Agenda and draft minutes

Dar Marrakesh, 422 Edgware Road, W2

15/00928/LIPV

1.

Late Night Refreshment

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

This application was for a variation of a premises licence application to extend the terminal hour to midnight for late night refreshment in the garden area only on Monday to Thursday evenings and to 02:00 on the morning after Friday and Saturday evening.  Late night refreshment was also applied for on Sundays until 23:30 inside the premises and until midnight in the garden.  The application involved the removal of two conditions on the existing licence requiring the beer garden to be cleared of patrons after 23:00 and that toughened drinking glasses shall be used in the premises.

Members of the Sub-Committee were initially addressed by Ms Le Fevre, representing the Applicant.  She stated that the premises was owned and operated by the Derissy family and they had turned around what had previously been a problem premises.  There was a loyal, local clientele.  Dar Marrakesh was a food and shisha led not alcohol led establishment.  The Applicant had agreed with the Police that there was no longer any need for the toughened drinking glasses condition which had been on a previous licence although not on the existing one because there were no recent instances of crime and disorder.   

Ms Le Fevre made the point that she understood that it was the use of the outside area for late night refreshment in the rear garden area which was contentious for some residents.  However, there had been no representations from the residents of Westmacott House, which was believed to be the nearest residential accommodation to the garden area.  There was no application to extend alcohol at Dar Marrakesh.  There was also restricted use of the inside area, including the limiting of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Top Dog Eats, 48 Frith Street, W1

15/01790/LIPV

1.

Amendment to condition

To vary the existing premises licence so as to amend condition 10 (iii) which reads:

10 (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.

To read:

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

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Thomas during the hearing on behalf of his client offered to amend the condition so that food would be provided by waiter or waitress after 23:00 hours (see below).

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

This is an application to amend a condition on the existing premises licence.  Mr Thomas, representing the Applicant, explained that his client was seeking to amend one aspect of the Council’s model restaurant condition which currently required substantial table meals to be served by waiter or waitress service.  It was envisaged that the premises would be a hot dog restaurant on three floors and that customers would go to the counter, choose the food and take it back on a tray to the table.  Mr Thomas disputed that the offer was fast food.  There were organic hot dogs which were prepared in front of customers.  Any alcohol sold (one lager and one bitter were available) would continue to be served to customers at tables.

Mr Thomas referred to policy RNT2 in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy as Top Dog Eats is in the West End Stress Area and made the case that there were some aspects of this policy that were more important than others.  He believed serving food at a counter and removing the requirement for it to be served at a table was potentially irrelevant because the sale of food was not a licensable activity.  The removal of waiter/waitress service for food did not prevent the premises being a restaurant or make it alcohol led.  Environmental Health had withdrawn their representation and the Police were requesting the view of the Sub-Committee.  He believed there were other applications for premises known as Bunnychow and Shake Shack where food did not have to be served at tables.

The Sub-Committee heard from PC Marriott who stated that the Metropolitan Police maintained their representation as the application was contrary to policy in the West End Stress Area as a result of the amendment to the condition.  It therefore needed to be demonstrated by the Applicant why the application was an exception to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Norris News, 115 Lupus Street, SW1

15/01135/LIREVP

An application submitted by the Licensing Inspectorate for a review of the premises licence for Norris News in Lupus Street was received on 17 February 2015 on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.

Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (para 11.2) states that at any stage following the grant of a premises licence, a responsible authority, such as the Police or the Environmental Health Service, or any other person who can seek a review, may ask the Licensing Authority to review the premises licence because of a matter arising at the premises in connection with any of the four licensing objectives.

As such, in accordance with section 52(2) of the above-mentioned Act, the Licensing Authority must hold a hearing to consider the application and any relevant representations.

The premises currently benefits from a premises licence (13/05276/LIPVM) that permits:

Sale by retail of alcohol (off sales)

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 23:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 22:30

A history of visits, observations and complaints has been provided by the applicant.  On 13 November 2014, Customs and Excise seized 886.56 litres of beer and 36 litres of wine from the premises on the basis that no excise duty had been paid on the goods. This is an offence under s170 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and s144 Licensing Act 2003.

This incident, in conjunction with other recent historical breaches, leads the applicant to believe that the premises are unable to promote the licensing objectives.  The named owner of the business at the time of the visit by Customs and Excise on 13 November 2014 was Mr Shusilkumar Bhavsar. However, the holder of the Premises Licence and Designated Premises Supervisor is Mr Prashant Patel.  On 8 December 2014, a letter from Mr Gareth Cleary of the Licensing Inspectorate was sent to Mr Shusilkumar Bhavsar regarding the Customs and Excise visit and inviting Mr Bhavsar to an interview under caution or to submit a response in writing. On 20 January 2015, similar letters were sent to Mr Prashant Patel. In subsequent emails dated 2 January 2015 and 5 February 2015, Mr Bhavsar accepts liability for the incident. No response has been provided to the letters of Mr Cleary from Mr Patel.

The Environmental Health Service, as a responsible authority, supports the review application on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Cleary who briefly referred to the reasons for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.