Agenda item

Sticks ‘N’ Sushi, 40 Beak Street, W1

18/00457/LIPN (“The Premises”)

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Anderson, representing the Applicant.  He stated that the Applicant owns two premises in Westminster.  One is located in the Nova premises in Victoria and the other is located in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden within the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  The latter was a similar sized restaurant to the one intended for Beak Street with 170 covers.

Mr Anderson explained that the Applicant had sought pre-application advice, meeting with Mr Nevitt.  Their discussion had been reflected in the application, including conditions designed to promote the licensing objectives.  Mr Anderson also advised the Sub-Committee that there had been a meeting between the Applicant and local residents at Henrietta Street. 

Mr Anderson believed that residents were content with the style of operation but they had some concerns about the application.  These included the size of the Premises (the ground floor and basement).  The Applicant was seeking a capacity of 179 based on the planning permission.  Mr Anderson wished to emphasise that there would not be casual dining at the restaurant.  The average spend per head would be approximately £40.  There would be a dwell time of approximately two hours and fewer sittings than casual dining premises.  He added that the impact of the size of the restaurant in the West End Cumulative Impact Area would therefore be minimised by the style of operation.

Mr Anderson made the point that the operating hours permitted at the Henrietta Street premises were half an hour beyond the Council’s Core Hours Monday to Saturday.  He was confident that there had been no issues raised in terms of dispersal from, or smoking outside, the Henrietta Street premises despite the presence of local residents.  Mr Anderson expressed the view that dispersal tended not to be a particular problem for restaurants.  The busiest time was likely to be 18:00 to 21:00.  Many of the customers would have left by 22:30 or 23:00.  Food at Beak Street would not be prepared after 22:30 Monday to Thursday or 23:00 on Friday and Saturday if customers ordered immediately at that time.  It would be unlikely for there to be more than 50 or 60 people in the Beak Street premises after 23:00 based on the experience of the Applicant at Covent Garden.  It was felt that, as was the case at Henrietta Street, dispersal from 40 Beak Street would not be a problem.      

Mr Karlsson’s experience from the Henrietta Street premises, according to Mr Anderson, is that there are few restaurant customers who wish to smoke outside.  It was not expected that there would be more than 4 smokers outside at any one time.  Mr Anderson referred to a condition offered by the Applicant that any customers, including smokers, were not allowed to take drinks outside.  He confirmed that the Applicant would not seek a ‘tables and chairs’ licence as the pavement is too narrow outside the Premises in Beak Street.  The Applicant was content to encourage smokers to use the side street, Bridle Lane, as it is not residential.  It was stated that there would be a host at the door who would be able to supervise the smokers.

Mr Anderson said that the Applicant anticipated that 95% of customers would arrive and leave by foot, heading to one of the nearby underground stations.  Taxis were less effective in this location because it was busy with other traffic.  Mr Anderson commented that it was unlikely that given Sticks ‘N’ Sushi was a relatively large restaurant there would be significant queuing. He added that it was the desire of the Applicant to be a good neighbour to the residents and minimise any potential nuisance.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Anderson advised that the Applicant would accept a condition that customers use Bridle Lane to smoke.  However, the condition would impose an obligation on the Applicant so that if a customer did wander round to Beak Street and smoke, the Applicant would be in breach of the condition.  He requested that the Applicant was able to encourage smokers to use Bridle Lane.  Mr Karlsson stated that the Applicant was content for a condition to be attached to the premises licence, in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, that there would be no queuing outside the Premises.  It was stated that customers were given the opportunity to wait inside the Premises if they had not previously booked a table.

Mr Karlsson confirmed that any staff would be required to smoke in Bridle Lane.  There would be tidying up by the Applicant of the outside area, including in Bridle Lane, of any litter from the Premises or customers of the Premises such as the cigarette butts. 

Mr Anderson was asked about off sales and he replied that these would be ancillary to a substantial table meal.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Nevitt, on behalf of Environmental Health.  He mentioned that the Applicant had offered the Council’s model restaurant condition, MC66.  The Applicant had also offered other model conditions such as no outside eating or drinking which were not suitable given the narrow street.  The proposed hours were in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.  Mr Nevitt advised that the Applicant’s other premises in Westminster are well managed and that the Applicant had followed his pre-application advice in relation to the proposed conditions.

Mr Nevitt, responding to the Applicant’s commitment to tidy up the outside area, recommended that the Sub-Committee consider attaching the Council’s Model Condition 42 to the premises licence.  This condition is that ‘during the hours of operation of the premises, the licence holder shall ensure sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising or accumulating from customers in the area immediately outside the Premises, and that this area shall be swept and or washed, and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements by close of business’.  Mr Nevitt clarified that he was maintaining his representation because of the number of residents who had submitted representations and he was keen to be able to respond to any concerns raised at the hearing.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Mr Brown, representing three local residents.  He stated that the concerns of the residents related to a large restaurant at this location.  The concerns included the narrow pavement.  This contrasted with the pavement at the Applicant’s premises in Henrietta Street where the pavement is much wider.  It was felt that problems such as smoking and dispersal were therefore unlikely to be such an issue at Henrietta Street as at Beak Street.  Mr Brown added that the residents did not have an issue with the operator.

Mr Brown confirmed that the residents were requesting that smokers were directed to Bridle Lane.  He appreciated Mr Anderson’s point that it would be difficult for the Applicant to have a condition imposed that all patrons of the Premises smoke in Bridle Lane.  Mr Brown would not be requesting a designated area for smokers as it was likely to block the pavement.  He recommended that the Council’s Model Condition 71 was attached to the premises licence that ‘the premises licence holder shall ensure that any patrons drinking and/or smoking outside the Premises do so in an orderly manner and are supervised by staff so as to ensure that there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the public highway’.

Mr Brown also wished to draw attention to deliveries as being of concern to the residents.  The residents were content with the proposed conditions setting out when deliveries and collections of waste or recycling materials including bottles were permitted.  They asked the Applicant to be mindful of the practical difficulties at this location.  Delivery drivers were apt to reverse down Bridle Lane, which created an adverse noise impact.

Mr Brown said that dispersal was one of the most significant issues for the residents he was representing.  He appreciated the point made by Mr Anderson that the churn of customers from Sticks ‘N’ Sushi was likely to be less than a casual dining establishment.  He requested an earlier terminal hour for the Premises, potentially 23:30 on Friday and Saturday.  He made the point that he understood that the Applicant had proposed the full restaurant model condition.  However, it was the view of the residents that the size and the capacity of the restaurant should be taken into account when deciding on the time customers left the Premises in terms of dispersal.

Mr Brown informed the Sub-Committee that the Applicant offering a ‘no queuing outside the Premises’ condition addressed residents’ concerns on this matter.  He made the point that the residents had an overall concern that the application was for a new premises licence in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  It needed to be demonstrated by the Applicant that the application would not add to cumulative impact.  One way this could be achieved was as a result of proposed conditions.  Another was to reduce the terminal hour.

Mr Brown asked the Applicant whether the windows on both frontages could be opened.  Mr Karlsson replied that they would not be opened in order to ensure that noise did not emanate from the Premises, in keeping with the proposed condition.  Mr Brown mentioned that there is a model condition requiring doors and windows to be closed at a specified time.

The Sub-Committee heard from the local residents.   Mr Seghatchan was concerned that the entrance of the restaurant faces the windows of his home.  He believed that there was a likelihood that noise, including ambient music, would be heard as the entrance door opened and closed.  He was also of the view that customers talking in Bridle Lane, including when smoking or dispersing, would be audible as the sound bounces of the walls.  He requested that the terminal hour for the restaurant was earlier as residents needed their sleep.

Mrs Callingham commented that Beak Street is a hugely resident sensitive area.  There are residential blocks in Marsham Street, Upper John Street and Beak Street.  A new block was opening close to the restaurant.  She made the point that the planning permission for the Premises had been granted five years previously and questioned whether permission would have been granted now.  She was concerned that at least 50 restaurants had opened in the area in the last 8 years.  There was a very narrow street and pavement at this location and when people talked residents could hear the echo.

Mrs Callingham thanked Mr Karlsson for meeting with the residents.  She expressed the view that the restaurant would need very intelligent management, particularly of the outside area.  She accepted that it was likely to be a high class, well run restaurant.  However, she felt sure that customers would travel via taxis and as it was difficult for vehicles to pass each other horns would be used at all hours of the day.  She added there was the potential for 500 people to visit the Premises every day and commented that residents saw the Premises as an imposition in an already overcrowded area.

Mr Anderson was given the opportunity to respond to the points made by Mr Brown and the residents.  He advised that the most recent planning application for 40 Beak Street was in 2017 which had been sought in order to amend conditions.  The application had included a detailed management plan which took into account deliveries to the Premises.  Mr Anderson also informed those present that there would be a lobby with an outer door and inner door to the entrance in order to prevent noise emanating from the Premises.  There would be background music played only so he believed any noise emanating from the Premises would be minimal and not cause a nuisance.  Mr Anderson confirmed that the Applicant was content to agree Model Condition 71, proposed by Mr Brown on behalf of the residents.

Mr Anderson emphasised the importance of Core Hours to the business and made the point that planning permission had been granted for half an hour beyond Core Hours Sunday to Thursday.  The Applicant had been mindful of the Council’s policy in seeking Core Hours for the restaurant.  Mr Anderson added that the Applicant was aware that the review mechanism could be implemented if conditions were not complied with.  He referred however to all parties being of the opinion that the Applicant is a good operator.  The Applicant was not coming before the Sub-Committee as an unknown quantity.

The Sub-Committee asked the Applicant what would be on the upper floors of the Premises building.  Mr Anderson replied that offices would be situated there and not residential flats.

The Sub-Committee in granting the application considered that Policy HRS1 was relevant that ‘applications for hours within the core hours set out below in this policy will generally be granted, subject to not being contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy’.  The Sub-Committee also considered that the conditions attached to the premises licence, including the model restaurant condition, ensured that the application would not add to cumulative impact and would promote the licensing objectives. 

The Sub-Committee attached the conditions agreed by the Applicant during the hearing which promoted the licensing objectives.  These were that there would be no queuing outside the Premises at any time, the area outside the Premises would be kept clean, a telephone number for the Premises management would be made publicly available and those smoking outside would be properly supervised by staff.

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the Applicant fully appreciated the importance of managing the Premises at this location and had taken into account the concerns of residents which had very clearly been set out both prior to and during the hearing.  The Sub-Committee also noted that the Applicant had a good track record in managing the other two premises in Victoria and Covent Garden.  The continuing dialogue between the Applicant and residents was welcomed.  In the event, however, that the restaurant at 40 Beak Street was not managed well and conditions on the premises licence were not complied with there was the potential for the premises licence to be reviewed by the Sub-Committee on application by residents or the Responsible Authorities.

The Sub-Committee considered the conditions imposed on the Premises Licence to be appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

2.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and 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 (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

4.

Seasonal variations / Non-standard timings:

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).