Agenda item

90-92 Great Portland Street, W1 (“The Premises”)

17/07371/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

During the hearing, Mr Brown proposed on behalf of residents the hours for off sales and the opening hours to the public of 10:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays.  These were agreed by the Applicant.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Twyman, representing the Applicant.  He stated that the Applicant intended to open a retail shop, specialising in selling top end of the market alcoholic products, in particular spirits.  The Sub-Committee was advisd that the Applicant had been operating a shop in Bedford Street for two years without any issues arising.  Mr Twyman was concerned that the nature of the application had been somewhat misconstrued as to what was being proposed by objectors to the application.  This he believed may have resulted from what had appeared on the holding company’s website.  There was a letter of response on behalf of the Applicant to the residents’ written representations in the Sub-Committee’s report.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Twyman for clarification as the application was for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the Premises but there had been references to the Applicant holding tasting events at the Premises which would potentially involve on sales.  He replied that if there was a tasting event free of charge, which did not amount to the sale of alcohol this was not a licensable activity.  He had agreed with Environmental Health that any events held at the Premises which were not free of charge would be dealt with under Temporary Event Notices (‘TENs’).  This would restrict the number of events to a maximum of 15 per annum.  Mr Twyman added that he did not expect these events to be lengthy.  They were likely to be completed by 21:00 and would involve 90 – 120 minute presentations.

Mr Twyman wished to put on record that there would be no late night collections which had been raised as a concern by local residents.  Deliveries would normally take place between 08:00 and 11:00.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Brown.  He made the point that the application had caused considerable concern to residents and representatives of 89 Portland Street.  He disputed that the application had been misconstrued by residents.  He believed there had been a lack of information in the application form and additional submissions which had led to residents making their own enquiries as to what the application involved.  He also was of the view that Mr Twyman’s letter in the report had not made it clear about the tasting sessions and whether they were intended to constitute “on sales” which had not been applied for.  Mr Brown commented that the position had been somewhat clarified on the tasting sessions at the hearing as they would now be held only when TENs had been submitted.

Mr Brown referred to the indication by the Applicant that the hours and conditions would be the same as the Applicant’s Whisky Exchange premises in Bedford Street.  He advised the Sub-Committee that what was proposed in terms of the hours and conditions was not acceptable to local residents as they did not specifically take into account the local area and its character.  Whilst the proposed hours were within the Council’s Core Hours policy, the residents had set out in their written representations that the nature of the area was relatively quiet.  It was submitted that there was relatively low footfall in the evenings with people passing through as it was not fully a commercial area.  Residents were not of the view that 23:00 was an appropriate terminal hour for this location.

Mr Brown requested that conditions on the Premises licence if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant took into account that there would be events held under TENs as they would then apply to the TENs.  He also sought additional information as to whether it was intended that there would be empty bottles involved from the tasting events, adding to deliveries and refuse.  He also asked that in the event of any on sales at the Premises, the capacity was lower than the 60 which had been set for the Premises on public safety grounds.  There was a condition in the operating schedule that off sales could not be consumed on the Premises.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Ms Duda.  She had lived in a flat with her husband opposite the premises for two years.  In her opinion she had found it suitable in terms of planning to start a family and work from home as it was relatively quiet and not a busy area.  Ms Duda concurred with Mr Brown’s point that there was relatively low footfall in the evenings with people passing through.  There were not groups of people congregating outside.

Ms Duda explained that there were issues with traffic congestion in Great Portland Street.  There was noise from people sounding their horns and there were concerns regarding the impact of deliveries to the Premises.  She had concerns regarding the tasting events and in particular that people would congregate, smoke and create noise out in the street later in the evening, particularly when dispersing.  The events could also lead to bottles being moved later at night.  She expressed disappointment that the Applicant had not given details on the tasting events initially and that residents had had to make further enquiries, including on the holding company’s website.  She had not found the letter from the Applicant (included in the report) helpful including as a result of finding out that whilst the tasting events were supposed to be promotional in nature it had appeared to be possible for members of the public to arrange to have events at the Premises, potentially beyond 21:00.  She was keen to have restrictions on events on the Premises licence and also a condition attached that the Premises would only sell high end whisky.

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms Palazzo.  She expressed concerns about the additional noise that would be created from the Premises and that any such noise would impact on local residents in 89 Great Portland Street given that the windows were typically single glazed.  This included any deliveries in the morning or later at night.  She referred to the previous tenants of the unit being a bicycle shop which had few deliveries.  Ms Palazzo also raised concerns about rubbish collections, the traffic congestion this caused and the noise arising from drivers sounding their horns.

Ms Palazzo emphasised that the area where the shop would be located was not a shopping destination.  It was some distance away from the likes of Oxford Street.  There was limited commercial activity and some offices but the area in her opinion was overwhelmingly residential.    There would be more residents coming into the locality shortly and there would consequently be more cars on the street which would lead to greater congestion.  She was of the view that it was highly likely that there would be noise nuisance from tasting events, particularly as a result of a large number of people all dispersing at the same time having consumed alcohol. 

Mr Brown requested an earlier terminal hour at the Premises on behalf of residents.  He proposed 10:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays.  He believed this was in keeping with the actual hours that were operated for Whisky Exchange in Bedford Street.  Mr Brown also asked for a condition in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application which would ensure that the Premises would remain a high end whisky shop.  This would provide some comfort both in respect of the current operation and in the event the Premises licence was transferred at some stage in the future.

Mr Brown proposed hours for both deliveries and collections which were identical to those proposed for the operating hours.  He stated that residents were requesting a start time of 10:00 because congestion caused by deliveries or collections was much more likely to take place during the rush hour.  The added congestion also contributed to significant traffic pollution.

Mr Brown asked for restrictions on tasting events, including the numbers present and also that the Applicant give written notice to residents of any upcoming events following TENs being submitted.  He was also keen that there was a condition on the licence limiting the impact on smokers being able to create a public nuisance which would disturb residents.    

Mr Twyman was given the opportunity to respond to the points made by the objectors.  He referred to his letter in the report setting out that ticketed tasting or promotional events would be limited to 30 people in the basement.  He confirmed that the ticketed events would all require TENs.  The Applicant stated that he did not envisage holding all events at the shop.  They could be advertised at the shop and held elsewhere, similarly to events being held at Brown’s Hotel when the Applicant is operating the shop at Bedford Street.  Mr Twyman clarified that there would be no on sales sought as part of this application. 

Following discussions with the Applicant, Mr Twyman advised that Mr Sawhney was willing to accept the operating hours proposed by Mr Brown.  Mr Sawhney was requesting that deliveries and collections take place from 09:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 18:00 on Sundays.  Mr Twyman and Mr Sawhney explained that there would be few deliveries to the shop.  These deliveries would be via small diesel vans.  Orders were placed centrally and consolidated in one delivery via the head office.  It was not a case of multiple suppliers turning up at different times of the day in Great Portland Street.  There would also not be a delivery service of items from the Premises  to customers.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Sawhney stated that he would be willing to encourage clients to walk, cycle or use electric vehicles in order to reach the Premises. 

Mr Brown in response to the points made by Mr Twyman and Mr Sawhney requested that the maximum capacity for events in the basement was lowered to 20.  He was also seeking assurances on behalf of residents that there was confirmation on the Premises licence that there could be no consumption of alcohol on the Premises.  Mr Twyman asked that the maximum capacity for events was not limited to 20, particularly if it was inclusive of staff.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Twyman whether the Applicant was willing to have a condition on the Premises licence to the effect that the Premises would  be restricted  to operate as a specialist whisky shop.  Mr Twyman and Mr Sawhney responded that the alcohol being sold would not be purely limited to whisky as was the case in their Bedford Street branch.  The alcohol sold included wines and champagnes, cognacs, rums and gins.  Mr Sawhney described it as ‘premium alcohol’ and advised that the price points were not similar to high street supermarkets or general off licences.  The lowest prices for certain items were around £15 but there were other items on sale in the tens of thousands of pounds bracket.  Mr Sawhney sought to assure the Sub-Committee and residents that events would be educational and provide an experience for its customer base. The Sub-Committee was advised that the events were not there to encourage people to consume vast quantities of alcohol which could potentially lead to public nuisance.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Twyman and Mr Sawhney why if deliveries were consolidated it would not be possible to commence deliveries at 10:00.  Mr Sawhney replied that deliveries did need to be in place at the shop before it opened.  He was also concerned that a van could arrive from head office before 10:00 and it would be impractical for the driver to have to continue to drive around the area or wait somewhere before being able to deliver items.  

Members of the Sub-Committee, having read all the written representations and listened to parties at the hearing, were mindful of the concerns of local residents.  The Sub-Committee noted the eloquent way in which residents and their representatives expressed their concerns about the potential impact of the premises operating as an off-licence.  In respect of the Council’s policy, the Premises are not located in one of the Council’s designated cumulative impact areas.  It was necessary for the application to be considered on its merits and for the Sub-Committee to consider whether the application promoted the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee decided to grant the application, subject to conditions as set out below.  The Sub-Committee took into account that the Applicant had agreed to the reduced hours proposed by Mr Brown on behalf of residents for off sales and the opening hours to the public of 10:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 18:00.  The Sub-Committee considered that with the Premises operating within these hours and being subject to the conditions on the licence, and the assurances given during the hearing, particularly in relation to the running and management of the tasting events, the licensing objectives would be promoted.

The Sub-Committee sought to strengthen the conditions on the licence which the Applicant had agreed with Environmental Health and the Police prior to the Responsible Authorities withdrawing their representations.  One was to restrict the nature of the operation as requested by residents in order to provide some comfort both in respect of the current operation and in the event the Premises licence was transferred.  The Sub-Committee noted the Applicant’s point that he could not comply with a condition that the Premises would only be able to operate as a specialist whisky shop as he sold different types of alcohol – this was accepted by the Sub-Committee.  The Sub-Committee in the framing of the proposed condition regarding restricted use of the Premises, therefore adopting the Applicant’s wording used in the description of the Premises and attached the condition that ‘the Premises shall operate as a specialist retail shop selling high end products including rare, collectable and aged spirits’.

The Sub-Committee commended the Applicant on consolidating deliveries to the premises which would minimise the impact on local residents and on traffic congestion.  The Sub-Committee noted residents’ concerns about traffic congestion and noise from the use of horns in Great Portland Street.  The Sub-Committee, however, considered that the Applicant’s offer to reduce the proposed hours for deliveries to 09:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 18:00 on Sunday was significant and reasonable.  The Sub-Committee decided that these hours would also be applied to collections of waste which were not covered by existing conditions on the operating schedule.  The Sub-Committee took the view that these hours for collections and deliveries would ensure that residents were not disturbed late at night or very early in the morning thereby promoting the public nuisance licensing objective.  The delivery hours would also enable the Applicant to be able to bring the deliveries into the shop before the trading day commenced.

In respect of events, the Sub-Committee decided that it was appropriate and proportionate to impose a maximum capacity in the basement area of 30 people excluding staff.  Mr Sawhney would be expected to run any events in keeping with how he had described the nature of the events to the Sub-Committee. 

The Sub-Committee required the Applicant to notify residents of any TENs by way of informative.  Mr Twyman advised the Sub-Committee that Mr Sawhney would be unlikely to open the Premises until January and would potentially submit all 15 TENs together prior to opening, planning the year ahead for the various events.  Other informatives requested of the Applicant by the Sub-Committee were for the Applicant to use sustainable transport and to encourage customers/guests to do so when visiting the premises.  The Sub-Committee noted the Applicant did not intend to have a delivery service to customers from the Premises.

A condition in the operating schedule and attached to the Premises licence sets out that all off sales would be in sealed containers only and would not be consumed on the Premises.  In order to prevent smokers consuming alcohol outside and causing any nuisance to local residents, the Sub-Committee attached the model condition that ‘patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them’.

2.

Hours premises are open to the public

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

During the hearing, Mr Brown proposed on behalf of residents the hours for off sales and the opening hours to the public of 10:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays.  These were agreed by the Applicant.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the hours as amended by the Applicant (see reasons for decision in Section 1).