Agenda and minutes

14 Melcombe Street, NW1

14/08184/LIPV

1.

Variation to conditions

To delete the following conditions:

Condition 12:

The supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal.

Condition 14:

Sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall only be supplied with, and ancillary to, a take-away meal.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee amended Conditions 12 and 14 on the existing licence.  Condition 12 (Condition 14 in the list of conditions below) became ‘the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall only be to persons seated’ which was an alternative proposed by Environmental Health (EH).  Condition 14 (Condition 16 below) became ‘sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be ancillary to the use of the premises as a café’.

The Sub-Committee noted the written concerns of local residents who had objected to the application.  These particularly referred to the negative effects of the premises potentially becoming a bar or pub.  Members however heard from the Applicants, Mrs Elisabet Finetto and her son, Mr Maximilian Finetto, that they were still seeking that customers would be seated when drinking alcohol and would be served by waiter or waitress.  There would be no vertical drinking.  The intention was to serve those customers who would like a glass of wine or limoncello without food.  The Finettos imported wines and wished to make some off-sales. These would not be advertised.

Mr Watson for Environmental Health stated that there was no record of nuisance or complaints from the premises.  He referred to those consuming alcohol being seated and served by waiter or waitress, including at the tables and chairs outside located on private land.  There would be no sales of draught beer.  Mr Watson informed Members that he was maintaining his representation in order that he could answer the questions of the Sub-Committee or in the event that residents were in attendance.   

The Sub-Committee took into account that 14 Melcombe Street is not located in one of the Council’s designated stress areas and there was no policy presumption against the application.  Members considered that the Applicants had taken steps with the proposed conditions, in conjunction with EH, to promote the licensing objectives.  They further strengthened the conditions to prevent future licence holders attempting to operate 14 Melcombe Street as a bar or pub.   These included that off sales would be ancillary to the use of the premises as a café and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

One Housing Sohostel, West End House, 91-92 Dean Street, W1

14/08365/LIPN

1.

Sale of Alcohol: On the premises – residents only

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 01:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Ms Edwards.  One Housing Sohostel had been a homeless hostel and had been converted to tourist accommodation with all proceeds going to charity.  It was intended that the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to its primary use as a hostel.  If the brand was successful, it was intended to develop the Sohostel concept across London.  The Applicant had worked with Environmental Health (EH) and the Police; consequently the application had been amended.  The terminal hour had been brought back so that One Housing Sohostel would be operating until 01:00 Monday to Sunday.  Ms Edwards stated that conditions had been agreed with the Responsible Authorities, subject to the Sub-Committee being minded to grant the application, including that alcohol would only be on-sales to residents only.  There would be no external advertising of facilities and from 21:00 to 08:00 2 SIA registered door staff would be deployed at the premises.  The consumption of alcohol would be restricted to the lobby area only.  A suitable smoking area had been discussed with the Police. 

Mr Smith for EH confirmed that as part of the discussions with the Applicant the terminal hour had been reduced.  There was more than one floor with bedrooms and equipment which was in keeping with a hotel. There had been concerns regarding on and off sales.  The Applicant had agreed that on-sales would be purely in the canteen area and had accepted that there would be no off-sales.  Guests of hotel residents would not be allowed to drink alcohol on the premises

Mr Brown, representing The Soho Society and Mrs Dugdale, stated that his clients were seeking safeguards if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.  The conditions agreed between the Responsible Authorities and the Applicant went some way towards that.  The Soho Society was requesting that food was made available.  The major concern overall, particularly for Mrs Dugdale, was the use of the outside area.  A proposed condition that no drinking be permitted outside was welcomed.  There was however the potential for people collecting outside the premises.  Mr Brown recommended that the designated smoking area was to the front and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Harmony, 103 Oxford Street, W1

14/00509/LISEXR

Application:

An application to renew a sex establishment licence for the sex shop under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Kolvin, representing the Applicant.  He stated that his client had traded at 103 Oxford Street for ten years.  It had been his client’s aim to shed the backstreet, seedy image that had on occasion been attributed to sex shops.  It had operated without any complaints or concerns in a world renowned street.  The clientele was 60% female and did not consist of the ‘dirty mac’ brigade.  It was necessary under the legislation to apply for a sex establishment licence and on nine previous occasions the licence had been renewed without objection.

Mr Kolvin briefly described how Harmony operated. It trades on two levels.  The ground floor did not require a sex establishment licence as it traded items such as lingerie, toys, games and hen night novelties.  The basement was the area that required licensing, trading items such as marital aids, DVDs and clothing.  Items that were sold in the basement area could not be seen by passers-by.  Mr Kolvin advised that his client had given undertakings in 2004 that the window displays would be agreed with the Council.  Thus the Council had complete control over the premises’ external impact.  His client did not wish to offend anyone and had forwarded concepts for the window displays to Council officers. 

Three objections had been received in response to the application.  One of the objectors attended and wished to remain anonymous.  The objector emphasised the concerns set out in the written representations that the sex shop was inappropriate for the high end shopping and family area in Oxford Street and was inappropriate for children to view.  Residents were living nearby.  The Crossrail entrance, once the project had been finalised, would be opposite the Harmony store.  The objector did accept that the Applicants had done what they could not to offend people.  However, it was questionable whether the Applicants could prevent those who were below 18 years of age walking into the shop.

Mr Kolvin was asked by the Sub-Committee how age restrictions were enforced at Harmony.  He replied that the law required that those under the age of 18 were not permitted to enter the licensed area, the basement.  His client ensured that those under the age of 18 were not allowed in any part of the shop.  The counter was located adjacent to the main  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.