Committee noted in granting the application that the Applicant had advised that the ‘Meet the brewer’ tasting events would take place infrequently.  This would be in the region of 12 to 15 events per year.  The Applicantstated that the events would not continue beyond 21:00.  The Sub-Committee considered that the shop would be of benefit to the community.  The Sub-Committee was pleased to hear that the Applicant intended to bring their charitable activities to the neighbourhood.  The Sub-Committee also welcomed the idea that the awning would be down whilst the premises was open.

Amendments made to the conditions by the Sub-Committee in relation to discussions earlier in the hearing included that the number of persons permitted to consume alcohol in the premises at any one time (excluding staff) shall not exceed 20 persons, with no more than 8 persons on the ground floor at any one time and also that the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall be by waiter or waitress service only and to persons seated.   

2.

Sale by retail of alcohol (Off)

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.

Hours premises are open to the public

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.