Agenda item

Mariage Freres, 38 King Street, Covent Garden, WC2

17/14697/LIPN

1.

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):

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Thomas and Mr Gonzalez about the intended operation at Mariage Freres.  There had been a significant refurbishment of the premises that had previously been The Africa Centre. Capital & Counties Properties PLC is the landlord and Mr Thomas made the point that they have 24 hour security and CCTV covering this area.

Mr Gonzalez explained that the concept was that ingredients were tea based and were healthy.  There were more than 900 blends of tea from 60 different countries.  Blends were used to create a recipe, including desserts.  Food was required to match the tea based products.

Mr Thomas stated that alcohol was not a significant part of the operation with the main use being retail.  Mr Thomas and Mr Gonzalez clarified that on the ground floor there would be a retail space with sales of tea (including a tea wall with the 900 blends) and pastries for takeaway.  The only alcohol sold on the ground floor would be for consumption off the premises in sealed containers.  The plan was to sell champagne with infused syrup of tea to flavour it.  There would be alcoholic products sold other than champagne. It was not intended to sell beer or whisky as off sales.  There would be an emphasis on the tea based products.  It would be necessary to go up the stairs through the retail area in order to obtain sales of alcohol for consumption on the premises.  Access to on sales could not be made directly from the street.  There would be staff on the ground floor. 

Mr Thomas confirmed that the first floor would be the tea room.  There would be a maximum capacity of 100 on the first floor excluding staff.  After 20:00 alcohol would be ancillary to a table meal with customers being seated and served by waiter or waitress service until Mariage Freres closed at 23:00.  Mr Thomas made the point that whilst it was possible to have an alcoholic drink prior to 20:00 without it being ancillary to a table meal, it was expected that a large percentage of customers would still be having a meal.  Alcohol would not be predominant.  Mr Gonzalez added that the emphasis was on afternoon tea and tea based cuisine, competing with the hotels in London who provide the afternoon tea experience.  The Applicant wanted to encourage families and did not want Mariage Freres to operate like a bar. 

The Sub-Committee drew Mr Thomas’ and Mr Gonzalez’s attention to the fact that the Applicant could move on and be replaced by a new operator who would wish to operate it as a bar.  Mr Thomas replied that he was willing to make some amendments to the proposed conditions.  One was that there would be no pre-booked functions which could be accessed directly from the street.  Another was that he was content that the licensable activities authorised by the licence would only be carried on at the premises by the Applicant.  It would add a personal element to the licence and would mean that the licence would have to be varied before it could be operated by another licence holder.  Mr Thomas also referred to the condition that ‘the sale of alcohol on the premises shall at all times be ancillary to the main function of the premises as a tea retail shop’ and said that if the Applicant or a new licence holder attempted to operate 38 King Street as a bar they would be in breach of this condition.  The Sub-Committee noted that there was a proposed condition that ‘no more than 15% of the sales area shall be used at any one time for the sale, exposure for sale, or display of alcohol’.

The Sub-Committee also noted that the condition proposed by Environmental Health and agreed by the Applicant for alcohol being ancillary to a table meal on the first floor was more in keeping with the Council’s Model Condition 38 rather than the model restaurant condition MC66.  Mr Thomas was asked whether his client was amenable to having MC66 apply on the first floor given that Mariage Freres is located in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  He replied that it was acceptable to the Applicant provided there was some flexibility, including in terms of takeaway, as MC66 as set out applies throughout the day.  Customers would be shown to their table, alcohol would be supplied by waiter or waitress and food would be in the form of substantial table meals  

Mr Gonzalez explained that the tea museum would be located on the second floor.  Mariage Freres’ art pieces would be kept in the museum.  Tea masterclasses would be held there.  External companies would be encouraged to have group activities there.  He clarified that the second and fourth floors could be hired out for use by external companies but the Applicant would retain overall responsibility for the premises.  The Applicant would still have control over the activities which would reflect their core values.  Mr Thomas added that it was intended that there would be a maximum of 50 customers on each of the second and fourth floors.  The second and fourth floors would be for booked events only.

The Sub-Committee wished to have clarification on the nature of the booked events on the second and fourth floors given that up to 100 people excluding staff would potentially be permitted in these locations.  Mr Thomas responded that he envisaged a canapé type event where a waiter or waitress would provide a tea infused champagne.  Mr Gonzalez commented that there would not be any events where attendees would be able to walk off the street and have a drink.  It was envisaged there would be the option for external companies to hold conferences and give presentations with screens.  Private afternoon teas could be held for 10-15 people.  It was intended that there would be approximately 3 to 4 events held a week and the Applicant would be targeting afternoon events rather than prioritising evening events.

Mr Thomas advised that the existing licence for the Africa Centre would be surrendered if the current application was granted.  Mr Thomas expressed the view that the current application was a significant improvement on the Africa Centre’s operations and had a less intensive effect as he was aware that there had been problems relating to the events they held.  Mariage Freres would not have regulated entertainment.  He believed that in policy terms it should be considered that the current application was replacing the use of events that was present on the existing premises licence.  Mr Thomas was of the view that the ground floor and basement where the Africa Centre held their events was no larger than the second floor.

The Police had withdrawn their representation prior to the meeting having agreed a proposed incident log condition with the Applicant.  The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Nevitt on behalf of Environmental Health.  He stated that one of the issues for Environmental Health was assessing whether the mixed use premises policy applied (COMB1).  He queried what the primary use was.  The Applicant’s proposed condition had indicated that on sales were ancillary to the main function of the premises as a tea retail shop.  However, the tea retail shop was only located on the first floor.  Mr Nevitt recommended that the condition was amended to the main function of the premises being a tea retail shop and tea museum.

Mr Nevitt stated that the combined use premises policy and the criteria set out in paragraph 2.4.21 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy were linked in determining the application.  2.4.21 refers to the consumption of alcohol not becoming a significant part of the operation and customers not drinking heavily at later hours.

Mr Nevitt said that he was not concerned about the consumption of alcohol prior to 20:00 in the first floor tea room or off sales on the ground floor but he was concerned about the potential nature of the functions on the second and fourth floors.  He advised that the conditions should require functions to be pre-booked at least 24 hours in advance and require details of the person booking it.  Mr Thomas responded that he was content for the conditions to reflect these requirements.

Mr Nevitt also sought clarification as to whether vertical drinking was permitted at the functions and whether the Applicant was amenable to reducing the percentage of the sales area on the ground floor where off sales could be displayed or sold as it was a substantial area.  The condition was currently proposing 15%.  Mr Thomas offered 10% of the sales area.

The Sub-Committee was also addressed by Ms Pring on behalf of the Licensing Authority.  She advised that their representation had been submitted on the basis it was an application for a new premises licence in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  Further information had been requested to establish whether the application would add to cumulative impact.  She concurred with Mr Nevitt’s comments on the relevance of combined use premises policy and the criteria set out in paragraph 2.4.21 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. 

Ms Pring referred to the proposed hours being within the Council’s Core Hours policy.  She added that the Licensing Authority’s primary concern was the functions on the second and fourth floors.  She was keen to hear from the Applicant how it was intended to control the events and the number of events the Applicant intended to hold at 38 King Street.  Ms Pring quoted paragraph 2.4.10 that ‘persons leaving proprietary clubs and premises operating private functions will sometimes cause public nuisance or be involved in crime, either as perpetrators or victims’ and paragraph 2.4.12 that ‘in the cumulative impact areas premises which restrict access to general members of the public, such as proprietary clubs and premises used for private functions, will not be considered to be exceptions to cumulative impact area policies for that reason alone’.  She stated that it was for Members to be satisfied that the application would not add to cumulative impact.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Thomas a number of questions.  These included whether he was willing to address concerns regarding a potential scenario where up to 100 people on the second and fourth floors would be engaged in vertical drinking.  Mr Thomas made the point that the existing Africa Centre premises licence already permitted that activity.  Mr Wroe referred to the limitations of the people who were permitted to be sold or supplied alcohol under the Africa Centre licence.  They included directors, members of committee and staff of the Africa Centre, people attending conferences and functions or having a table meal at the restaurant.  Mr Thomas was of the view that the list was sufficient to be comparable to what was being sought by the Applicant, particularly as the events did not have to be pre-booked.

Mr Thomas offered that the pre-booked events would be ancillary to the main function as a tea museum. The tea museum would always remain.  The Sub-Committee asked Mr Thomas whether the Applicant would be amenable to limiting the events on the second and fourth floors.  Mr Gonzalez had suggested they would take place three to four times a week.  Mr Thomas requested that any restriction in events was on an annual basis rather than a weekly one and that it only applied to after 20:00.  He added that he was keen to avoid applying for Temporary Event Notices.

It was agreed by Mr Thomas that, in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, the plans would be updated on the second floor to remove the red line indicating the licensable area to the right of the stairs which was the roof and was not an area of access to the premises.

Mr Thomas in his summing up expressed the view that the application was compliant with all aspects of the Council’s policy, including in terms of the combined use policy and also the pre-booked events because of the existing premises licence for the Africa Centre.  Mr Panto advised that there was an over-riding policy that the Applicant needed to demonstrate that the application would not add to cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.

The Sub-Committee granted the application.  The Sub-Committee considered that the application would not add to cumulative impact and that the licensing objectives would be promoted.  One significant aspect in the Sub-Committee reaching this decision was that licensable activities would conclude at 23:00.  The Sub-Committee was reassured that the Applicant had agreed that licensing activities would only be authorised to be carried on by the Applicant.  There was therefore a personal aspect to the application.  There would be a requirement for the premises licence to be variedif it was no longer being operated by the current licence holder.

Conditions which were attached to the premises licence which promoted the licensing objectives included that no more than 10% of the sales area of the ground floor would be used at any one time for the sale, exposure for sale, or display of alcohol which had been agreed by the Applicant.  As agreed between the Applicant and Environmental Health the first floor would become a restaurant after 20:00.  A number of the aspects of the Council’s model restaurant condition, MC66, were incorporated into the operation of the restaurant as agreed by the Applicant during the hearing. 

There were also some restrictions placed on the functions on the second and fourth floors as the Sub-Committee, the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health shared concerns regarding the potential for issues arising from unlimited events.  The functions would be pre-booked at least 24 hours in advance and functions after 20.00 hours would be restricted to a maximum of 150 days in a calendar year.

Mr Nevitt was keen that the Environmental Health Consultation Team made a final assessment on the capacity of the premises before licensable activities took place at the premises.  The Sub-Committee amended the Council’s Model Condition 90 taking into account that there would be a maximum of 250 persons in the whole premises at any time which had been agreed by Environmental Health.  The Applicant had suggested that there would be no more than 100 persons on the first floor, 50 persons on the second floor and 50 persons on the fourth floor and these capacities for the floors were incorporated into the condition.  

The Sub-Committee decided not to impose the amended conditions proposed by Environmental Health relating to the movement and collections of waste or recyclable materials, including bottles.  These proposals were considered to be a relaxation of the conditions proposed by the Applicant that was not permitted without others having the opportunity to object. The Sub-Committee considered that the movement and collections of waste late at night would have the potential to undermine the licensing objectives.

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.