Agenda and minutes

22-25 Kingly Street and 14-16 Fouberts Place, W1

15/04186/LIPV

1.

Variation of Condition

To vary condition 14 of the licence to increase the number of persons accommodated at the premises (excluding staff) to 295.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Thomas, representing the Applicant, began by advising that proposals to incorporate the external dining area into the licensed area had been withdrawn. He referred to a proposed amendment to condition 27 from Environmental Health and indicated his agreement to it on behalf of the Applicant. Mr Thomas stated that condition 14 allowed the possibility of a capacity increase if the sanitary accommodation was improved to the satisfaction of Environmental Health. He confirmed that these sanitary improvements had now been completed, with W/C provision complying with British Standard (BS) 6465 and the Applicant sought to amend condition 14 to increase capacity to 295, excluding staff.  Mr Thomas stated that the improved W/C provision actually meant that capacity could be as high as 360, although only 295 was proposed in the application. He asserted that the increase in capacity would not affect cumulative impact, particularly as Environmental Health had not objected to the capacity increase. Mr Thomas referred to the plans in the report that had been approved by Environmental Health. He reminded Members that the Police had not made a representation and Environmental Health had stated that the increase in capacity would not lead to public nuisance based on the sanitary accommodation provided. Mr Thomas therefore argued that it was appropriate to approve the application.

Councillor Evans suggested that in view of the fact that the application involved an increase in capacity in a stress area and would be operating into the late hours, that some cumulative impact may be inevitable. In reply, Mr Thomas stated that the premises was already comprehensively conditioned and additional conditions were proposed in the application. He added that Home Office Guidance stated that the Police’s views were one of the primary concerns for licensing applications, yet the Police had felt that making a representation was not necessary. Mr Thomas referred again to Environmental Heath’s comments that the capacity increase would not give rise to public nuisance.

Mr Drayan from Environmental Health addressed the Sub-Committee. He advised that Environmental Health were satisfied that the increase in capacity can be accommodated based on the proposed W/C provision and that no public nuisance would arise in that regard.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Rupert Street Cafe Bar, 50 Rupert Street, W1D 6DR

15/02201/LIPN

1.

Sale of alcohol: On and off the premises

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Ms Eames, representing the Applicant Company, began by describing the history of the premises. Members heard that the premises operated as a bar for the lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and had been well established in area for a number of years and the Applicant Company, Stonegate Pub Company Limited, had operated the premises for nearly five years. An application for a variation to extend hours had been refused in 2012.

However another premises operated by the Applicant Company in Westminster, Halfway To Heaven, had overcome policy in a successful application to extend hours. Ms Eames stated that during 2014, the Applicant Company overcame a number of cumulative impact polices across the country in their applications and they felt it appropriate to make such an application for these premises, which Ms Eames contended may even help improve the stress area. The Applicant had pre-consulted with the Metropolitan Police and Dave Nevitt of Environmental Health and had decided to apply for a new premises licence as it was felt it was inappropriate to vary the existing premises licence. Ms Eames informed Members that the Applicant Company had commissioned a number of surveys undertaken by external companies that were specialised in such areas.

Ms Eames then outlined the proposals within the application as set out in the report. Principal to this was the creation of a membership scheme, revised to take effect at earlier hours from the original application, which meant that after 22:30 from Mondays to Thursdays and after 23:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, only members or their bona fide guests could remain on the premises. Staff would move through the premises during this time requesting that customers who are not members or bona fide guests would be asked to leave the premises via the Rupert Street exit, whilst members and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Raging Bull Snooker and Sports Club (Basement), 159-163 Edgware Road, W2

15/04057/LIPN

1.

Indoor Sporting Event

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Monday to Thursday: 09:00 to 23:30

Friday and Saturday: 09:00 to 00:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 22:30

Sundays immediately prior to Bank Holidays: 09.00 to 00.00

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

Mr Woods, representing the Applicant Company, advised that the Applicant Company wished to amend the application so that all licensable activities were now proposed to be undertaken during core hours. The Applicant Company had agreed to a period of at least 48 hours between nomination/application for membership and admission to the premises, as requested by the Metropolitan Police. Mr Woods advised that a condition had also been agreed with Environmental Health that two door supervisors be on the premises between 22:00 until the end of licensable activities on Fridays and Saturdays.  The Sub-Committee heard that the Applicant Company’s proposals were for the same hours that existed for its premises at other locations and an application for membership would require two forms of identification. The premises would take the customer’s membership card upon arrival, and return it when they left, subject to acceptable behaviour. Mr Woods stated that alcohol was not a main feature of the business and it accounted for around 20% of turnover at the other three premises operated by the Applicant Company. Mr Woods advised that the Applicant Company had agreed all conditions with the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health. He advised the Sub-Committee that the front door would be locked at all times with access only allowed through an intercom. Customers would then be required to buzz at a second door to allow them entry to the club in the basement of the premises. Access would only be to members at all times. There would be no off sales and no external advertisement of the bar, whilst the duke box would be fitted with a noise limiter. Mr Woods advised that the door supervisors would be located inside the premises. In reply to a query, Mr Woods advised that it was intended that the premises remain open for 24 hours, as was the case with the three other premises operated by the Applicant Company. Mr Tressider of the Applicant Company added that the premises would operate in the same manner as its other three premises, none of which experienced any problems. He confirmed that the premises would operate as a private members club.

PC Lewis of the Metropolitan Police  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Pix, 16 Bateman Street, W1D

15/05202/LIPV

1.

Proposed changes to the layout of the premises

To vary the layout in the basement so as to install a bar server and booth seating

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Ms Tulloch, representing the Applicant, advised that the Applicant operated three other restaurants in addition to these premises which all operated successfully. She stated that the premises operated as an authentic Spanish restaurant where it was normal to offer draught Spanish beers and ciders and for this reason the Applicant wished to amend condition 21 to permit sale of one draught Spanish beer and one draught Spanish cider. A revised plan had also been submitted that included three female W/Cs and two male W/Cs. An increase in capacity from 70 to 100 people had been proposed due to the growing popularity of the restaurant, however the Applicant had agreed a total capacity of 90 people (20 in the basement) with Environmental Health who had withdrawn their representation, meaning a modest capacity increase of 20. Ms Tulloch advised that a local resident had withdrawn their representation following discussions with the Applicant. Ms Tulloch stated that there had also been attempts to contact The Soho Society who had made a representation, but no response had been received from them to date. Ms Tulloch added that The Soho Society’s objection was based on concerns about vertical drinking, however she stated that this was not relevant as the premises operated as a restaurant and alcohol consumption would be ancillary to a main meal. She advised that draught alcohol would be served in 330 ml glasses and the Applicant would be happy for a condition to be added stating this. Ms Tulloch added that dispersal would be gradual and the premises was at its busiest around 19:00 to 20:30 and the application would not undermine the licensing objectives.

In reply to a query from a Member, Ms Tulloch confirmed that alcohol consumption would be ancillary to a meal in all areas of the premises, including the bar area. Chris Wroe, Policy Adviser, advised that the Applicant should refer to Trading Standards Guidance in respect of measures for draught alcoholic drinks.

The Sub-Committee granted the application, subject to all the conditions agreed with Environmental Health. In considering the application, the Sub-Committee acknowledged that no additional hours had been proposed and the premises was required to operate as a restaurant with the consumption of alcohol being ancillary to a substantial table meal. The Sub-Committee was of the view that the small increase in capacity would not add to cumulative impact bearing in mind that the premises could only provide licensable activities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Safa Restaurant, Forset Court, 22-23 Nutford Place, W1H

15/04997/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Cannon, the Applicant’s Representative, began by stating that the premises existing licence had been in place for 19 years, however the application was for a new premises licence to replace the existing one. He advised that the current premises licence had been converted under godfather rights in 2005 when the Licensing Act 2003 took effect. Mr Cannon stated the premises operated as a Middle Eastern restaurant and although the application sought later hours, it included up to date conditions that would be expected of a restaurant and some conditions had already been agreed with the Police. Mr Cannon explained that in Middle Eastern culture, the tendency was to dine later than the normal UK times and this was why later hours were being applied for. Under the present licence, the Applicant was having to ask customers to leave whilst they were still dining and so a later licence would better meet the cultural requirements of the clientele. Mr Cannon advised that the customer base was largely family groups and that the application was in line with the Council’s policy and although the premises was located in a stress area, it did operate as a restaurant. The Sub-Committee was advised that although recorded music was applied for, it was intended for background purposes only and if Members were concerned, this aspect of the application could be withdrawn.

Mr Cannon referred to the Council’s STR1 and RNT2 policy which supported applications if they did not add to cumulative impact and stated that the extension of hours applied for was modest. He asserted that the application represented a significant improvement in terms of conditions and regulatory matters compared to the existing premises licence, which in theory could permit vertical drinking. Mr Cannon stated that the capacity limit of 40 people was also modest. The proposed operating schedule gave rise to the newly proposed conditions 9 – 14 which helped address public nuisance whilst proposed condition 17, the model restaurant condition, was a significant improvement to the existing premises licence. Mr Cannon advised that condition 18 proposed by the Police and agreed by the Applicant relating to late night refreshment during Ramadan was still under discussion with Environmental Health, however he felt that as sunrise times were known, the condition was enforceable. The Sub-Committee heard that although there were residential flats above the premises, no representations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.