Agenda item

Sucre, 47 Great Marlborough Street, London, W1F 7JP

(“The Premises”)

19/07930/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On and Off Sales

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 00:30

Sunday: 12:00 to 22:30

Seasonal Variations / Non-Standard Timings:

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

On Sundays immediately prior to bank holidays to 00:30.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was advised by the applicant that the provision of off sales had been withdrawn from the application.

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Ba Restaurants Ltd (“The Applicant”) for a new premises licence in respect of Sucre, 47 Great Marlborough Street, London, W1F 7JP.

The Licensing officer introduced the application and confirmed that the Police had withdrawn their representation following the agreement of conditions with the applicant.

Mr Thomas, representing the applicant, advised the Sub-Committee that restaurants, even those with a post-dining bar area, were recognised in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy as operating differently to either pubs or bars. With this application before it there were two main issues which needed to be considered. The first was the operation of the post-dining bar located in the basement and the second was that the hours requested permitting the sale of alcohol were outside the Council’s core hours policy. The post-dining bar area could only be used by customers before, during or after having a meal. The hours sought also only represented a slight extension to core hours of one hour on Monday to Thursday and 30 minutes on Fridays and Saturdays. Mr Thomas advised that policies RNT2 and HRS1 needed to be considered and neither required the applicant to demonstrate the application was an exception to policy. The applicant therefore had to establish the case on its merits and show how it would not add to cumulative impact. The reasons why the application would not add to cumulative impact were because of its location, the fact it would operate as a restaurant and because it was located in a low-density residential area. The applicant was also very experienced in operating licensed premises not only within Westminster but throughout the UK.

Mr Zeev Godik, on behalf of the applicant company, provided the Sub-Committee with an overview of his experience as a restauranteur. He explained that the Premises would operate as a sister restaurant to a premises located in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It would be a chef-led restaurant providing a diverse food offer in an attractive location. The sale and consumption of alcohol would therefore be a secondary feature at the restaurant. A post-dining bar area would be located in the basement which would be available to those customers who had finished their meal and who then wanted to have a coffee or digestif. It was expected that those customers using the bar area would be present for approximately 30 to 40 minutes and it would not become a destination bar. There would be two sittings at 8 pm and 10 pm. The opening hours had been applied for as they represented the Latin style of the operation where customers tended to primarily have meals later in the evening. The use of the bar would allow customers to wind down before leaving the Premises. The restaurant was located on Great Marlborough Street in close proximity to Oxford Circus tube station.

Mr Thomas provided an overview of the location of the Premises and advised that there was a low number of residential properties in the vicinity, especially for the Soho area. It was highlighted that the planning permission granted for the Premises had also described the area as non-residential, characterised by commercial use. The planning permission had also imposed a condition requiring any bar use at the Premises to be ancillary to it operating as a restaurant with the bar available to be used by customers before, during or after their meal.

To address the concerns raised in the representations received Mr Thomas highlighted the following:

• Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the Premises to smoke would be limited to 10;
• No delivery or takeaway services would be provided from the Premises;
• The provision of off sales of alcohol would be withdrawn from the application;
• Patrons temporarily leaving and re-entering the Premises e.g. to smoke would not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them;
• No fumes, steam or odour to be emitted from the Premises so as to cause a nuisance;

Mr Thomas acknowledged that the Soho Society had requested that the hours permitting the servicing and waste collections from the Premises be restricted. It was requested however that the times mirror those set out in the Council’s model waste and servicing conditions which prohibited any from taking place between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00. These hours were more closely aligned with the Council’s waste collection hours and would prevent any waste being displayed on the public highway for extended periods of time. To address any further concerns Mr Thomas also advised that the conditions could be amended to limit the number of persons in the basement drinking to a maximum of 30, all of which would have to be seated. Every customer located in the basement would have to have ordered a meal, be having a meal or have had a meal at the Premises. A staffed meet and greet station would be sited at the entrance to the Premises therefore ensuring no one could enter the establishment to drink only.

Mr Thomas advised that the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy recognised that restaurants did not have the same impact as vertical drinking establishments and were therefore afforded more flexibility than bars. It stated that the granting of later hours depended on various factors including whether customers leaving the Premises were likely to give rise to public nuisance and the proximity of residential property. Mr Thomas highlighted that their customers were less likely to add to cumulative impact as there would not be any vertical drinking, the Premises was located close to numerous transport options to aid dispersal (Oxford Circus station being very close) and there was a low density of residential properties in the vicinity. Therefore, the slight extension to core hours requested did not encourage any prolonged drinking and were unlikely to add to cumulative impact. The Sub-Committee was advised that the nature of the operation, which was not one of a drinking establishment, meant that policy PB2 did not apply. Customers were required to have a meal at the Premises with stringent conditions to be added to the licence and therefore there was no presumption to refuse the application. The Policy did state that after 01:00 hours there was the increased likelihood of crime and disorder and disturbance and as such the Premises would close by this time. In terms of dispersal the applicant had formulated a detailed dispersal plan. The Premises was located in an area of the West End which had numerous transport options available. SIA staff would be employed on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings, the level of which would be determined on a risk-assessment basis.

Mr Drayan, representing Environmental Health, confirmed that they had no concerns over the hours requested as the Premises would operate as a restaurant with a low number of residential properties located in its vicinity. In terms of the bar area, this would be located in the basement and was not viewable from the street. The hours requested would keep people in the CIA in excess of core hours but the customers were more likely to stay at the Premises rather than disperse wider into the CIA therefore reducing any potential cumulative impact issues. The provision requiring all customers in the basement bar area to be seated was welcomed in addition to limiting the number of drinkers to 30. Environmental Health (EH) had no other concerns over the application and therefore it was a matter for the Sub-Committee to decide if it complied with Policy.

Ms Abbot, representing the Licensing Authority, noted that the Premises would operate as a restaurant and the full model restaurant condition had been offered by the applicant to ensure it was in line with Policy RNT2. However, the operating schedule suggested that the Premises would also include an ancillary bar area. Paragraph 2.5.3 stated that the Council was particularly concerned with restaurants operating, even in part, as bars within the CIA. Therefore, Policy PB2 had to be considered, in particular as the growth in the number of premises that primarily served alcohol, was likely to result in or add to cumulative impact. The Licensing Authority considered that the grant of variations or new licences for pubs and bars in the CIA should be limited to exceptional circumstances.

Mr Brown, from the Citizens Advice Bureau Licensing Advice Project, addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of The Soho Society. He noted that the hours sought had been described as a slight extension to core hours. However, Mr Brown advised that they should be considered a significant increase beyond core hours as the core hours represent the time when the premises have to be closed and from Monday to Thursday they were one and a half in excess. The Soho Society’s position was that, with acceptable conditions, they were content for the application to be granted to core hours. The area had been described as having a low density of residential properties, however Policy looked at the global and cumulative effects of licensed premises within the CIA. This was an important consideration, especially as the Premises had a fairly significant capacity of 300 customers. The Policy was clear that even permitting incremental increases to a licence in a CIA would add to cumulative impact. This application was seeking a terminal hour beyond core hours to 01:00. Paragraph 2.2.12 stated that noise and nuisance from customers leaving a premises were more likely to effect residents the later the hour it happened. Paragraph 2.5.14 also highlighted that the sale of alcohol in restaurants operating later than core hours must form part of the consumption of a table meal and not be a retiring bar. This was to ensure restaurants continued to function as restaurants and not as late-night bars. In this instance if a customer finished their meal at 20:00 hours and continued to drink alcohol until 01:00 this could not constitute the bar operating ancillary to the Premises being a restaurant. Finally, in terms of the hours requested by The Soho Society for the servicing of the Premises, the Sub-Committee was advised that these reflected the times granted in the planning permission but it was a matter for the Sub-Committee to decide.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee EH confirmed that under the current arrangements the capacity of the basement was 60 but depending on works undertaken could be extended to approximately 80 or 90.

The Council’s Legal Adviser noted that model condition 66 would operate on both the ground and basement floors of the Premises. Further clarification was therefore requested on how the proposed amended condition restricting the number of drinkers in the bar area to 30 would operate. Mr Thomas advised that in the basement, save where customers were already taking a meal, 30 customers could be seated drinking alcohol only on condition that they had already consumed a table meal. The reason this condition was proposed was to ensure that the applicant did not breach the conditions on the licence if a customer ate a meal on the ground floor and then afterwards had a drink in the basement. The applicant provided an overview of the operation and explained that customers who had finished their meal on the ground floor could then retire to the basement for a drink, allowing the ground floor table to be cleared ready for the next customers.

The Council’s Legal Adviser understood the explanation given but pointed out that the proposed condition restricting the number of customers who could consume alcohol in the basement might inadvertently impact on those customers who were actually consuming their meals in the basement in any event (rather than moving to the basement for an alcoholic beverage after consuming their meal on the ground floor). The point was made that, if (and only if) the members were to accept that 30 persons drinking in the basement after a meal would not add to cumulative impact, then any larger number would not add to cumulative impact and it might be more appropriate not to impose any capacity restrictions in that regard so as to avoid confusion. Mr Thomas agreed that the capacity limitation might well have had the inadvertent impact identified.  

After careful consideration, the Sub-Committee agreed to grant the application. It was acknowledged that the key issues centred on the proposed hours being in excess of core hours and the post-dining bar located in the basement. The Licensing Sub-Committee did carefully note the policy points that had been well made by Mr Brown on behalf of the Soho Society. However, it was noted that the basement could be operated as a restaurant with customers in that area remaining behind after they had finished their meal for as long as they wanted up until closing hours. Although it was recognised that any premises licence could be transferred to another operator, the Licensing Sub-Committee was of the view that a certain amount of weight had to be given to how the applicant proposed to operate the premises and it did not think that this operator was likely to operate a business where many customers would remain behind for lengthy periods of time having concluded their meals. In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee also had regard to the low residential density of Great Marlborough Street and the numerous transport options available to customers leaving the Premises. This provided reassurance to the Sub-Committee that the dispersal of customers, even beyond core hours, would not create any additional noise or disturbance in the cumulative impact area.

The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the Premises would clearly be operating as a restaurant. Therefore, consideration of policy RNT2, and not PB2, was required which stated that applications for restaurants in a CIA would be granted if it could be demonstrated that it would not add to cumulative impact in a CIA. Due to the nature of the operation and the conditions on the licence it was considered this would mitigate any potential cumulative impact. Serious consideration was given to the proposals to limit the number of customers drinking in the basement bar area to a maximum of 30. The fact that the full restaurant condition (MC66) would apply across both floors of the Premises however, which required all customers to be seated taking a table meal, meant that this restriction was not considered appropriate. Imposing a limit was deemed likely to complicate the situation and the restrictions imposed by model condition 66 were sufficient to ensure it could not become a drink-led establishment. It was also recognised that the ancillary bar area was located in the basement and not visible, or advertised, from the street. The Sub-Committee welcomed the proposals to withdraw off-sales from the application and prohibit any takeaway or delivery service from operating from the Premises. It was considered that this would further limit any potential disturbance in the local area. In terms of servicing the Premises, the Sub-Committee imposed the hours as set out in the Council’s model condition as they better reflected the hours of operation of the Council’s waste collection service. In making its decision the Sub-Committee noted the experience of the applicant and his good track record in operating similar establishments in Westminster.

Having taken into account all the evidence (with consideration being given to the representation received from The Soho Society), the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application was suitable for the local area and had addressed the concerns raised concerning the CIA.  The applicant had demonstrated that the application was appropriate with the conditions proposed restrictive enough to ensure that it would not add to cumulative impact and promoted the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee therefore granted the application accordingly.

2.

Late Night Refreshment – Indoors

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30

Seasonal Variations / Non-Standard Timings:

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

On Sundays immediately prior to bank holidays to 00:30.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was advised by the applicant that the provision of off sales 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

Monday to Saturday: 07:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 07:00 to 23:00

Seasonal Variations / Non-Standard Timings:

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

On Sundays immediately prior to bank holidays to 00:30.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

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