Agenda item

Chopstix, Basement And Ground Floor, 29-31 Oxford Street, W1

18/00520/LIPV

1.

Condition being varied

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Hughes, representing the Applicant.  He referred to the Applicant’s supporting statements which had been included in the main report. Mr Hughes stated that the current application was to amend a condition on the existing premises licence from ‘no hot takeaway food to be served after 23:00’ to ‘no hot takeaway food to be served after 23:00 on Sunday to Thursday’.  He said that the application did not involve an increase in licensing hours or additional licensable activities as it involved late night refreshment only.  Mr Hughes also mentioned that the capacity of the premises would remain the same.

Mr Hughes emphasised that 29-31 Oxford Street was permitted to be open for late night refreshment under the existing premises licence until 04:00 on the day following Friday and Saturday under the existing licence.  He commented that the Council’s policy FFP2 for premises supplying fast food inside the cumulative impact areas was essentially about two aspects.  These were dispersal and litter/cleansing late at night.  Mr Hughes expressed the view that the application would assist in relation to the policy because currently patrons were having to remain in the premises whilst they consumed their food.  They were as a result being detained in the West End Cumulative Impact Area during the late evening and early hours of the morning.  Mr Hughes added that takeaway currently took place at the premises until 23:00.  He believed permitting takeaway after that time would lead to quicker dispersal from the Cumulative Impact Area (‘CIA’) towards the underground stations in the area, particularly Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus.  The application was for Friday and Saturday evenings when the night tube would be in operation.

Mr Hughes said that there had been no issues of crime and disorder at the premises raised by the Police.  He also made the point that the premises sold takeaway food 13 hours a day without any concerns raised by Environmental Health.  Environmental Health were not objecting to the current application.  Mr Hughes advised that the Applicant patrols along the street during the daytime in order to ensure no litter is left there from the premises.  The Applicant was prepared to extend the patrols during the night in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.  He did not believe patrons would consume the takeaway hot food or hot drink on the street.

Mr Hughes spoke of there being no representations from residents or ward councillors.  He offered door staff throughout the evening.  He also offered a trial period of 12 months operating the premises in accordance with the amended condition 11 in the event that the Sub-Committee had concerns about the application.

The Council’s policy (FFP2) is to refuse applications for premises supplying fast food inside the CIAs, other than applications to vary hours within the Core Hours under Policy HRS1.  The policy sets out that the grant of variations or new licences for fast food premises in the CIAs should be limited to exceptional circumstances.  The Sub-Committee asked Mr Hughes what the exceptional circumstances were in this particular instance that would justify granting the application.  Mr Hughes replied that there were already patrons eating in 29-31 Oxford Street until 04:00.  There were a number of customers who wanted the option for takeaway but had to be persuaded to eat the meal at the premises.  He re-iterated that they would take the meal and be gone from the CIA rather than remaining within it.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Hughes if it was the Applicant’s position that the application would not attract more people into the CIA then what was the reason for submitting it?  Mr Lake replied that the commercial rationale for the application was that patrons were turned away if they specifically requested takeaway.  There was an assumption on the part of customers that they were able to continue to take hot food or hot drink from the premises after 23:00. 

Mr Lake did not accept that there would be a significant increase in customers coming into the CIA as a result of the application because the patrons assumed that takeaway could currently be purchased after 23:00.  Mr Hughes added that they were catering primarily for people who were already in the CIA.

The Sub-Committee heard from PC Janes on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.  He confirmed that the Police had maintained their representation as the application was contrary to the Council’s policy.  Takeaway was being requested by the Applicant until 04:00 which is significantly beyond Core Hours.  PC Janes was firmly of the view that the application would add to cumulative impact.

PC Janes advised that it was the experience of the Police that after patrons left the premises with a takeaway they would often hang around the area, including on the streets and in alleys, whilst they consumed the takeaway before going home.  If they did not have the takeaway it was probable they would go straight home.  There was evidence as set out in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy that late night takeaways attracted customers who had been drinking throughout the evening and were intoxicated.  He added that there was the likelihood of anti-social behaviour in and around the premises in these instances, including whilst waiting to be served prior to obtaining the hot food and hot drink.

PC Janes confirmed that the premises was currently a low crime generator.  He requested that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, a condition was attached to the premises licence requiring the Applicant to have SIA registered door staff from 23:00 to 04:00.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Ms Gadd on behalf of the Licensing Authority.  She confirmed that the Licensing Authority maintained their representation as the application sought takeaway food on Friday and Saturday for hours that were significantly in excess of the Council’s Core Hours policy.  The application was contrary to Policy FFP2 and the Council’s policy was to refuse the application.

Ms Gadd referred to paragraph 2.5.20 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy that ‘because the attraction and retention of people by the premises mitigates against their rapid dispersal from the CIAs, the Licensing Authority considers that the grant of variations or new licences for fast food premises in the CIAs should be limited to exceptional circumstances’.  She added that it was for the Sub-Committee to decide whether the Applicant had provided exceptional circumstances to warrant granting the application.

Mr Panto invited the Applicant to respond to the point that currently the patrons of the premises were required to consume the hot food or hot drink there.  In the event the patrons were permitted takeaway, would they disperse or would they remain in the area?  The Council’s policy was based on the assumption that the patrons would not disperse from the CIA.

Mr Panto also made the point that the Council’s policy had evolved since 2007 when the premises had been permitted to provide late night refreshment (indoors) until 04:00 but had been refused late night refreshment (outdoors)/takeaway.  It had not been contrary to the policy to permit eating in at a fast food premises at that time.

Mr Hughes, in response to Mr Panto’s comments, remarked that if people were intent on hanging around when eating a takeaway then they might just as well eat inside the premises.  He believed there was no evidence that patrons were eating the takeaway on the street up until 23:00.  He repeated his offer of door staff to direct patrons towards the underground stations.  Mr Lake added that there were other staff in the restaurant to assist.  Staff would keep the street clean. 

The Sub-Committee refused the application for the addition of late night takeaway hot food and hot drink after 23:00.  The Sub-Committee in reaching this decision took into account the application was contrary to policy and the representations received from the Responsible Authorities.  The Sub-Committee did not consider that there were exceptional circumstances to grant this application.  Members also considered that there would be additional patrons who would be attracted to having a takeaway and visit the premises in the CIA late at night.  They would not all disperse with many being retained in the CIA, as referred to in the Council’s policy.  There was the potential for the patrons to ‘refuel’ with alcohol either prior to or after seeking the takeaway and visit other establishments.

When given the opportunity to explain why the application would not add to cumulative impact, Mr Hughes had indicated that customers who were intent on hanging around when eating a takeaway might just as well eat inside the premises. The problem with that analysis is that customers already had that option. It had to be assumed, therefore, that the Applicant was seeking take-away for customers who did not currently wish to eat within the premises. The policy assumption was that a significant number of those customers would remain within the cumulative impact area between 23.00 hours and 04.00 hours on the following day, especially on a Friday and Saturday night. This would clearly add to the cumulative impact in the area and would be greater than the cumulative impact that was already being caused by customers eating within the premises until 04.00.