Agenda item

Amalco House, 26-28 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 8JB (“The Premises”)

17/06881/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On Sales

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 23:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 22:30

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – Off Sales

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 23:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

None.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Model Condition 70A would be imposed in relation to off sales of alcohol.

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Nespresso – Do & Do Café UK Ltd for a new premises licence in respect of Amalco House, 26-28 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 8JB.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and confirmed that the Police had withdrawn their representation following the agreement of proposed conditions.

Mr Rankin, representing the Applicant, explained that Nespresso was a high end brand which planned to open a café within Westminster which would not be considered a normal high street shop. The Sub-Committee was advised that a similar premises had already been opened in Cheapside one year ago with another branch located near Harrods. The concept of the application was to style itself as a European style café and would therefore not operate as a bar. The premises in Cheapside, which this application was seeking to replicate, was not drink-led and alcohol only accounted for 2-3% of its wet sales. The Sub-Committee noted that following constructive discussions with the City Council’s Environmental Health (“EH”) and the Licensing Authority a consensus of conditions had been agreed. Mr Rankin highlighted the small nature of the Premises and informed the Sub-Committee that an application had been submitted for planning permission to allow the use of an outside area. It was hoped a decision on the outside tables and chairs application would be received in September 2017. The hours requested were less than those stipulated in the core hours policy and all the Police’s proposed conditions had been accepted. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to one of the proposed conditions which would ensure any sales of alcohol would be ancillary to food. Following discussions with EH and the Licensing Authority it had been proposed that the standard restaurant condition, Model Condition 66, be placed on the licence to provide reassurance the Premises would not operate as a bar. Mr Rankin expressed reservations to this as the proposed style of operation did not fit into the standard restaurant condition. It was therefore proposed to attach an amended model condition 66 to the licence. The condition would ensure the Premises should only operate as a restaurant where the supply of alcohol was only provided with food in the form of a substantial table meal that was prepared on the Premises and served and consumed at the table. This would remove the requirement to provide non-disposable crockery to customers along with having to show them to their table. The provision requiring all persons to be seated when taking substantial meals would be kept. The model condition also provided certain restrictions on take away service, however the application was seeking to allow take away and it was requested these provisions be removed.

Mr Rankin highlighted that EH had requested to separate the condition requiring no noise or odours to emanate from the Premises into two separate conditions under model conditions 12 and 87. EH had also proposed model condition 20 to control the removal of tables and chairs from any outside area. The applicant confirmed that the addition of these conditions on to the licence would be accepted.

With regards to the capacity Mr Rankin highlighted how small the Premises was. There was seating for thirty-six customers inside and, if permitted, eighteen outside. EH had expressed concern over the provision of toilet facilities and Mr Rankin suggested that a condition had therefore been proposed to limit the number of people allowed to consume alcohol at the premises at any one time to twenty-six. It was considered that if levels of alcohol sold at the proposed site were similar to the Premises at Cheapside this condition could be comfortably managed. EH had also expressed a wish to ensure the alcohol content of all alcoholic beverages listed on the menu be displayed. The applicant already did this for the wine it sold and would be happy to extend it to all alcoholic drinks.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises would have a high staff to customer ratio with ten staff employed and six being on duty at any one time. All food would also be prepared freshly on the Premises.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises was sited within a Cumulative Impact Area (“CIA”) and were keen to discover how the application would not add to the cumulative impact in the area. Mr Rankin drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the Cheapside operation which was acknowledged as not being within a CIA but nevertheless was located in a very busy location. It was stated that the Premises operated as a café not a bar and had been very successful in selling coffee and food alongside a small element of alcohol. With the conditions proposed to be added to the application it was felt that the Premises would not add to the cumulative impact. The Sub-Committee was interested to know if the applicant was of the opinion that the bar snacks menu would constitute a substantial meal? Mr Rankin discussed the difficulties involved in confirming what a “substantial table meal” consisted of but suggested that offerings of quiche or sharing platters would fall within this definition.

In response to a question regarding off sales of alcohol Mr Rankin confirmed that this had been applied for to allow customers to take out partly consumed bottles of wine. The Council’s Licensing Policy Adviser clarified that customers taking away half consumed bottles of wine would be considered as an on sale. As such Mr Rankin confirmed that this aspect of the application could therefore be withdrawn.

With regards to customers smoking the Sub-Committee was informed that a limit on customers could be imposed however such a restriction for smoking outside was usually associated with alcohol led establishments. The application was for a small café, it was stated that the Cheapside premises did not have a high number of smokers and the hours requested were less than core hours. It was therefore suggested that imposing a condition on smokers would not be required.

The Policy Adviser brought to the Sub-Committee’s attention that according to the plans submitted the application intended for the public highway to form part of the Premises. However, to avoid any confusion this could create the Council’s Licensing Policy preferred using model condition 70(a) which would in fact permit the use of that area by allowing off sales but only to an area authorised for the use of tables and chairs on the highway. Mr Rankin referenced the fact off sales had earlier been withdrawn. This could now become a qualified withdrawal of off sales of alcohol save allowing it only to those customers seated at the designated outside tables and chairs. The Policy Adviser confirmed that if this was agreed then a new plan would have to be submitted. The Sub-Committee also requested that the new plan highlight exactly where the seating for the thirty-six customers would be located.

Mr Sycamore, representing the Licensing Authority, confirmed that constructive discussions with the applicant had taken place. It was remarked however that whilst the other premises was located in Cheapside this was a very different area to the application site and was not directly comparable. Whether the food offer available at the Premises could be considered substantial was a matter for the Sub-Committee to decide. The qualified withdrawal of off sales of alcohol was welcomed along with the intended restaurant/cafe style operation of the Premises. If the application as amended had been submitted initially then the Licensing Authority may have initially considered it differently. Mr Sycamore was now reassured about the application but further clarity over whether it constituted a restaurant was required.

Mr Koduah, representing EH, explained how there had been initial concerns over the application but following agreed changes EH were now more comfortable with its proposals. Agreement over the safety provisions at the Premises had been reached and the provision of one toilet on the ground floor was considered acceptable by limiting the number of customers able to consume alcohol at any one time. Mr Koduah proposed that model conditions 32 and 87 replace proposed condition 27 with regards to noise and odour emanating from the premises.

The Sub-Committee questioned Mr Rankin as to how in practical terms the number of customers consuming alcohol could be limited? Mr Rankin explained that in Cheapside only 2% of wet sales involved alcohol. This was a very small proportion of customers and it was therefore felt that it could comfortably restrict this to twenty-six. The Sub-Committee still expressed reservations over the toilet provision at the Premises. Mr Rankin advised that a Licensing Sub-Committee had previously granted a licence to a branch of Itsu which was located within the immediate vicinity of the application site and this only had one toilet available with a maximum capacity of forty persons allowed to consume alcohol. This exceeded the capacity requested for the application currently before the Sub-Committee.

The Policy Adviser brought to the Sub-Committee’s attention that the opening hours requested for Sundays exceeded the core hours policy by thirty minutes. Mr Rankin confirmed that this would be amended so the Premises would close at 22:30 on Sundays to reflect the core hours.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and having heard all the evidence before it was of the opinion that the Premises was a café style operation and not a bar or restaurant. As such an amended model condition 66 would be added to the licence ensuring the Premises only operated as a café with alcohol only being served by waiter/waitress service to those customers seated and for consumption to those taking a substantial table meal. This would provide reassurance that the Premises could not operate now, or in the future, as a drink-led Premises. The Sub-Committee noted that it was located within a Cumulative Impact Area and the Council’s Licensing Policy recognised that cafes which sold alcohol ancillary to food were unlikely to add to cumulative impact before 20:00 hours. The application was seeking however to sell alcohol until 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and 22:30 on Sundays. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that granting the sale of alcohol to such hours was likely to increase cumulative impact in the area and undermine the licensing objectives. It was noted however that a branch of Itsu in the immediate vicinity of the application had been granted a licence to sell alcohol until 21:00 hours and this was for a larger capacity than the application before it. The Sub-Committee therefore considered it appropriate and proportionate to allow the sale of alcohol but only to 21:00 hours. It was felt this earlier hour would not add to cumulative impact in the area and ensure the licensing objectives were upheld and promoted. Therefore due to the nature of the Premises, its limited capacity and the reduction in its opening hours on a Sunday to core hours the Sub-Committee decided to grant the application accordingly.

The Sub-Committee requested that the applicant submit a new plan of the Premises excluding the outside area from the application and specifying the Premises seating arrangements.

The Sub-Committee agreed to amend the following conditions on the licence in order to update it accordingly:

• Condition 11, 12 and 13 be removed from the licence and replaced with the following condition: “That the premises shall only operate as a café:

(i)    where the supply of alcohol is by waiter or waitress service only;

(ii)    which provide food in the form of substantial table meals that are prepared on the premises and are served and consumed at a table or bar counter; and

(iii)  where alcohol shall not be sold or supplied, otherwise than for consumption by persons who are seated in the premises and bona fide taking a substantial table meal there, and provided always that the consumption of alcohol by such persons is ancillary to taking such meals.

Notwithstanding this condition customers are permitted to take from the premises part consumed and resealed bottles of wine supplied ancillary to their meal.”

• Condition 21 to be replaced with model condition 70A.
• Condition 26 to be replaced with model condition 65 to read “No deliveries to the premises shall take place between 23.00 and 08.00 on the following day.”
• Condition 27 to be replaced with model conditions 12 and 87.
• Model Condition 20 to be added to the licence;
• Model condition 36 be added to the licence to read “The number of persons permitted in the premises at any one time (excluding staff) shall not exceed 36 persons.”
• Model condition 93 be added to the licence to read “The consumption of alcohol on the premises or in any outside area shall cease at 21:00 hours.”

2.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Sunday: 07:00 to 23:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

None.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The applicant advised that the closing hours on Sunday would be reduced to 22:30 in line with the core hours policy.

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

The application was granted, the reason for the decision is detailed in section 1.