Agenda item

 

App No	Ward / Cumulative Impact Area	Site Name and Address	Application	Licensing Reference Number
2.	Knightsbridge And Belgravia/ Not in a cumulative impact area	T.A. Restaurant Holdings Limited 38 Groom Place, London SW1X 7BA	Variation	20/04793/LIPV

 

WCC LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 5

 

Thursday 20^th August 2020

 

Membership:           Councillor Murad Gassanly (Chairman), Councillor Margot Bright

                                and Councillor Aziz Toki.

 

 

Officer Support:       Legal Advisor:         Horatio Chance

                                Policy Officer:          Aaron Hardy

                                Committee Officer:  Andrew Palmer

                                Presenting Officer:  Kevin Jackaman

 

 

Application for Variation of a Premises Licence [20/04793/LIPV]

 

Full Decision

 

Premises

 

38 Groom Place

London

SW1X 7BA

 

 

Applicant

 

T.A. Restaurant Holdings Limited

 

Represented by Craig Baylis of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner Solicitors

and Kevin Kelly - Operations Manager for the Applicant Company

 

 

Cumulative Impact Area?

 

No

 

 

Ward

 

Knightsbridge & Belgravia

 

 

Summary of Application

 

The application sought a variation of an existing premises licence to extend the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol Monday to Saturday 10.00 to midnight and Sunday 10.00 to 23.00; to extend the Premises opening hours to midnight every day; and to add late night refreshment Monday to Saturday 10:00 to midnight and Sunday 10.00 to 23.00. 

 

The Sub-Committee noted that following consultation, the Applicant had amended the application by reducing the hours applied for the Sale by Retail of Alcohol and Late-Night Refreshment to Core Hours. The provision for Late Night Refreshment on Sundays had also been withdrawn.

 

The Premises had opened in January 2020 and currently operate as a restaurant which had only traded for a two-month period until March, due to the start of the Covid-19 pandemic which had resulted in its closure.

 

Proposed and Existing licensable activities and hours

(Ground, first and second floor)

 

Late Night Refreshment [Indoors]

 

Proposed Variation

 

Monday to Thursday          : 23.00 to 23.30

Friday and Saturday          : 23.00 to Midnight

Sunday – Not applicable

 

From 23:00 on New Year's Eve to 03:30 on New Year's Day.

 

Compared to existing licence 19/03689/LIPVM

          

Late Night Refreshment not offered.

 

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol [On Sales]

 

Proposed Variation

 

Monday to Thursday          : 22.00 to 23.30

Friday and Saturday          : 22.00 to Midnight

Sunday                               : 12.00 to 22.30

 

From 10:00 New Year's Eve to 03:30 New Year's Day.

 

Compared to existing licence 19/03689/LIPVM

          

Monday to Thursday          : 22.00 to 23.00

Friday and Saturday          : 22.00 to 23.00

Sunday                               : 10.00 to 22.30

 

On New Year's Eve from 23:00 (or 22:30 if it falls on a Sunday) to 03:30 on New Year's Day.

 

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol [Off Sales]

 

Proposed Variation

 

Monday to Saturday           : 22.00 to 23

Sunday                               : 12.00 to 22.30

 

From 10:00 New Year's Eve to 03:30 New Year's Day.

Compared to existing licence 19/03689/LIPVM

          

Monday to Thursday          : 22.00 to 23.00

Friday and Saturday          : 22.00 to 23.00

Sunday                               : 10.00 to 22.30

 

On New Year's Eve from 23:00 (or 22:30 if it falls on a Sunday) to 03:30 on New Year's Day.

 

Hours premises are open to the public

 

Proposed Variation

 

Monday to Sunday             : 10.00 to Midnight

 

From 10.00 New Year's Eve to 03.30 New Year's Day

 

Compared to existing licence 19/03689/LIPVM

 

Monday to Sunday             : 10.00 to 23.00

 

From 10.00 New Year's Eve to 03.30 New Year's Day

 

 

Representations Received

 

·       Environmental Health – represented by Maxwell Koduah

·       Sir Anthony Cleaver – not in attendance

·       RP Corbett – not in attendance

·       Julia Hubbard

·       Christina Hunt

·       David Loyd – not in attendance

·       Rupert Loyd

·       Mary Regnier-Leigh on behalf of The Belgravia Society – not in attendance

·       Angela Sonenscher – not in attendance

·       Shirley Ungemuth

 

Philip Greader had been unable to attend and had submitted a written statement.

 

Representations made by the Metropolitan Police had been withdrawn following agreement to conditions by the Applicant.

 

 

Summary of issues raised by objectors

 

• The provision of late-night refreshment, the supply of alcohol and the hours requested may have the likely effect of causing an increase in Public Nuisance may affect Public Safety within the residential area.

·       An extension to licensing hours will lead to more disturbance beyond midnight from smokers, departing guests and running engines, particularly at the weekends.

·       The request for longer hours had been submitted too soon after the initial grant.

 

 

Policy Position

 

There is no policy presumption to refuse this application (as the Premises was not situated in a Cumulative Impact Area).  The application must, therefore, be determined on merit. Licensable activities would be licensed until core hours. 

 

Applications for hours within core hours will generally be granted, subject to not being contrary to other policies in the City Councils Statement of Licensing Policy. Applications for hours outside core hours will also be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies. (Policies HRS1, RNT1 and PB1 apply.)

 

 

DECISION

 

Mr Baylis addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Applicant, and explained that the variation in hours was being sought to allow customers more time in the restaurant before they had to leave. The Premises had been licensed since 2015 without complaint and had been bought in 2019 by the Applicant who was a celebrity chef. The Applicant had spent £20 million refitting the Premises, which was now a high-class operation with a maximum capacity of 25 people. The Premises had opened for trading on 12 January, and then closed on 13 March due to Covid-19 restrictions. One menu option for guests was a 10-course tasting menu, and the application sought a variation in hours slightly later than the current closing time of 23.00. The Applicant was not seeking an increase in footfall.

 

Mr Koduah addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of Environmental Health and confirmed that no complaints had been received in connection with the operation of the Premises since the licence had been originally granted in 2015. The Sub-Committee noted that conditions attached to the licence provided that the Premises could only operate as a restaurant and not be drink led, while other conditions addressed noise and smoking.  Although Mr Koduah had no particular concerns about the application, his representations were being maintained as residents had raised legitimate concerns regarding public nuisance.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms Hunt, Mr Loyd, Ms Hubbard, and Ms Ungemouth, who were local residents objecting to the application for extended licensing hours. The residents stated that Groom Place is a very quiet Mews, and that the noise from cars and taxis waiting in the Mews late at night and from smokers during the time that the restaurant was open had caused disturbance that would only increase if the current hours were to be extended. Problems had also been experienced from the overspill of rubbish from the Premises, and from cigarette ends left by smokers. The current use of the Premises was new to residents, who had not been impacted by the previous operation of the Premises as a delicatessen and Pizzeria.

 

The residents also expressed concern that the Applicant would have been aware of the existing hours for the Premises at the time of purchase, but now want to extend them. Residents were disappointed that the Applicant had not contacted them to discuss the proposed variation of hours, which they considered to be a disrespectful way of doing business.

 

The Sub-Committee confirmed that it had read the statement submitted by Mr Greader and this was duly considered in its determination of the matter.

 

The Sub-Committee sought further clarification of the reason for submitting the application at this time. Mr Baylis confirmed that the application had not sought to increase capacity of profits, but had been made in response to staff finding that after the Premises had been open for two months, the permitted hours were not providing enough time for guests who arrived at 20.00 hours to leave at 23.00 hours.

 

The Sub-Committee asked what measures had been taken to address the concerns of residents, and Mr Baylis stated that drinks were not taken outside; and that people who wished to smoke were directed away from the Mews. Rubbish was also not left outside the Premises but taken to the junction with Chapel Street at top of Groom Place for collection. Mr Baylis commented that the Applicant had been surprised to hear of the complaints from residents and would have responded earlier if he had been aware of the issues that had been raised. 

 

The Sub-Committee queried how the Premises would operate under Covid-19 restrictions, and Mr Kelly confirmed that the operator would follow Government guidelines for social distancing and with employees wearing face masks. The maximum capacity of the Premises would also be reduced from 25 to 16 spread out over 2 floors.

 

The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee stated that residents could invoke the review procedure under the 2003 Act if they had real concerns regarding any breach of conditions and the failure by the Applicant to promote the licensing objectives.

 

Mr Koduah commented that Condition 30 on the existing licence did not envisage waste collection before 08.00 hours and confirmed that collections made any earlier would be a breach of the licence condition. Mr Koduah also stated that Condition 33 set out the obligation of the licensee to collect litter from around the Premises.

 

Mr Baylis stated that the application for later hours did not mean that the provision would be used every night, as business on some days was quieter than others. He also confirmed that the Applicant would agree to a further condition providing that taxis would collect customers from at the junction with Chapel Street at the top of Groom Place. Mr Baylis commented that the City Council’s hours policy provided that applications within core hours would generally be granted, subject to exceptional circumstances. Mr Baylis suggested that given the lack of complaint during the two months that the Premises had operated, permission should be granted unless there were exceptional circumstances not to do so.

 

The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee requested those residents present at the Hearing to confirm whether their concerns would be alleviated by the proposed conditions, particularly regarding public nuisance. In response, the residents agreed and confirmed to the Sub-Committee that the conditions offered did not address their specific concerns.

 

The Sub-Committee did not doubt that the Applicant was a responsible operator, but considered that the increase in licensable activities and extension of hours would lead to public nuisance, particularly with regard to problems associated with taxis entering the Mews, and to noise when customers were leaving the premises.

 

The Sub-Committee was disappointed to note that the Applicant did not engage fully with residents regarding the application as this might have alleviated some of the concerns raised regarding nuisance in the many objections.

 

The Sub-Committee after taking into consideration the evidence provided by all parties, decided that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the variation would promote the licensing objectives and therefore in all of the circumstances of the case refusedthe application.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

20 August 2020