Agenda item

21 Charing Cross Road, WC2

17/03024/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors & Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was informed at the hearing that the Applicant did not seek to provide late night refreshment to customers inside the premises after 23:00 but were seeking to open a hatch window where kebab and grill food would be sold as a takeaway to customers.

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Richer.  He stated that the Applicant was seeking to provide late night refreshment from 23:00 to 04:00 every night of the week.  Mr Panto, Legal Adviser, made the point that the Applicant had only applied for late night refreshment Friday to Sunday from 23:00 to 04:00 and that he was therefore advising the Sub-Committee that these were the only days that Members should take into account when considering the application.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Richer whether he was aware that it is the Council’s policy to refuse applications for premises supplying fast food in the Cumulative Impact Areas, other than applications to vary hours within the Core Hours.  Applicants were required to give reasons as to why the application should be a genuine exception to policy.  Mr Richer responded that a previous licence had lapsed at the premises (in September 2016) and it would be a continuation of the use of the premises.  There would be no alcohol served at the shop.  Mr Richer informed the Sub-Committee that that the Applicant did not seek to provide late night refreshment to customers inside the premises after 23:00 but were seeking to open a hatch window where kebab and grill food would be sold as a takeaway to customers.  It was intended to have a SIA licensed door supervisor on duty at the premises from 23:00 to 04:00 Friday to Sunday.

The Sub-Committee heard from PC Janes, on behalf of Metropolitan Police.  He stated that the Police had maintained their objection as 21 Charing Cross Road is in the heart of the West End Cumulative Impact Area ‘(CIA)’.  It is also a particularly busy street.  PC Janes referred to the proposed hours being significantly beyond the Council’s Core Hours policy.  The Police were concerned that after 23:00 customers would remain in the CIA to consume their food and not disperse.  The Police had found that fast food premises which were open after 23:00 attracted groups of customers, many of whom would have been consuming alcohol previously.  There was the potential for them to be involved in anti-social behaviour or be victims of crime.  PC Janes advised that he had examined the crimes database.  It was very hard to pinpoint whether any crimes had taken place in relation to the previous incarnation of the premises because the crimes often tended to take place in the street.  He added that the premises had not been trading recently so any customers there would be adding to cumulative impact in the CIA.

Mr Watson for Environmental Health commented that historically there had been a licence for late night refreshment at the premises.  Fornetto, the most recent business to trade at 21 Charing Cross Road and whose licence had lapsed in September 2016, was able to provide late night refreshment until 03:00 every night of the week.  The premises had never traded until 04:00.  He also made the point that Fornetto had been able to sell alcohol ancillary to substantial table meals until Core Hours.  The Applicant was not seeking to provide alcohol in the current application.

Mr Watson informed the Sub-Committee that the premises did not have a history of noise complaints or smells from odours / the extract system.  He also referred to the policy presumption to refuse the application.  There had, he advised, been no prior communication from the Applicant prior to the hearing that it was intended to sell takeaway from a serving hatch.   The Applicant had not responded to Environmental Health’s proposed conditions.  Mr Watson, having now become aware of the style of operation after 23:00 Friday to Sunday, had particular concerns about the potential for queues and litter.  In response to his concerns those representing the Applicant at the hearing were offering to agree a condition that they would clean the highway up to 75 metres each side of the premises.  Mr Watson had proposed conditions to prevent public nuisance.

Mr Watson was asked whether Environmental Health’s position was that the application should be refused in line with the policy presumption but if Members were minded to grant the application then conditions had been proposed or was it Environmental Health’s position that there were limited concerns if the proposed conditions were agreed.  Mr Watson replied that the application was a new application in the CIA and there was a policy presumption to refuse the application, albeit there was some history with the site having a licence for late night refreshment.  If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, even in part, then Mr Watson was requesting that his proposed conditions were considered.          

Mr Rowe, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, referred to the Council’s policy for fast food premises in the CIA which is to refuse, other than applications to vary hours within Core Hours.  Mr Rowe confirmed as set out in the report that officers had been in contact with the Applicant and he had not addressed how the premises would not add to cumulative impact in the CIA.  It was the Licensing Authority’s belief that exceptional circumstances had not been provided by the Applicant or those in attendance at the hearing on his behalf as to why the application should be granted.

Mr Brown, representing Mr Tickell, addressed the Sub-Committee.  He brought to Members’ attention that twelve flats from Faraday House, where Mr Tickell lives, overlook the premises and six flats from Garrick Mansion overlook the premises.  Mr Brown had discussed the application with Mr Maccoby-Moliver, a local resident and Mr Kaner of the Covent Garden Community Association and he stated that they shared Mr Tickell’s specific concerns.  Mr Brown referred to there being a review of the premises licence when the premises had operated as All-American Fried Chicken with a 03:00 terminal hour and this had been supported by residents.  The concerns then such as anti-social behaviour, noise and litter, he recalled, were in keeping with those set out in the policy that can occur when there is an existing 03:00 takeaway licence.  Mr Brown stated that, as referred to in the Council’s policy, if the current application was granted the premises would be attractive to customers who had previously consumed alcohol and may have become intoxicated.  He agreed with the view of the Police that after 23:00 customers would remain in the CIA to consume their food and not disperse, even if the night bus stops were relocated to their original position opposite Garrick Mansions and Faraday House.  It was the concern of residents that any passengers were likely to make noise whilst waiting for the buses.  

Mr Brown expressed concerns in respect of the hatch window.  It was the view of residents that customers eating inside would be of concern until 04:00 but overall would be less of a concern than a takeaway facility.  He queried whether the hatch window was covered by CCTV.  Customers would be congregating outside, caused by the ‘honeypot’ effect of takeaways referred to in the Council’s Statement Of Licensing Policy.  Mr Brown requested that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application then the proposed hours for takeaway should be restricted, whether this was from the hatch or inside the premises.

Mr Tickell provided some additional information including that Charing Cross Road was a major thoroughfare, particularly for those who had previously been in drinking establishments.  The hatch window did not provide a solution to the issues that the provision of takeaway would raise. 

Mr Richer was given the opportunity to respond to the comments of the parties opposing the application.  He stated that there would be a SIA licensed door supervisor on duty to assist dispersal.  There was the possibility of employing more door supervisors if there was a need for it.  The issue of litter would be addressed as a result of staff cleaning the outside area. Customers would be advised, including via notices, to leave the area quietly.

The Sub-Committee refused the application on the grounds that it was contrary to policy.  The Sub-Committee did not consider that the Applicant or those representing him at the hearing had given any exceptional reasons which would have justified granting the application.

The Sub-Committee noted that paragraph 2.4.8 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy does refer to applications for new licences to replace licences which have lapsed because of the insolvency of a licence holder being considered by the licensing authority as a possible exception.  However, having carefully examined this matter, the Sub-Committee noted that this was a new operator which had no connection with the previous operator and some six months had passed since the previous licence had lapsed. Moreover, the applicant would not himself have qualified to give the interim authority notice that is referred to in paragraph 2.4.8. It was also a style of operation being proposed which was not conducive to promoting the licensing objectives.  This involved selling takeaway from a hatch window until 04:00 hours three nights a week.  As set out by the objectors, the policy presumption against takeaways in the CIA had been introduced due to the fact that ‘fast food premises which are open after 23.00 can attract large groups of customers, many of whom have been consuming alcohol in pubs, bars, or night clubs sometimes some distance away. The congregation of people around these premises leads to additional noise and disturbance and further congestion in the area’.   The Statement of Licensing Policy also states that ‘the Metropolitan Police have raised concerns about the levels of crime and disorder that happen outside fast food premises late at night due to alcohol fuelled behaviour, and the opportunities for crime afforded by the congregation of people’.  These concerns had been re-iterated by PC Janes at the hearing.  The case had been made on behalf of the Police and residents that customers were likely to remain in the CIA and not disperse.  Members of the Sub-Committee did not consider that the measures that the Applicant or his representatives at the hearing had offered would mitigate these concerns and would justify overturning the policy presumption to refuse the application.

2.

Hours premises are open to the public

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was informed at the hearing that the Applicant did not seek to provide late night refreshment to customers inside the premises after 23:00 but were seeking to open a hatch window where kebab and grill food would be sold as a takeaway to customers.

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

The Sub-Committee refused the application.

3.

Seasonal variations / Non-standard timings

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was informed at the hearing that the Applicant did not seek to provide late night refreshment to customers inside the premises after 23:00 but were seeking to open a hatch window where kebab and grill food would be sold as a takeaway to customers.

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

The Sub-Committee refused the application.