Agenda item

Roast Restaurant Group Basement and Ground Floor 94 Great Portland Street London W1W 7NU (“The Premises”)

18/07245/LIPN

1.

Sale of Alcohol : On Sales Only

Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 23:30

Friday to Saturday: 10:00 to 00:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 22:30

From the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol on New Year’s Eve to 02.00 on New Year’s Day

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Monday to Thursday:         10:00 to 23:00

Friday to Saturday:             10:00 to 23:30

Sunday:                              12:00 to 21:00

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Marc Bevan and John Turner on behalf of the Roast Restaurant Group for a new premises licence in respect of Basement and Ground Floor 94 Great Portland Street London W1W 7NU. The Premises was not situated in the Cumulative Impact Zone. 

The Licensing Officer introduced the application to the Sub-Committee and advised that the original  application had been amended significantly so as to withdraw the application for both live and recorded music and also the ‘Off’ sales of Late Night refreshment and alcohol. The Metropolitan Police Service was reported to have withdrawn their representation and this was due to the Applicant agreeing to set conditions. The Environmental Health Service were maintaining their representation.

The Sub-Committee was advised that late representations had been received from Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Bureau, on behalf of local residents and Councillor Pancho Lewis and both had been circulated to all parties.

Mr Gloag, (Applicant’s Representative) advised the Sub-Committee that there had been further developments with the Application. He commented that the concerns raised by interested parties could be grouped and largely related to noise emitted from the premises and the measures being put in place to minimise such levels, licensing activities taking place in the Premises’ basement, deliveries and refuse collection. There was also a dispute between parties about when the Premises’ windows should be opened and closed in particular those which face and lead to Great Portland Street.

Mr Gloag gave a brief description of the Premises layout and advised that a sealed noise barrier existed between the lobby and the entrance of the Premises. He confirmed that the basement area would have toilets and two fire exits. He advised that the bar area in the basement was a ‘service bar’ and that this area of the Premises would have restaurant conditions and that alcohol served will be ancillary to a table meal. The bar would be manned by a staff member. The basement would be used for private events; these would largely be birthday parties, private breakfast and private lunches. Service at the tables in this vicinity would also be by waiter or waitress service. He confirmed that the use of the external area of the premises had now been removed from the application

Mr Gloag advised that only background music would be played at the Premises and not live bands. He informed that the Restaurant Branch in Borough Market had live music and performers included singers accompanied by a pianist or guitarist and a harpist. He commented that there had been no complaints received about live music at the branch and that customers would usually request for music to be played whilst having a meal.

The Legal Adviser sought clarification on whether the application for Live Music (Indoors) and Recorded Music had been withdrawn by the Applicant. The Sub-Committee was advised that Live Music (Indoors) had been withdrawn. Mr Gloag made reference to deregulated entertainment and advised that activities under this heading could still cause a nuisance and could be reviewed if required. At present deregulated entertainment do not fall under the remit of the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee highlighted that the Premises was situated in a largely residential area and commented that representations had been made by local residents and Ward Councillors (West End Ward) about potential noise nuisance especially during deliveries. Mr Gloag advised the meeting that the Applicant had to adhere to Westminster City Council guidelines and regulation in relation to deliveries of goods and refuse collection. He stated that deliveries will largely comprise of food stock and that the noise generated when delivering goods would not be different from deliveries which take place around the Capital. All deliveries would be left downstairs in the basement and not on the street level. 

Following questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Marc Bevan advised that a staff member would be present in the Premises during delivery times and that a side gate would be left open and would be used by the persons making the deliveries. Goods would be left in these areas. He commented that delivered goods would be taken directly to the kitchen and not through the front of the restaurant. Mr Bevan advised that the delivery men would have a code to the basement and that that the Premises had a vault and this would be used for storage. All deliveries would be removed and packed inside the Premises.

Mr Bevan advised that Westminster City Council required Premises to bag loose bottles and that Model Condition 27 had been agreed. The Legal Adviser informed the Sub-Committee that the Council did not provide specific times in which refuse would be collected and only gave timeframes. Mr Bevan confirmed that the Premises’ refuse would be collected from Great Portland Street and advised that they would be placed outside during agreed set times.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed to conditions about deliveries and waste collection. There was discussion regarding Condition 29 (Waste) and Condition 30 (Deliveries). Mr Gloag advised that his client would like the ability for deliveries to be undertaken after 07:00 hours if this was permitted.

Following further questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Bevan advised that the Premises windows would remain open until 21:00hrs and the doors would remain shut throughout the day. He stated that the Premises operated as a restaurant and was not part of a fast food chain. He advised that the Premises would attract a particular type of clientele and these were likely to be professionals and that it was not anticipated that the restaurant would add to current nuisances or cause any damage. Mr Bevan reminded the Sub-Committee that the Premises was located in Central London and advised that there had only been two incidents at the Branch in Borough Market and both were resolved swiftly.

The Chair commented and raised concerns that the proposed opening and closing hours of the Premises had not been specified in the Application and sought clarification on these hours. Mr Gloag advised that the Applicant wished to provide breakfast to patrons and that competitors were open from 07:00hrs. It was preferred for the Premises to be opened from 07:30hrs Monday to Saturday and 10:00hrs on Sunday. The Sale of Alcohol would mirror the Premises opening times apart from Sunday, on this day alcohol would be sold from 12:00hrs onwards. He advised that the operational hours sought were detailed in the Application and these were contained in the latter part of the application under the Operational Management Statement Section. The Sub-Committee noted that this information had not migrated to the mandatory sections of the application form.

The Legal Adviser advised that where the opening and closing hours were not specified in the correct place in the application form, it was usually assumed that the opening and closing hours were the same as the licensable activity hours that were being sought. The Sub-Committee was advised that interested parties should be given an opportunity to comment during their submissions about the requested hours of operation

Mr Bevan advised the Sub-Committee that the operation hours sought were similar to nearby competitors and also to other restaurants. A detailed discussion was held about the Premises operational hours and the sale of alcohol. It was suggested that on Sundays, sale of alcohol stops at 21:00hrs. Mr Bevan advised that further variation of operational hours would be detrimental to the business and be disadvantageous. Mr Bevan advised the Sub-Committee that he had liaised with Environmental Health. 

Following questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Bevan advised that there would be a designated smoking areas for patrons and that only five individuals would be allowed in this vicinity at any time. He advised that it would be difficult to monitor patrons in public spaces.

Mr Maxwell Owusu Koduah from the Environmental Health Service addressed the Sub-Committee and noted that the Applicant had proposed Condition 12 at page 145 of the report. This amounted to a relaxation of Model Condition 66 as set out at condition 11 on that page. Following questions from Mr Koduah, Mr Bevan confirmed that Model Condition 12 will apply to all areas of the basement and would also be implemented during pre-booked events. He confirmed that all sales of alcohol would be ancillary to meals.  Mr Bevan reiterated that the bar in the Premises basement would be for service only. He further stated that Condition 20 would be implemented and that the Premises’ windows would be closed at 21:00hrs and all doors, including fire doors’ will be kept shut except during emergencies. All refuse would be placed outside at specified times, namely 30 minutes prior to collection.

The Sub-Committee was advised that proposed Condition 13 was now redundant as the Applicant had withdrawn their request for ‘Off Sales’. An email was sent to Environmental Health which confirmed the above and was tabled at the Hearing. There were no further representation from Environmental Health.

Mr Richard Brown (Citizens Advice, Westminster) addressed the Sub-Committee. He advised that he was representing two local residents and the Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association and drew attention to the high number of representations which had been made in relation to the Application. Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that local residents had spent an extensive time reviewing the Licensing Application and had kept abreast of all the subsequent amendments that were made. He commented that this demonstrated their desire to ensure that the local area would not be adversely affected by the Application. He commented that there had been confusion over the Application in particular in relation to the hours being sought for some of the licensing activities. The hours of operation of the Premises had not been specified in the appropriate section of the application form. Mr Brown commented that the Council’s Policy and Guidance on completing licensing applications stipulated that hours of operations should be specified and that it was unlawful to grant a Licence if the above is not undertaken.

Mr Brown advised that there was a broad range of concerns and issues about the Application and highlighted that Great Portland Street was largely a residential area and the site was not ‘busy’. The area was occupied by a wide selection of the community and contained a number of flats which overlooked the Premises. The area also had historical connections to ‘the Rag Trade’. He advised that residents were of the view that a Restaurant with the operational times that were being sought by the Applicant was inappropriate and unsuitable for the site. He further stated that residents wished for conditions to be imposed which would ensure that its impact was mitigated and did not cause disproportionate nuisance. Mr Brown advised that the hours of operation which had been disclosed by the Applicant would change the ‘nature of the area’ and would lead to an increase in the ‘footfall’ during evening hours.

Mr Brown mentioned two other licensing applications that had been submitted for Premises in the same locality and this was for a Whisky Shop and Nail Salon. He advised that the concerns which had been raised in relation to those mentioned establishments were similar to those regarding the current Application. These were namely noise nuisance and public drinking. Mr Brown advised that conditions were placed on the Whisky Shop to help mitigate concerns and this included moderating the requested operational hours. The main areas of contention with the Application related to ‘The Private Events’, late night refreshment, and the operational hours.

Mr Brown highlighted that the amended conditions which had been proposed by the responsible authorities and agreed by the Applicant did not differ much from the original conditions which had been submitted. He noted that a number of Model Conditions (MC) had been deleted and this was due to activities being covered in other areas. Mr Brown noted that the Applicant had withdrawn their request for outdoor seating. . The Sub-Committee were requested to delete conditions 12, 13 and 21 and Mr Brown asked that the Applicant be required to submit an amended plan that excluded the external seating areas. This was suggested to ensure that the provision of alcohol was not provided ‘off site’. Mr Brown made further comments on the conditions and requested the following, that condition 25 be strongly worded to ensure that patrons that smoke respected local residents and the environment and used the receptacles provided. For MC 28, 29 & 30, it was suggested that the timing be altered in accordance with his written submissions so as to ensure that noise emanating from the moving and collection of bottles and from deliveries to the premises did not cause any nuisance.

Mr Brown requested that an additional Condition be added which stipulated that the Licence Holder was only permitted to allow five smokers to congregate outside the Premises at any given time. Mr Brown advised that residents were willing to discuss and negotiate where the smoking designated area should be located. 

Mr Brown advised that the Sub-Committee should take into consideration the proximity of residents’ properties to the Premises when determining the latter’s operational hours. Mr Brown commented that 23:00hrs would be an appropriate time for the Premises to close and commented that this would enable the business to remain viable and allow for the early dispersal of patrons. He commented that a later closing time would lead to concerns which were associated with dispersals, such as noise emanating from groups when exiting the Premises e.g. Taxis collecting patrons. Mr Brown commented that there was still uncertainty about the Premises windows in particular their size and length.

A local resident addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that his property was located opposite the Premises. He stated that he had lived in his property for a period of four years and had been a resident in the local area for seven years. He commented that the area was quiet especially during the evenings and weekends and that a large restaurant in the proposed site would alter this. He advised that a large restaurant which was open during the morning and night seven days of the week would cause public nuisance and noise and also change the nature of the area. He commented that the residential make-up of the local area had not been taken into consideration by the Applicant. He also highlighted that the restaurant’s branch in Borough Market had a different local setting and was not located in a highly residential area and was surrounded largely by offices.

The local resident advised that residents had met with the Applicant prior to the Sub-Committee at the Borough Market Branch and this meeting had been worthwhile to discuss what compromises could be made. He commented that the Applicant was of the view that their meeting with the residents would be contingent to interested parties withdrawing their representation. This was disputed by Mr Bevan. The Sub-Committee noted that the application at the above stage was still being finalised and this may have created some confusion between both parties. 

Ms Sharon Palazzo, a local resident, addressed the Sub-Committee and advised the she was representing the 27 leaseholders of a residential building located on Great Portland Street and 51 residents. Ms Palazzo commented that residents came from a wide and mixed demography and professions which included families, elderly residents, university students and city professionals. The residents were concerned over noise which would emanate from the Premises and its effect on their living standards. 

Ms Palazzo further advised that there were a number of properties whose bedrooms and living areas faced towards the Premises. She highlighted that two thirds of the Premises’ exterior would be glazed and raised concerns over the noise which would emanate from patrons whilst the Restaurant windows are opened. She commented that the noise from the Premises would resonate through the building and drew attention to the close proximity of properties to the restaurant.

Ms Palazzo stated that the local vicinity acted as a ‘wind tunnel’ and that the locality suffered from noise pollution from the nearby BBC Studios and also when demonstrations took place outside the studios. There were concerns that the Premises would add to these levels of noise in particular when patrons leave the restaurant and congregate outside whilst waiting for taxis and the noise from motor-vehicles during collections and deliveries. She highlighted that there were also restrictions in parking in the locality and this would exacerbate the above concerns.

Ms Palazzo advised that the area was largely quiet in particular during the weekends and had remained as such for a number of decades. She commented on the various photographs which had been submitted by residents and highlighted that these supported the above. She was of the view that the area where the restaurant’s Borough Market branch was located differed to that of Great Portland Street and that residents would be more adversely affected by the noise nuisance.

Natalie addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that she was representing the Managing Agents at 30 Langham Street. She did not provide her surname. Natalie commented that the locality was largely a residential area and raised concerns over noise nuisance. She advised that a wide demography lived in the locality which included families and welcomed that the application for ‘outdoor seating’ had been withdrawn

Natalie, raised concerns over large events being hosted at the Premises and requested that these were not held late in the evening. She advised that such events would increase the footfall in the area. There were also concerns raised about patrons congregating outside the Premises, noise emanating from motor vehicles, increased traffic and dispersals of patrons.

Another local resident, addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that she had lived in the area for over 14 years and commented that the locality was predominantly residential. She advised that she had taken multiple photographs of the area at the weekends during different times of the day to evidence the quiet nature of the locality. She drew attention to the number of representations which had been received and stressed the importance of maintaining the area’s character. She commented that there were less retail units in the area and recently there had been an increase in the number of restaurants. It was envisaged that the Premises would alter the nature and character of the area.

Austin Carlson, resident at 42 Langham Street addressed the Sub-Committee and informed that he was supportive of the representation which had been made by Mr Brown and residents. He confirmed that the residents of Langley Street were concerned about the Application and were affected by the noise nuisance which emanated from a local public house and urged that above be taken into consideration.   

Councillor Timothy Barnes addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the West End Ward Councillors and read a joint written representation from Councillor’s Pancho Lewis and Jonathan Glanz. Councillor Barnes advised that he had resided in the local area for over 25 years. He commented that the local area was predominantly residential and was quiet despite being located in central London and this had been recognised in the Council’s ‘Draft City Plan’. The Application was noted as being one of the most contentious and also to have generated an unprecedented number of representations and he requested that this be taken into consideration. He advised that a high number of objections had been received from constituents over several months. The main concern raised was the disruption which would be caused by the Premises. There were concerns over the lack of clarity with the Application and in particular what licensing activities were being sought. The Sub-Committee was urged to take into full consideration the Conditions they imposed and also be mindful that residents may be unable to assemble again and make representations if the Applicant made further resubmissions after the decision was provided. He commented that all three Ward Councillors supported the concerns raised by residents.

Mr Gloag commented that issues and concerns raised during the representations had been addressed during his early submission and that a number of concessions had been made by the Applicant which included the closing of windows at specified times, alteration of operational hours, doors remaining closed, restricted use of the Premises basement and the outside seating area being removed. He advised the Sub-Committee that the concessions made were detrimental to the business and commented that the restaurant chain was professionally run and attracted a high calibre of patrons. Mr Gloag highlighted that no acoustic report had been presented in relation to noise emanating from the Premises to nearby properties and that a majority of patrons would use taxis when leaving the Premises. He further stated that the majority of taxis were ordered via Uber and that these vehicles had electronic engines. Mr Bevan advised that there would not be any difficulties with managing the dispersal of crowds. He reminded the Sub-Committee that there were a number of eateries and public houses in Great Portland Street.

After careful consideration of all of the submissions, including the very comprehensive representations set out in the report, the Sub-Committee decided to grant the application as amended. The concerns of the local residents were fully appreciated and had been very well articulated in their detailed written and oral submissions. It was accepted that the area was highly residential and generally quiet in the evenings. However, the application was not contrary to policy and included the Council’s full restaurant condition which required the consumption of alcohol to be ancillary to a substantial meal and the Sub-Committee had decided that alcohol could not be supplied to persons attending a pre-booked private function unless they were complying with that restaurant condition. This ensured that no aspect of the operation could be drink-led.

There would be no provision of late night refreshment for consumption off the premises, no off-sales of alcohol at any time and no use would be made of the external seating area that had been proposed in the application. This would require an amended plan to be submitted to the Licensing Authority before the licence could take effect and this would have to amend the red line showing the boundary of the premises so as to exclude the external seating area.

A whole raft of conditions had been imposed which addressed many of the concerns that had been raised. Most of the conditions had been agreed but the hours for deliveries to and collections from the premises were amended to provide more protection for residents. It was also decided that patrons permitted to temporarily leave the premises to smoke should be limited to 5 persons at any one time. The operating hours were within core hours, apart from the premises being able to open earlier in the day to provide a breakfast service (but with no licensable activities being authorised during those early opening hours).  

The Chair thanked local residents, Councillor Barnes and local Councillors for their representations and advised that their undertakings in ensuring that all concerns were known as well as evidenced had been duly noted. The Chair also expressed some frustration about the fact that the applicant had not fully articulated its requirements in the application form, though it was noted that the form had been submitted on their behalf by a firm of solicitors. In the final analysis, the Sub-Committee was of the view that the decision was a proportionate one that properly balanced the legitimate interests of both the applicant and the objectors. It did, therefore, promote the licensing objectives as required by the legislation. It was hoped that the applicant will take careful note of the strength of feeling expressed by local residents and therefore be vigilant in ensuring that all the conditions imposed on the licence are fully complied with. The members noted that residents would potentially be able to bring a review of the premises licence if they do experience any nuisance from the provision of any of the licensable activities from those premises.   

2.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors)

Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30

Friday to Saturday: 23:00 to 00:00

From the terminal hour for Late Night Refreshment on New Year’s Eve to 02.00 on New Year’s Day

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The applicant advised that the outdoor provision of late night refreshment had been withdrawn from the application.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public – None specified in application form

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Monday to Thursday:         07:30 to 23:30

Friday:                                 07:30 to 00:00

Saturday:                            09:00 to 00:00

Sunday:                               10:00 to 21:30

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

The Sub-Committee granted the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).