Agenda item

Art of Tapas, 16 Churton Street, London, SW1V 2LL

17/02223/LIPV

1.

Conditions Being Varied, Added or Removed

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was advised that Condition 35 proposed by Environmental Health should read 22:00 hours and not 23:00 hours.

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Mr Francisco Campillo for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Art of Tapas, 16 Churton Street, London, SW1V 2LL.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application and informed the Sub-Committee that Condition 35 proposed by Environmental Health should read 22:00 hours and not 23:00 hours.

All parties were invited to make representations to the Sub-Committee in relation to the application.  The parties responded to members’ questions and were given an opportunity to ask questions of each other.

Mr Campillo explained that the Art of Tapas had been operating since September 2010 and had been licenced to sell alcohol for the last five years. Since the premises had been licenced no complaints had been received from local residents. The restaurant sold tapas and the application was requesting a relaxation of Condition 15 on the licence to allow the sale of alcohol with light meals and snacks. Mr Campillo stressed that the application was not seeking to turn the premises in to a bar and explained that a similar licence to the one requested had been already been granted to a Tapas bar located in Westminster. When a licence to sell alcohol at the premises was submitted five years ago similar representations to those submitted for this application had also been received from local residents. Despite this Mr Campillo stated that there was no record of any complaints ever being made against the premises. The capacity of the venue was thirty persons and the application was seeking to allow customers to be able to sit down, not necessarily at a table, and consume alcohol. It was also proposed to allow customers to stand and drink alcohol during the monthly private events requested.

Mr Watson, representing Environmental Health (EH), was of the opinion that because Mr Campillo had submitted the application himself without any legal representation the application was slightly clumsy which could account for some of the confusion arising regarding the proposals. Mr Watson confirmed that he had visited the premises and was satisfied that the applicant only wanted to sell alcohol which was ancillary to food. The applicant however was currently unclear if tapas was regarded as a substantial meal. Mr Watson was of the opinion that the nature of the premises and the conditions proposed by EH would prevent the operation becoming a bar. The Sub-Committee noted that the Model Condition that was currently attached to the licence (condition 15 which the applicant was seeking to amend) ensured the premises would have to operate as a restaurant as defined in policy. The Sub-Committee was advised that it would have to decide if tapas did constitute substantial food as this was still a requirement of the amended condition. Mr Watson confirmed that the restaurant had no enforcement history but there was a lack of clarity regarding the proposals to hold private events.

Councillor Flight had not made her own representation but was allowed to speak on behalf of Councillor Aiken who was also a Ward Councillor. She stated that the changes requested to Conditions 15 and 17 would allow the premises to become a bar and therefore have a negative impact on the amenity of local residents. The premises had residential properties on three sides of it and there were also three pubs located in close proximity. The application would therefore increase the cumulative impact in the area and create public nuisance. The local area already suffered from street drinkers which the premises would exacerbate and it was regarded that the application would not uphold the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was therefore asked to refuse the application as there was not a need for further vertical drinking in the local area. For the record, the members of the Licensing Sub-Committee noted that the cumulative impact policy was not applicable in this case.

Mr Brown, from Westminster Citizens Advice Bureau, advised the Sub-Committee that substantial numbers of residents had expressed concerns over the application. Churton Place, located near to the premises, was a high-sided cul-de-sac and any noise arising from customers leaving the premises would be compounded in this area. It was recognised that it was difficult to define what a substantial table meal was as the Licensing legislation simply defined a table meal as a meal eaten at a table. The Sub-Committee was therefore requested to refuse the relaxation of condition 15 and removal of condition 17 as it would create a premises with the characteristics of a bar and would encourage the drinking of alcohol without food. More information on the proposed private events was required and it was suggested these events could be held using Temporary Events Notices rather than varying the licence. The local residents were pleased that model condition 66 was on the licence but the changes proposed would allow customers to drink more alcohol with less food which would have the likely effect of increasing noise and disturbance in the local area. Mr Brown also brought to the Sub-Committee’s attention that a new premises plan had been submitted.

Mr Monteiro, a local resident, explained that he lived next door to the premises and the proposed relaxation to the conditions would attract a different clientele to the area resulting in an increase in public nuisance. The location was already very busy due to the nearby market and was proving to be dangerous to young families due to the number of people on the nearby pavements. Several issues arising from the premises had occurred recently including customers continuing to drink outside residential properties and the application would encourage even greater consumption of alcohol.

Mr Campillo explained that proposed private events would have the style of a canapé party where artists would display their work and invited guests would be able to stand and consume alcohol and food. The tables and chairs would be moved to the sides during these events and this explained the new plan which had been submitted. In response to a question Mr Campillo confirmed that most customers purchased approximately 2 to 3 plates of tapas each. The restaurant did not attract young people or those causing nuisance and doubt was expressed that any customers would continue drinking outside residential properties.

The Sub-Committee enquired what the food offer consisted off. Mr Campillo explained that the restaurant served Spanish food and specialised in ham. The application was not seeking to turn the restaurant into a bar and it was not proposed to sell any alcohol without food. The tapas plates varied in size and all customers would be seated, the variation would simply allow customers to also sit on a stool at a bar instead of just tables.

The Council’s Legal Adviser asked Environmental Health if other tapas premises had the full restaurant conditions on their licences and if the proposed relaxation had also been applied to them? Mr Watson commented that on previous cases which had come before the Sub-Committee tapas had always been regarded as a substantial meal. Of the recent five previous applications heard by the Sub-Committee three had model condition 38 added, ensuring alcohol was ancillary to the sale of food and supplied to persons seated at a table. The other two had model condition 66 attached which constituted the full restaurant condition. No other conditions had been attached specifying that the restaurants had to operate in a particular style. The Legal Adviser queried that model condition 38 did not require substantial food and whether one plate of tapa (a single dish) would meet the requirement? Mr Watson explained this had always been a discussion and it was for the Sub-Committee’s judgement.

In response to a question Mr Campillo advised that the private events would not continue late into the evening and would potentially finish at 22:00 hours.

Mr Brown addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that one plate of tapa did not constitute a substantial meal and the requested relaxation of condition 15 would be a significant watering down of model condition 66.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and in particular the significant residential concern which had been expressed. It was recognised that the premises was not located in a Cumulative Impact Area and operated within the core hours policy. The premises was considered to be a restaurant and it was noted the applicant was proposing to offer a more café style operation and not that of a bar. Therefore it was considered appropriate to retain the existing condition 15 but to remove the word ‘substantial’ from this condition. This would still ensure that alcohol was ancillary to table meals and this would include tapa. It was very difficult to draft conditions that relaxed conditions in the way proposed without undermining the overall expectation of the licensing authority that the premises would remain food led and it was certainly not expected that the provision of just one small dish should become the standard arrangement at the premises. The expectation was that most customers would consume more than one small dish so that the overall impression was that the premises were operating as a genuine tapas restaurant rather than a bar. For this reason the condition proposed by Environmental Health was imposed so as to require the licensable activities (and especially the sale of alcohol) to be ancillary to the main function of the premises as a specialist Spanish delicatessen and tapas restaurant. Under no circumstances are the premises allowed to operate as a bar or similar type of drink led operation.

The premises had been licenced over the last five years during which time no complaints had been received. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the conditions proposed by EH were very stringent, would prevent the premises becoming a drink led operation and ensure local residents were not subjected to any noise disturbance or nuisance. With regard to the private events it was recognised that these would be private, pre-booked events for guests to view works of art and these could actually have the potential of creating less impact on the local area. To provide reassurance that these events would not cause a disturbance to residents the Sub-Committee added a condition to the licence requiring only one event to take place each calendar month, a written record of each event be kept for inspection and the terminal hour for such events to be 22:00 hours. Even these events were expected to operate on the basis that the alcohol would be ancillary to the provision of the event itself. On that understanding, the Sub-Committee agreed to grant the variation to the licence as it was felt the nature of the operation, the strict conditions imposed and the previous good conduct of the applicant would all ensure the licensing objectives were upheld and promoted. The applicant was reminded that in operating the business the licensing objectives had to be upheld at all times and if the residents did have any concerns they had the option to instigate a review application.

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

·         A condition be added to the licence to read “The licensable activities authorised by this licence and provided at the premises shall be ancillary to the main function of the premises as a Specialist Spanish Delicatessen and Tapas restaurant. “

• Condition 15 be amended to read: “The premises shall only operate as a restaurant (i) in which customers are shown to their table, (ii) which provide food in the form of table meals that are prepared on the premises and are served and consumed at the table using non disposable crockery, (iii) which do not provide any take away service of food or drink for immediate consumption, and (iv) where intoxicating liquor shall not be sold, supplied, or consumed on the premises otherwise than to persons who are bona fide taking table meals and provided always that the consumption of intoxicating liquor by such persons is ancillary to taking such meals.”

·         A condition be added to the licence to read “Notwithstanding Condition 15

The supply of alcohol at the premises shall also be permitted to invited guests of pre-booked private events until 22:00 hours restricted to one event per calendar month and the permanent written record for all such events shall be kept permanently at the premises and shall be produced to the Police or Local Authority Inspectors on request.”

·         Condition 17 be amended to read “A Maximum of two types of draught beers shall be sold at the premises.”

·         A condition be added to the licence to read “The maximum number of persons permitted in the premises at any one time (excluding staff) shall not exceed 30 persons.”

·         A condition be added to the licence to read “A record shall be kept detailing all refused sales of alcohol. The record should include the date and time of the refused sale and the name of the member of staff who refused the sale. The record shall be available for inspection at the premises by the police or an authorised officer of the City Council at all times whilst the premise is open.”

·         A condition be added to the licence to read “An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to an authorised officer of the City Council or the Police. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and will record the following: (a) all crimes reported to the venue (b) all ejections of patrons (c) any complaints received concerning crime and disorder (d) any incidents of disorder (e) all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons (f) any faults in the CCTV system (g) any refusal of the sale of alcohol (h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.”

·         A condition be added to the licence to read “No fumes, steam or odours shall be emitted from the licensed premises so as to cause a nuisance to any persons living or carrying on business in the area where the premises are situated.”

·         A condition be added to the licence to read “All windows and external doors shall be kept closed after 22:00 hours except for the immediate access and egress of persons.”