Agenda and minutes

Foxlow, 8-10 Lower James Street, W1

16/03177/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoor)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee had  received an additional representation from Councillor Church who had e-mailed Members directly.  The Chairman informed those present that it was accepted that representations needed to be sent to the Case Officer in the Licensing Team and not sent directly to Members.  They would therefore be disregarding the additional correspondence. It was also noted that the representation was sent outside the time limits for representations to be taken into consideration.  Mr O’Maoileoin, who had been advised of this e-mail the evening before along with the other parties to the hearing, stated that he appreciated that these things happened but there were protocols to follow.  He had been concerned that it would have been a reason for one of the parties to take the matter further should they be unhappy with the outcome of the hearing.  He accepted the Sub-Committee’s clear statement that it would wholly  disregard the additional correspondence.

Mr O’Maoileoin stated that this was one of a number of premises the Underdog restaurant chain had opened in London.  They owned the Hawksmoor and Foxlow restaurants which specialised in being British steakhouses.  The Applicant, having taken into account the representations objecting to the application, had decided to amend it.  The proposed hours were now within the Council’s Core Hours policy.  Recorded music had been withdrawn with only background music being played.  There was also no longer the intention to operate a bar at 8-10 Lower James Street.  It was Mr O’Maoileoin’s submission that due to Foxlow being a restaurant, the hours proposed and the conditions being offered, the application would not add to cumulative impact. 

Mr O’Maoileoin stated that his client was content to make a commitment that all deliveries would not take place before 08:00.   The Underdog Chain had experience of owning premises which promoted the licensing objectives in Westminster, including the Hawksmoor restaurants located in the West End Cumulative Impact Areas.  He referred to the capacity of 125 being approved by the Council’s Planning Committee.  In response to the concerns raised by residents in their written representations, Mr O’Maoileoin made the points that any issues with the Crown pub in Lower James Street should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Sherlock Holmes, 10-11 Northumberland Street, WC2

16/03221/LIPV

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant agreed a proposal by Environmental Health that the consumption of alcohol would be within the premises building.

Ms Buffini and Mr Bennett were asked by Mr Panto about the application form which had suggested a terminal hour of 22:30 on Sundays for the sale of alcohol.  They confirmed that this was a typographical error.  The Sub-Committee accepted this as the Applicant was already permitted to sell alcohol until 23:00 under an existing licence for the premises.

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

Ms Buffini and Mr Bennett, on behalf of the Applicant Company (Greene King Brewing And Retailing Limited), stated at the hearing that the application for a variation of the premises licence so that the commencement hour for the sale of alcohol would be 08:00 rather than 11:00 on the existing licence was in order that alcohol could be served with breakfast.  Ms Buffini informed Members that it had been agreed with Mr Nevitt for Environmental Health that alcohol would be ancillary to a table meal for the duration of breakfast.  Mr Bennett commented that The Sherlock Holmes was an iconic London pub and they wished to cater for the needs of their clientele which particularly included tourists. 

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Bennett replied that the Applicant had attempted to contact the local resident who lived directly opposite the pub and had made a representation.  He had not responded.  Employees of The Sherlock Holmes had been unaware previously of his concerns.

Mr Nevitt for Environmental Health advised the Sub-Committee that he was not aware of any recent complaints relating to the pub, having investigated this in the light of the local resident’s comments.  He was of the view that The Sherlock Holmes was well run.  He wanted to ensure that residents in Craven Street were not adversely affected by the current application.  He also considered that there was the potential for other local pubs such as the Ship and Shovell in Craven Passage to request extended hours in the event the current application was granted.  With a view to these concerns he had proposed a slight alteration to the Council’s Model Condition 38 with alcohol being ancillary to a table meal between 08:00 and 10:00 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The London Edition, 10 Berners Street, W1

To consider granting authority to settle an appeal arising from the Licensing Sub-Committee decision of 17 September 2015.

RESOLVED: That under Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that the public interest in the hearing taking place in private outweighs the public interest in that part of the meeting taking place in public.

Decision:

The Sub-Committee noted the advice of Leading Counsel and gave authority to settle the appeal on the basis set out in the report.  In taking this decision, the Sub-Committee took into account that there had been a noticeable decrease in public nuisance since the review hearing in September 2015.  The Licence Holder had ceased allowing the basement area to be used for externally promoted club nights and had ensured that two security guards are posted outside the hotel from 18:00 every night. 

Members of the Sub-Committee thanked Mr Khalid for bringing the review and other local residents for taking the time to make representations and attend the hearing which had resulted in the premises being managed more effectively. Leading Counsel had indicated that the original decision of the Sub-Committee was unquestionably right at the time when it was made. However, it had to be recognised that the appellant had continued to operate to the original hours permitted during the 8 month period since the appeal and the level of disturbance had reduced very dramatically. There had been very few complaints from residents during that period and only one of the 16 residents involved had given an assurance that they would be prepared to give oral evidence at the appeal hearing.

Whilst the Council could decide to defend the appeal, the compromise being sought did secure the reduction in hours that the Sub-Committee ordered in respect of the basement and the additional conditions that had been imposed. In addition, two further conditions had been offered which further restricted the activities in the basement. The appellant had also agreed to pay the Council’s reasonable costs of the appeal. It was therefore considered on balance that the benefit of accepting the compromise outweighed the risks associated with continuing to pursue the appeal.