Agenda item

29 Berners Street, London, W1T 3LR (“The Premises”) 18/09908/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol: Both On sales and Off sales

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 21:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 18:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 20:00, amended by Applicant

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

Ms Michelle Steward (Presenting Officer) provided the details of the application and advised the Sub-Committee that Environmental Health Services would be maintaining their representation; and two local residents had made a representation. David Offenbach was in attendance and was represented by Robert Sutherland (Keystone Limited).  Ms Steward advised the Sub-Committee that the applicant sought the sale by retail of alcohol.  It was further noted by the Sub-Committee that the sale of alcohol within the premises would be limited to customers who were either receiving beauty treatments or hairdressing services or to customers who were seated within the café area (though with no requirement for the consumption of alcohol in the café area to be ancillary to any food). The application was also seeking the ability to serve alcohol for consumption off the premises from external tables and chairs. The Premises was not in the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

Mr Alun Thomas (Solicitor representing the Applicant) informed the Sub-Committee that Mr Elliott Bute had worked for the client company for over 30 years. He is a hair dresser and general manager.  Mr Bute was the manager of another branch which also had a licence, He is a personal licence holder and designated premises supervisor responsible for alcohol.  Mr Thomas advised the Sub-Committee that this was a family run business established for over 30 years. He said the premises opened earlier this year with a long lease and his client had no intention of selling.

Mr Thomas felt that there were two main issues that had not yet been agreed, Sales to members of the public in the café area and off-sales in sealed containers.  Using the premises plan on the screen, Mr Thomas and Mr Bute then pointed out the main entrance to the premises and outside seating with private forecourt, explaining he had a land registry plan available to share with the Sub-Committee.  Mr Bute explained the layout of the premises and highlighted the private seating area, reception area, changing room and front desk.  Mr Bute went on further to point out the hairdressing area, back office, boardroom and toilets.  Mr Thomas advised the Sub-Committee that the café area had seating for 16 people and the outside seating area accommodated 6 people.

Mr Thomas advised that with regards to opening hours Monday to Saturday, his client had considered local representation and amended the sales of alcohol to 20:00.  Mr Thomas also advised that the sale of alcohol was also amended in the morning to 10:00, meaning the sale by retail of alcohol was now 10:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday; and 12:00 to 18:00 on Sunday.  Mr Thomas informed the Sub-Committee that opening hours would be 30 minutes more on each of the days from Monday to Saturday, i.e., 08:00 to 20:30 Monday to Saturday with no changes to the hours on Sunday.  Mr Thomas asked the Sub-Committee to note the latest conditions his client was prepared to accept, which was circulated to all and included many of the suggested conditions from the interested parties.

Mr Thomas used photographs on the screen to demonstrate the location of the premises in proximity to Berners Mansions, explaining that there was at least a distance of 30 meters.  Members of the Sub-Committee queried where the Sanderson Hotel was located in relation to Hershesons Salon and was informed that it was opposite and further up the road on the left.  Mr Thomas explained that the premises was a hairdressing salon and a café and advised the Sub-Committee that as laid out in the plan there is café seating for 16 people and a small servery with no seating.  Mr Thomas confirmed that the sale of alcohol will only be served to those that are seated, and that applied to the café, the external seating area and the salon itself.  Mr Thomas advised the Sub-Committee that the premises was primarily a hair salon and he expressed the view that he felt local residents would prefer that there was no cafe.

Mr Thomas explained that there were different categories of people who might use the hair salon, patrons and other people; however his client did not want to detract from the patrons having treatments if there were too many people drinking of having coffee in the café.  Mr Bute informed the Sub-Committee that as the café is located next to the treatment area, it cannot be too loud or disturb patrons.  Members of the Sub-Committee queried if the café was managed by another company.  Mr Bute confirmed that the café is managed by Hershesons.  Mr Thomas then discussed the conditions proposed by the interested parties.  The Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association (FNA) proposed: Sale of alcohol is only ancillary to the operation of a hair dressing salon.  Mr Thomas felt that the alternative condition proposed by Environmental Health (condition 20 at page 32 of the report) was much better worded. The servicing conditions proposed by FNA were agreed.  Mr Thomas advised that condition 8 (Applicants new proposed conditions) which related to off sales to the outside tables and chairs was also proposed by Environmental Health.

Mr Thomas requested a slight word change to condition 4 of his proposed conditions as customers in the salon would not necessarily be seated at tables.  Mr Thomas advised that his client would like the café area not to operate by waiter/waitress service so patrons could be served from the cash desk. However, the outside area and patrons having treatments will be served by waiter/waitress service only.  Mr Thomas advised that part b) of his proposed condition 8 had not yet been agreed by those objecting to the application. This allowed off sales to be taken away from the premises in a sealed container. Mr Thomas explained that his client would like on the rare occasion, to sell to his patrons, a local resident or local business a bottle of wine to take away.  Mr Bute advised the Sub-Committee that he intended to sell bottled beer, no draft beer, prosecco, wine and Champagne. There will be no spirts.  Mr Thomas advised that no deliveries of alcohol would take place between 23:00 and 08:00 the next day, however there may be other deliveries such as milk, magazines and newspapers and hairdressing products that do not contain alcohol.  Mr Thomas advised that all other conditions were as proposed.

Mr Dave Nevitt (Environmental Health) then addressed the Sub-Committee and commented that there were a few adjustment required to the conditions, and clarification was sought in some areas.  Mr Nevitt raised concerns with regard to the location and designation of the café area, as it was not clear on the submitted plans.  He also raised concerns as to how alcohol would be served to patrons as this was not made clear in the application.  Mr Nevitt sought further clarification with regard to off-sales, and queried why it would be important to the Applicant; and if minded to grant, requested that the Sub-Committee consider model conditions similar to that of an off licence.  Mr Nevitt concluded by advising the Sub-Committee that with a mixed use of the premises, it may be difficult for officers to enforce. Clarity and clearly worded conditions were required as to how the premises intends to operate.

The Sub-Committee then heard from the interested parties. Robert Sutherland 

(Representing local resident David Offenbach) advised that the key concern was the creep of premises becoming alcohol based or selling alcohol.   Mr Sutherland explained that if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the application, then his client would like to ensure the nature of the premises does not change into a something that may cause a nuisance. Mr Sutherland discussed condition 1 (Applicants new proposed conditions), advising the Sub-Committee that the words ‘and café’ could mean that the alcohol could be ancillary to the premises as a café and not a salon.  Mr Sutherland added that if all the furniture was removed the café could be very large space and that some of the concern would be addressed by limiting the café area with clearly marked plans, however removing the words ‘and café’ altogether would remove the concern completely.

Mr Sutherland proposed alternative wording to condition 9 (operating schedule) to a) seated patrons receiving beauty treatments, hairdressing appointments or therapies and b) patrons accompanying patrons receiving beauty treatments, hairdressing appointments or therapies seated in the café area.  Mr Sutherland advised that he was unclear with regard to how alcohol would be served and that his client would prefer that alcohol was served by waiter/waitress service throughout the premises.  Mr Sutherland then advised the Sub-committee that his client’s main concern was off-sales, as there was little that the residents can do about the table and chairs on the private forecourt.  Mr Sutherland pointed out that Flesh and Buns just down the street did not have off-sales.  Mr Sutherland advised that his client would like no off-sales at all and that the Sub-Committee limit the number of table and chairs in the outside forecourt area.  Mr Sutherland requested that that no bar stool be on display or viewed from windows outside, so as not to give the impression that the premises was operating as a bar.

Mr Offenbach (Local Resident) addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that there were ten flats in Berners Mansions and others share his concern with the alcohol being ancillary to the hair and beauty salon.  Mr Offenbach explained that although the Applicant had said that that is their intention, they are seeking permission for a general bar and alcohol premises, and that is why he is objecting to the proposed application on behalf of the residents of Berners Mansions.  Mr Offenbach informed the Sub-Committee that he was not against the salon serving patrons a glass of Champagne while having a treatment, however he did object to off-sales.

During consideration by the Sub-Committee, Members sought further details in respect of the nature of the premises, seeking reassurance that the premises intends to operate as a hair and beauty salon and asking the applicant if it would be prepared to consider removing the word ‘café’.   Mr Thomas assured the Sub-Committee that the primary function of the premises would be a hair and beauty salon, but his client did want to also seek the ability to sell alcohol from the café area.  The Sub-Committee also sought further clarification on why the Applicant required off-sales.  Mr Thomas added that there are not many off licenses on Berners Street and a local might like to come in a buy a bottle of wine.  Mr Bute advised the Sub-Committee that if off-sales that would allow customers to take the alcohol away from the premises was an issues then it was not essential. Mr Thomas then advised that the second part of condition 8 b) (Applicants new proposed conditions) could be removed.

The Sub-Committee further queried the operating schedule condition 9, where residents had proposed changes to the wording, suggesting that only patrons receiving treatments and their accompanying guests were permitted the sale of alcohol.  In reply to questions from Members, Mr Thomas advised that in respect of condition 1 (Applicants new proposed conditions) the condition could be amended to make a clear reference to the café area being shown on the plan as an area hatched in black.  Mr Thomas advised that the café is 1/60 of the annual turnover for his client, the sale of alcohol is calculated within that figure.

Mr Barry Panto (WCC Legal Adviser) addressed the Sub-Committee with regard to condition 1 (Applicants new proposed conditions) and suggested the following wording of the condition:   The sale and consumption of alcohol at the premises shall be ancillary to the main function of the premises as a hairdressing and beauty salon.  Notwithstanding that overriding requirement, (a) no more than 16 persons shall be entitled to consume alcohol in the café area as shown hatched on the attached plan and (b) no more than 6 persons shall be entitled to consume alcohol in the external area at the front of the premises.  The condition was accepted by all parties.

The Sub-Committee had regard to all the representations that had been made and also to the detailed submissions made at the hearing. It was decided that it would be appropriate to grant the application for the amended hours subject to a set of conditions that would adequately promote the licensing objectives. The primary use of the premises was to remain a beauty and hairdressing salon but alcohol could also be sold to up to 16 customers within the bar area shown on the plan attached to the licence. It had been noted that off sales of alcohol were no longer being pursued apart from some limited sales to customers making use of external tables and chairs.

At the conclusion of the hearing and after the members had reached their determination, further submissions were made by the parties regarding the use of bar stools during which a concession was made by the applicant to the effect that there would be no bar stools in the “bar area” as distinct from the café area. The clear intention was to ensure that there could be no consumption of alcohol within the bar area in the absence of seating. Seating was clearly permissible within the hatched café area and there was no reason why that seating should not include bar stools if that was the wish of the operator.

The members indicated that, exceptionally, they were prepared to accept a condition to that effect on the licence in view of the concession that had been made. A further condition was drafted after the hearing and has been inserted as condition 14 below. It has subsequently been approved by the members and reads “There shall be no bar stools situated in the bar area at the front of the premises, excluding the area hatched on the attached plan”.

2.

Hours premises are open to the public

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 21:30

Sunday: 12:00 to 18:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 20:30, amended by Applicant

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).