Agenda item

Fiorucci, 39-43 Brewer Street, W1

17/09357/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol: On and Off Sales

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

During the course of the hearing, the Applicant Company’s legal representative confirmed on behalf of the Applicant Company that they were withdrawing the application for sale by retail of alcohol for off sales.

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

Mr Thomas (Solicitor, representing the Applicant Company) began by confirming that the premises operated as a clothes shop and that the application for sale of alcohol was to be ancillary to the use of the premises as a shop. He informed the Sub-Committee that the Applicant Company, Fiorucci, was an Italian fashion label that had been established in 1967. Fiorucci had been regarded as highly fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s and the company was attempting to rebrand and modernise its image in order to restore this reputation. Mr Thomas advised that the premises had opened a month ago and it was well-known for its denim products.

Mr Wilkie (Retail Operations Director, Applicant Company) then introduced himself to the Sub-Committee and stated that he had graduated in a fashion design degree. He had won an award from the British Fashion Council that had led to a position at Marks and Spencer. Mr Wilkie stated that he had also worked at Abercrombie and Fitch clothes retail company before his current position as Retail Operations Director at Fiorucci. Ms Vermont (Applicant Company) then similarly introduced herself and confirmed that she had extensive retail experience, having also previously worked at Abercombie and Fitch before joining Fiorucci.

Mr Wilkie stated that the premises had previously operated as a vintage magazine store and after it had been vacated, he felt that the premises’ location was ideal for the Applicant Company. Mr Wilkie also felt that Soho suited the Applicant Company’s brand, and after moving to the premises, around £1.5m had been spent on a refit and repairs. He stated that around 50% of the products on offer were denim, including both jeans and jackets. The Applicant Company offered high quality clothing products and the average price of a pair of jeans was around £150 to £200. It was also intended to hold art exhibitions on the premises from time to time. Mr Wilkie stated that the application to sell alcohol was intended to enhance the customer experience and there would be a small bar on the first floor of the premises selling drinks such as Prosecco, however the premises main use would continue to be a retail clothes shop.

Mr Thomas then addressed the Sub-Committee again and stated that there was evidence that providing alcohol in a retail setting increased the time the customer stayed on the premises and thus increased the amount of money they spent. He advised that there was also a café on the ground floor of the premises that offered vegetarian food, however there was no licensed area on the ground floor. Mr Thomas then referred to the plans and highlighted the hatched area proposed for sale and consumption of alcohol. He suggested that the hatched area have a capacity of 25 persons for the sale and consumption of alcohol at any one time and all alcohol would be provided to customers by waiter/waitress service. Mr Thomas stated that the small bar that had been constructed was not visible from the street and so would not act as a magnet for those solely seeking to consume alcohol. He then referred to the photographs in the Applicant Company’s additional submission and stated that there was a public house immediately opposite the premises and a restaurant also in close proximity. A few doors down was Soho Parish Primary School and the Windmill International.

Mr Thomas stated that the application included proposals for off sales of alcohol as this permission would be required for people to be able to consume alcohol in areas of the first floor of the premises that were outside the proposed licenced area during the handful of invitation only events that the Applicant Company wished to hold over the course of the year. In reply to a query from the Chairman, Mr Thomas acknowledged that this could be achieved through applying for temporary event notices. In relation to the representation from Soho Parish Primary School, Mr Thomas stated that refuse from the Applicant Company’s premises was collected at 15:30 each day by the City Council. The Applicant Company had been advised to place the refuse at this time opposite the school by the railings by the City Council.

Mr Thomas then referred to a letter he had submitted which, although it had not been circulated to the Sub-Committee previously, was available on the presentation screen and following there being no objections from all interested parties at the hearing, the Chairman permitted the letter to be displayed and copies to be circulated to Members and officers. Mr Thomas referred to paragraphs 2.4.20 to 2.4.22 of the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy concerning cumulative impact areas. In his view the application was completely consistent with these paragraphs and the hours applied for were well within core hours, with the terminal hour for sale and consumption of alcohol applied for being 20:00 Monday to Sunday. Mr Thomas reiterated his suggestion that a condition be added limiting the capacity for the licensed area for the sale and consumption of alcohol to no more than 25 persons at any one time. Mr Thomas concluded his initial submission by stating that the application was unlikely to add to cumulative impact and there had been careful consideration of the policy before the application was submitted and he contended that similar applications had been granted by the City Council in the past.

Members enquired what alcohol products would be on offer and how did the Applicant Company intend to ensure customers consuming alcohol did not stray from the proposed licenced area.

In reply, Mr Wilkie advised that the alcohol products available would include Prosecco and bottled Italian beers and there would be no draught beers. All alcohol would be provided by waiter and waitress service and cocktails may be available at events. Coffee would also be available from the bar. Mr Thomas added that the proposed licensed area was limited and the sale and consumption of alcohol would be restricted to this area only, whilst all persons consuming alcohol would also be required to be seated. He felt that there would be sufficient staff to monitor customers and ensure those consuming alcohol stayed within the licensed area and CCTV would also be used to monitor this. The Applicant Company would also be further motivated to monitor this to prevent the possibility of drinks being spilt over clothing items.

Mr Sycamore (Licensing Authority) felt that the application was unlikely to add to cumulative impact as long as the proposed conditions were properly in place. He felt that permitting consumption of alcohol on the first floor outside the proposed licensed area could more appropriately be dealt with by applying for temporary event notices as opposed to applying for off sales. Mr Sycamore confirmed that he agreed with the proposed condition requiring that alcohol only be provided to seated customers by waiter or waitress service and he was also content with there being further clarity with regard to what the licensed area would be following Mr Thomas’s highlighting of the hatched area in the plans. However, the application still meant another licensed premises in an area that already had plenty and Mr Sycamore stated that there remained a possibility that some customers may only be on the premises to consume alcohol.

Mr Brown (Solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau, representing Ms Isabel Anderton, local resident, Mr David Gleeson, The Soho Society, Mr Andy Greenfield, local resident and Ms Wendy Hardcastle, local resident) then addressed the Sub-Committee and began by stating that the physical presence of a bar with stools as illustrated in the photographs suggested it could be a focal point of the premises. He felt that more than 10 people in the proposed licensed area would make it very crowded. The photographs only showed 4 chairs and he queried how more than 4 customers could consume alcohol considering the proposed conditions stated that they must be seated to undertake this activity. Mr Brown agreed that temporary event notices were the most appropriate way of obtaining approval for consumption of alcohol on the first floor of the building outside the proposed licensed area. He referred to other premises in the vicinity that were shops that had been given permission to sell alcohol, including one, Lights of Soho, which had since become a private members’ club. This demonstrated what such applications could lead to and this was of concern to local residents. The application itself also represented an incremental increase in the number of licensed premises in the area and adding to the number of people consuming alcohol. Mr Brown added that there was potential for 25 additional people to be consuming alcohol in a cumulative impact area.

Mr Brown asked if there were any arrangements proposed in respect of smokers as they were more likely to want to smoke if they spent a longer time on the premises because of the alcohol offer. With regard to the putting out of refuse by the school at 15:30, this coincided with children  leaving the school as it closed for the day which was problematic in terms of congestion. Mr Brown referred to paragraph 2.4.21 of the policy, which stated the need to consider whether the consumption of alcohol is a significant part of the operation of the premises. In Mr Brown’s view, 25 people consuming alcohol was a significant aspect of the operation of the premises and this could lead to the sale and consumption of alcohol not being ancillary to the premises being a shop. Mr Brown acknowledged that the nearby Liberty clothes shop had a licensed area, however this shop was much larger than the Applicant Company’s and customers in Liberty were more likely to spend a longer time in the shop in any case. Mr Brown suggested that the Applicant Company’s clientele were likely to be young people who would be more attracted to the alcohol offer. In addition, there was already a café on the ground floor. In respect of paragraph 2.4.22 of the policy concerning whether there were appropriate conditions to ensure alcohol consumption was ancillary to the premises’ main use, Mr Brown referred to the fact that there was a physical bar on the premises. He acknowledged that the application complied with 2.4.22 (iv) in restricting consumption of alcohol in a specific area of the premises.

Mr Brown concluded his submission by stating that residents were against the granting of the application. However, if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, he requested that Members consider reducing the capacity for persons permitted to purchase and consume alcohol on the premises.

Ms Hardcastle (local resident) then addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that she lived in Great Pulteney Street one block away from the premises. Ms Hardcastle stated that she regularly walked past the area and that it was very congested because of the large number of pedestrians and vehicles which also presented a dangerous situation. She expressed concern that another licensed premises would make the area even more crowded. In respect of the premises’ refuse collection, Ms Hardcastle stated that she understood that the railings where the refuse was placed belong to Soho Parish Primary School. Pupils left the school for the day at around 15:00 to 15:30 and the area would become busy with pupils, parents, buggies and pushchairs and the putting out of the premises’ refuse at 15:30 exacerbated the situation. Ms Hardcastle also expressed concern that customers primary reason to visit the premises between 17:00 and 20:00 would be to consume alcohol. She informed the Sub-Committee that she had visited the premises the previous week and observed that there were no customers on the first floor and only a few on the ground floor, with 4 customers in the café.

Ms Hardcastle suggested that the proposed licenced area on the first floor would be an attractive place to consume alcohol. She expressed concern about private events being held on the premises and concurred that these should be applied for through temporary event notices. With regard to the proposed licensed area, Ms Hardcastle commented that the area seemed small and she suggested that placing tables and chairs in the area would lead to people falling over each other because of the lack of space. She also asked how staff would manage to limit the number of people in the licensed area.

Mr Gleeson (The Soho Society) referred to the photographs presented by the Applicant Company and in particular the one showing the proposed licenced area. He had visited the premises and in his view the area was smaller than the photograph may otherwise suggest. Mr Gleeson felt that the distinction between the bar and proposed licensed area to the rest of the premises may attract customers there solely for the purpose of consuming alcohol. He also added that the bar was apparent as soon as he had entered the first floor.

The Sub-Committee sought a response from the Applicant Company in respect of Mr Sycamore, Mr Brown, Ms Hardcastle and Mr Gleeson’s submissions. Members also sought further comments in respect of refuse collection arrangements and whether the Applicant Company had space to store refuse.

In reply, Mr Thomas confirmed on behalf of the Applicant Company that they were happy to withdraw their application for off sales of alcohol. Mr Thomas stated that the Applicant Company had not received any complaints in respect of refuse collection and the arrangements for this had been made following advice received from the City Council. However, he acknowledged that the refuse collection time of 15:30 may not be ideal and the Applicant Company would approach the City Council to inform them of the concerns raised by local residents and the Applicant Company would be happy to take further guidance from them. In respect of there being a physical bar on the premises, Mr Thomas stated that as the proposed terminal hour for sale and consumption of alcohol was 20:00, policy recognised that such hours were unlikely to add to cumulative impact. There were also a number of conditions proposed regulating the sale and consumption of alcohol, including that it be ancillary to the premises main use as a Fiorucci Holdings Limited retail shop.

Mr Thomas recognised that the Applicant Company needed to strongly demonstrate that sale and consumption of alcohol would be ancillary to retail use. He emphasised that no self-service of alcohol would be available and that the bar was a servery and not a bar in the sense of a bar premises. There were also a number of other proposed conditions that were consistent with policy. Mr Thomas stated that having at least 20 persons permitted to purchase and consume alcohol in the proposed licenced area of the premises would be desirable to the Applicant Company and he suggested that a capacity limiting this to less than 15 persons would not be so attractive. In respect of Lights of Soho, Mr Thomas advised that this premises was now closed, however it had been suitably conditioned when it had been operating. He contended that the application would not add to congestion or cumulative impact in view of the modest number of persons that potentially could be consuming alcohol on the premises and the location was already very busy in any case.

Mr Wilkie added that the Applicant Company did not desire to have an excessive number of people on the premises consuming alcohol and he did not think customers would be arriving solely to undertake this activity. He stated that the bar may not be open for all the hours proposed in any case as there would be quiet times, with Thursday and Friday evenings likely to be busier. Mr Wilkie advised that a small amount of food waste was stored in the basement of the premises prior to it being put out for collection. He stated that the Applicant Company would be happy to further discuss refuse collection arrangements with the City Council in light of the concerns raised in the representations and at the hearing.

Mr Wroe (Policy Adviser) stated that ancillary could have a number of meanings in the context of the policy. In respect of the sale and consumption of alcohol being ancillary to retail, the difficulty here was that customers could not undertake retail activities very easily at the same time they were consuming alcohol. Mr Wroe also noted that the conditions proposed included that consumption of alcohol would only be permitted for customers who were seated, however the photographs only showed 4 bar stools and so he queried how the Applicant Company would be able to supply alcohol to up to 25 customers.

Mr Panto (Legal Adviser) sought the Applicant Company’s views in respect of amending proposed condition 16 so that sale and consumption of alcohol would be specific to it being permitted on the first floor of the premises only.

In reply, Mr Thomas confirmed on behalf of the Applicant Company that they would have no objection to the changes suggested by Mr Panto in respect of proposed condition 16.  He also suggested that a condition be added confirming that the sale and consumption of alcohol shall only be permitted in the hatched area as set out in the plans on the first floor of the premises building. Mr Wilkie contended that the bar was not immediately apparent upon entering the first floor from the staircase. The Sub-Committee noted that it was intended to add more tables and chairs to the proposed licenced area.

The Sub-Committee granted the application, subject to amendments to condition 16 stating that the sale and consumption of alcohol on the first floor of the premises building shall be ancillary to that floor being used as part of the retail shop and the first floor shall not operate as a drinks led part of the premises. Condition 17 was also amended to limit the number of persons consuming alcohol at any one time to 12. The Sub-Committee added a condition for purposes of clarity, as suggested by Mr Thomas on behalf of the Applicant Company, stating that the sale and consumption of alcohol shall only be permitted in the hatched area as set out in the plans on the first floor of the premises building.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant Company had withdrawn its application for off sales of alcohol following Mr Thomas’s confirmation of the withdrawal on behalf of the Applicant Company during the course of the hearing.

In determining the application, the Sub-Committee noted that the application was well within core hours. However, the Sub-Committee noted that the application was within a cumulative impact area and residents had expressed concern that the application may add to cumulative impact in what was already a busy and congested area. Therefore, in order to address these concerns, the Sub-Committee considered it appropriate, reasonable and proportionate to limit the number of persons consuming alcohol on the first floor of the premises building to 12 persons at any one time. The Sub-Committee also considered that the conditions to be included on the premises licence would assist the Applicant Company in upholding the promotion of the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

2.

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 (see reasons for decision in Section 1).