Agenda item

Le Deli Robuchon, 82 Piccadilly, London, W1J 8JA (“The Premises”)

19/06274/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol [on and off sales]

On and off sales:

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 20:00

Sunday: 08:00 to 18:00

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings: From the end of the permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Saba Naqshbandi (Counsel, representing the Applicant Company) introduced the application for a new premises licence and informed the Sub-Committee that the Applicant Company had sought pre-application advice. The application did not propose late hours and the premises would operate as a delicatessen. The Applicant Company also operated another delicatessen in Paris. At this point, Saba Naqshbandi invited Adrian Braimer Jones (Director, Applicant Company) to describe the proposed operation of the premises to the Sub-Committee.

Adrian Braimer Jones stated that the intention of the proposals was to help continue the legacy of the French chef and restauranteur, Joel Robuchon, who had passed away recently. The premises would offer a French concept to eating and would offer French food products. The premises would offer an informal eating setting and takeaway would also be available. The food on offer would include pastries, sandwiches, cheese and meat planches, salads and desserts. Adrian Braimer Jones added that currently there was no other such premises that existed in the area.

Saba Naqshbandi then addressed the Sub-Committee again and stated that the Applicant Company had engaged extensively with local residents, with a number of emails exchanged. The Applicant Company had recently met with two local residents where there had been positive dialogue. There was agreement between the Applicant Company, Environmental Health and residents on a number of proposed conditions. However, in respect of proposed condition 33 in the report from residents suggesting that vehicles shall not be allowed to wait in the street for patrons with their engines left on, Saba Naqshbandi suggested an alternative wording by prefacing this with the words that “The licence holder shall use their best endeavours to ensure that….” .

Turning to condition 34, requesting that there be no outside tables and chairs, she stated that there was no current intention for this and in any case planning permission would also be required and so it was not felt that this condition was necessary. Condition 35 stating that all takeaway food and drink shall only be provided by a delivery service that could only access the premises via Bolton Street using the loading bay inside the building where the premises was situated was also not agreeable to the Applicant Company. The reasons for this was that there was no intention to have a delivery takeaway service and this was not the way this type of premises would operate. In any event, even if such a service was offered in future, not all food would be collected from the kitchen shared with the Applicant Company’s sister premises, the restaurant at 7 Clarges Street, and some food would in fact have to be collected directly from the delicatessen. Saba Naqshbandi added that if delivery drivers were required to collect the food from the kitchen, then they would end up being in the area for longer and therefore potentially cause more disturbance to residents. She confirmed that deliveries of any food and drink to the delicatessen would be via Bolton Street and a condition confirming this would be acceptable to the Applicant Company. Saba Naqshbandi added that no residents had objected to customers collecting takeaway food from the premises.

Saba Naqshbandi then turned to the email submitted by Richard Brown in the additional representations circulated, in particular in respect of the conditions proposed by Huw Jones. The first condition requested that “Between 8am and 10am Mon-Sat and 8am and midday Sunday, sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal ‘.The Applicant Company did not agree with this condition as it was not the type of premises anticipating a number of customers visiting the premises solely to consume alcohol at these times. In addition, the Applicant Company did not want to be compelled to inform, for example, a party of two customers, that they must eat too if they wished to have an alcoholic drink at these times and also the reference to ‘a meal’ was not appropriate as a number of the food products on offer would include items such as yoghurt and bakery products. This condition was therefore felt inappropriate and disproportionate. Condition 2 stating that “The licensable activities authorised by this licence and provided at the premises shall be ancillary to the main function of thepremises as a high-class delicatessen” was not felt necessary as the hours applied for were very modest and a number of conditions were proposed. Furthermore, in the event that the premises was sold and the new operator wished to extend the hours for licensable activities, they would be required to submit an application to vary their premises licence. In respect of condition 3 stating that“Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them”, Saba Naqshbandi felt that the issue of patrons leaving the premises would not be an issue considering how the premises would operate and she suggested that it be amended by prefacing the condition with the words “The licence holder will best endeavour to…”

Saba Naqshbandi concluded her initial submission by informing the Sub-Committee that a capacity of 100 persons standing and 60 persons seated had been assessed during the pre-application process, however this would be subject to the standard works condition to determine the final capacity limit. It was not anticipated that there would be frequent private events, and it was likely that these would be limited to occasional events such as birthday parties. Saba Naqshbandi reiterated that the premises would operate as a high end delicatessen and the Applicant Company had many years’ experience of operating such premises. In addition, the Applicant Company had worked hard to address the concerns raised by residents.

The Sub-Committee asked how many private events were estimated per year, whether the Applicant Company would consider restricting deliveries to  environmentally friendly vehicles in order to keep noise levels down and what steps would be taken in respect of litter.

In reply, Adrian Braimer Jones suggested that a limit of no more than 100 private events per year would be more than sufficient and limiting deliveries to environmentally friendly vehicles should not be an issue and every effort would be made to use non-plastic materials in respect of litter.

Ian Watson (Environmental Health) then addressed the Sub-Committee and informed the Sub-Committee that he had been involved in pre-application advice both with these premises and the sister restaurant premises in Clarges Street. The new building that the premises occupied was of mixed use and residents lived above the premises. A provisional capacity limit of 100 persons had been set, although at the time the premises was effectively a shell. Once the works had been completed, Ian Watson advised that this capacity may change. The Applicant Company had initially sought to sell alcohol and to remain open until 00:00, so the current proposals until 20:00 represented a substantial cutback, however, residents’ concerns remained. Ian Watson advised that a central delivery bay was located off Bolton Street and vehicles could only access it via Curzon Street. He had discussed the issue of using push bikes for deliveries with the Applicant Company. The premises had originally operated as a Starbucks and there had been no noise related issues when they had operated there.

Ian Watson welcomed the conditions that had currently been agreed and also those suggested by Richard Brown, whilst a smoking condition would also be appropriate. In respect of external tables and chairs, Ian Watson acknowledged that the Applicant Company would have to go through the due planning process, however the pavement on Piccadilly was wide. In respect of a resident’s request that a condition be added stating that licensable activities will be ancillary to the premises’ main function as a high class delicatessen, Ian Watson commented that the difficulty with such a condition was that defining a high class delicatessen was quite a subjective matter. In addition, the premises was already restricted in possible uses by the managers of the entire building. There were also a number of conditions to address noise. However, these matters aside, Ian Watson stated that he was otherwise content with the application.

Richard Brown (Solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau, representing Andrew Jones [local resident] and Huw Jones [local resident]) then addressed the Sub-Committee and stated that the residents’ views had remained consistent throughout the application. He acknowledged that some of the conditions requested were based on those that had been sought for the Applicant Company’s sister premises, the restaurant in Clarges Street, but had been amended so that they were more appropriate for a premises operating as a delicatessen. Richard Brown contended that the map on page 52 of the report may not perhaps accurately reflect the number of residents living in the area and he advised that 16 residents lived at 85 Piccadilly and 60 at 89 Piccadilly. He noted that conditions 27 to 32 in the report had been agreed. He also confirmed agreement on the proposed condition in relation to patrons arriving or leaving the premises by vehicles, which read “The licence holder shall use their best endeavours to ensure that vehicles dropping off or collecting patrons do not cause a nuisance to residents.”

With regard to the resident’s condition stating that there shall be no tables and chairs, Richard Brown felt that the Applicant Company would not be able to do this in any case, as such a use was not mentioned in the plans and the Applicant Company would be required to refer to this in the application. In addition, planning permission would be required. Richard Brown acknowledged that the resident’s condition stating that takeaway food and drink shall only be provided by a delivery service that could only access the premises via Bolton Street using the loading bay inside the building where the premises was situated was not appropriate for these premises. He then made the following comments in respect of the conditions requested by Huw Jones:

1.         “Between 8am and 10am Mon-Sat and 8am and midday Sunday, sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a table meal there and for consumption - by such a person as ancillary to their meal.”  Richard Brown acknowledged that “meal” may not be an appropriate term for this type of premises.

2.         “The licensable activities authorised by this licence and provided at the premises shall be ancillary to the main function of the premises as a high-class delicatessen.” Residents’ principal concern was what may happen to the premises if it was sold on.

3.         “Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them.” Richard Brown felt that the Applicant Company’s request that this condition be prefaced with “That the licence holder use their best endeavours to ensure” was not sufficient and the condition requested was a model condition in any case.

In respect of private events, Richard Brown commented that he felt a limit of 100 private events per year was quite high.

The Sub-Committee asked if residents were concerned about patrons taking paper cups outside as well as other kind of drinking vessels in respect of condition 3 above.

In reply, Richard Brown advised that residents were mainly concerned about customers taking alcoholic drinks outside and he felt the condition as worded was a sensible one.

Barry Panto (Legal Adviser) asked why the takeaway condition was requested in view that no late night refreshment was proposed. In respect of condition 2 above as proposed by Huw Jones, he sought views on an alternative wording to the effect “At no time shall the premises operate as a drinks-led bar or public house.”

In reply, in respect of takeaways, Richard Brown opined that conditions did not have to be directly associated with licensable activities, and as the premises was linked to the restaurant at 7 Clarges Street, the condition was an attempt to clarify restrictions on all types of activities. He felt that Barry Panto’s suggested alternative condition went some way to addressing residents’ concerns.

Saba Naqshbandi emphasised in respect of a takeaway condition that the premises was not a restaurant, and even if a delivery service was offered, collections would be from the premises itself. The Applicant Company would also want to achieve the shortest possible collection time, which would help minimise any potential nuisance to residents, which would not be the case if the loading bay off Bolton Street had to be used. However, she added that it was unlikely that a delivery service would be put in place. With regard to the condition proposed by Barry Panto, she felt that the hours and conditions proposed effectively restricted the premises from becoming drinks-led and so this condition was not necessary. However, on behalf of the Applicant Company, Saba Naqshbandi indicated that this condition would be acceptable, providing it did not prevent customers from having an alcoholic drink without food.

The Sub-Committee granted the application, subject to conditions as agreed between the Applicant Company and interested parties. The Sub-Committee considered that the model condition 57 regarding patrons temporarily leaving the premises was appropriate and it was common for premises to have such a condition and so this was accordingly to be added to the premises licence. However, the Sub-Committee noted that some customers temporarily leaving the premises may not necessarily be consuming alcoholic drinks, and in noting Richard Brown’s comments that residents were primarily concerned about alcoholic drinks being taken outside and the fact that the premises was to operate as a delicatessen, amended the condition so that it only applied to alcoholic drinks.

The Sub-Committee added a condition restricting the number of pre-booked, private events to 100 per year, which the Applicant Company had considered acceptable during the course of the hearing. However, the Sub-Committee added that it expected the Applicant Company to behave responsibly in holding such events. The Sub-Committee had given consideration to restricting the number of events on a monthly basis, however it expected the Applicant Company to show due consideration in holding events in succession.  The Sub-Committee added a further condition, as suggested by Barry Panto, stating that “At no time shall the premises operate as a drinks-led bar of public house”, after Saba Naqshbandi had confirmed on behalf of the Applicant Company that this would be acceptable, whilst Richard Brown on behalf of residents had also indicated this went some way to addressing their concerns.

The Sub-Committee did not consider a condition prohibiting outside tables and chairs was appropriate in the circumstances. Although it had not been referred to in the application, the Licensing Sub-Committee was of the view that nothing would permit off-sales to any external tables and chairs that might be provided by the applicant, subject the appropriate planning permission and highway permission being obtained but it thought that those mechanisms were the appropriate means of control. It did not think that there was any concern in that regard from a licensing perspective bearing in mind the limited hours when licensable activities could take place.

The Sub-Committee also added an informative by way of this decision, asking that the Applicant Company encourage the use of environmentally friendly transport, such as push bikes, in respect of deliveries in order to address residents’ concerns about nuisance that may be caused by this activity.

In determining the application, the Sub-Committee noted that the hours applied for were modest and the premises was not located in a cumulative impact area. The Sub-Committee also considered that the conditions to be added to the premises licence would help the Applicant Company to uphold the promotion of the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

2.

Hours premises are open to the public

Monday to Saturday: 07:00 to 20:00

Sunday: 08:00 to 18:00

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings: From the end of the permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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).