Agenda item

29 Maddox Street, London, W1S 2PA

17/01629/LIPV

1.

Layout Alteration

To vary the layout of the premises by increasing the capacity on both the basement and ground floors.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was advised that the proposed capacity was 70 on the ground floor and 50 in the basement.

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by SMD Concepts Ltd for a variation of a premises licence in respect of 29 Maddox Street, London, W1S 2PA.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application and informed the Sub-Committee that the premises had been referred to as Hibiscus in the published report however a change in trading name request had subsequently been received which was currently being processed. It was also noted that the police had now withdrawn their representation on the understanding that the applicant had agreed to the inclusion of a detailed restaurant condition.

Mr Rankin, representing the applicant, provided the Sub-Committee with a background to the application. The applicants belonged to the Leela Group which operated the renowned chain of Jamavar restaurants of which the London operation was voted one of the best seven Indian restaurants in the UK by Forbes magazine. It was expected that the restaurant would achieve a Michelin star shortly. The applicant had taken over the property formerly called Hibiscus and it was proposed to increase the capacity of the premises for financial reasons in order to make the business viable. The report stated that the application was requesting a capacity of 80 persons on the ground floor and 60 in the basement however this was incorrect and the application was actually seeking a capacity of 70 on the ground floor and 50 in the basement. This represented an increase in 52 persons from the current permitted capacity. Environmental Health (EH) had undertaken a thorough audit of the existing conditions and it was agreed many were obsolete or required changing. This was why it was proposed to remove conditions 9 and 19 and change various others to modernise the licence. It was recognised that the contentious element of the application centred on the proposed increase in capacity for the premises. The current licence permitted the sale of alcohol half an hour beyond core hours Monday to Thursday and concern had been expressed that this would result in an increase in people inside the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) beyond core hours. The Sub-Committee was advised that if this did cause concern the applicant would be willing to accept an increase in the capacity within core hours followed by a reduction in the capacity to the current level when core hours finish. The main objective of the application was to increase the capacity of the premises within the core hours. The application did have a bar facility but this would be restricted to diners only who were waiting for their table to become available. It was suggested that the bar area could be restricted to a maximum of ten people.

In response to a question from the Council’s Legal Adviser Mr Rankin confirmed that on the amended plans submitted the unhatched areas in the basement area would not be serviced by waiter/waitress service.

Mr Sycamore, representing the Licensing Authority, stated that restaurants located within a CIA must demonstrate that they would not add to the cumulative impact. After 20:00 hours an additional 62 people would be located within the CIA. Even if the capacity of the premises was reduced when it operated outside core hours the additional 62 people would still be located in the CIA. Nothing in the application addressed these concerns that the application would not add to cumulative impact and therefore it was not an exception to policy.

Mr Rankin understood the Licensing Authority’s representation but was of the opinion that if this was rigidly applied no restaurants would be able to open in a CIA again. Section RNT2 of the Council’s Licensing Policy should apply in this case and it recognised that restaurants were unlikely to create crime and disorder. The clientele expected at the restaurant would be expecting a fine dining experience, within reasonable hours, and would not be attending to drink large quantities of alcohol. The operation would be for a high end Indian restaurant.

The Sub-Committee did express concern over the proposed large increase in the capacity at the premises. Mr Rankin reiterated that the Council’s Licensing Policy recognised that restaurants did not, in general, add to cumulative impact. The Council’s Legal Adviser clarified the Council’s Licensing Policy in order to avoid any confusion. The application was situated within a CIA but had included a restaurant condition on the licence and therefore there was no Policy statement to refuse the application. In this instance the Sub-Committee did not have to find an exception to Policy to grant the application. With regards to RNT2 the Policy did state that a restaurant situated within a CIA did have to demonstrate that it would not add to the cumulative impact in the area. There was also a core hours policy which stated that “New restaurant premises will generally be granted the core hours in line with Policy HRS1.” Mr Rankin confirmed that he would prefer the application to be granted in its entirety, however to address any possible concerns the applicant would accept a reduction in capacity when the premises operated beyond core hours. Mr Sycamore was of the opinion that just because the application was for a high end restaurant this did not mean the operation would not add to the cumulative impact.

The Sub-Committee expressed an interest in how it was proposed to increase the capacity of the premises? Mr Oram, representing the applicant, explained that under previous ownership the basement area of the premises included a large kitchen area which operated as cookery school. This area would be renovated to include a larger dining area and Building Control and EH had agreed the proposals. The number of covers requested was considered a normal, average amount and these would be static, fixed seating.

The Council’s Policy Adviser requested further clarification on where in the premises the supply of alcohol would be by waiter/waitress service only? The applicant confirmed that the whole premises would be by waiter/waitress service except for the ground floor bar area.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and was not in agreement with the assertion that because the application was for a high-end restaurant it would not add to cumulative impact. However it was acknowledged that there was no Policy statement to refuse the application and the Policy did recognise that restaurants generally did not add to cumulative impact. Model condition 66, the full restaurant condition, would be included on the licence and this provided reassurance that the premises would not be alcohol-led therefore minimising any potential for noise and disturbance. The Sub-Committee recognised that the hours requested were slightly beyond core hours however the applicants were established, experienced restaurant operators and there was no history of complaints against the premises. The Police and EH were not objecting to the application following the agreement of conditions and it was felt these were stringent enough to ensure the premises did not add to the cumulative impact. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that even though the premises was located in a CIA the nature of the operation and the restrictive conditions imposed on the licence would ensure that the application upheld the licensing objectives. As such the Sub-Committee granted the application accordingly.

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

• Condition  9 be removed from the licence.

·         Condition 10 be amended to read “The number of persons accommodated at the premises (excluding staff) shall not exceed:

Ground Floor - 70 persons

Basement - 50 persons”

• Condition 11 be removed from the licence.

·         Condition 12 be amended to read “Substantial food and non- intoxicating beverages including drinking water shall be available in all parts of the premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises.”

• Condition 13 be removed from the licence.
• Condition 14 be removed from the licence.

·         Condition 15 be amended to read in accordance with model conditions MC1 and MC 2 as follows: “The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31 day period”.

“A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises is open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.”

·         Condition 16 be amended to read “No noise generated on the premises or by its associated plant or equipment shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.”

• Condition 19 be removed from the licence.

·         The following condition be added to the licence: “The premises shall only operate as a fine dining restaurant

(i) in which customers are shown to their table,

(ii) where, save for the ground floor bar area, the supply of alcohol is by waiter or waitress service only,

(iii) which provide food in the form of substantial table meals that are prepared on the premises and are served and consumed at the table using non disposable crockery,

(iv) which do not provide any take away service of food or drink for immediate consumption,

(v) which do not provide any take away service of food or drink after

23.00, and

(vi) where alcohol shall not be sold or supplied, otherwise than for consumption by persons who are seated in the premises and bona fide taking substantial table meals there, and provided always that the consumption of alcohol by such persons is ancillary to taking such meals.

Notwithstanding this condition, customers are permitted to take from the premises part consumed and resealed bottles of wine supplied ancillary to their meal.

·         The following condition be added to the licence: “Notwithstanding condition 15, alcohol may be supplied and consumed prior to their meal in the bar area (designated on the plan), by up to a maximum at any one time, of 10 persons dining at the premises.”

·         The following condition be added to the licence: “A Challenge 21 roof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.”

·         The following condition be added to the licence: “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.”

·         The following condition be added to the licence: “The means of escape provided for the premises shall be maintained unobstructed, free of trip hazards, be immediately available and clearly identified in accordance with the plans provided.”

·         The following condition be added to the licence: “No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until the premises have been assessed by the Environmental Health Consultation Team, at which time this condition shall be removed from the licence by the licensing authority.”

·         The following condition be added to the licence: “Before the premises is open to the public the plans as deposited will be checked by the Environmental Health Consultation Team to ensure that they are an accurate reflection of the premises constructed. Where the premises layout has changed during the course of construction new plans shall be provided to the Environmental Health Consultation Team and the Licensing Authority.”

The Sub-Committee informed that applicant that the issues of pollution and air quality were currently high on the Council’s agenda. As such the applicant was requested to consider engaging with companies in Business Improvement Districts to consolidate deliveries and waste collections. This was an informative only and not part of the formal decision.

2.

Conditions Being Varied, Added or Removed

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was advised that the proposed capacity was 70 on the ground floor and 50 in the basement.

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

The application was granted, the reason for the decision is detailed in section 1.