Agenda item

App No	Ward / Cumulative Impact Area	Site Name and Address	App Type	Licensing Ref No.
1.	St James’s Ward / West End Cumulative Impact Area	Big Mamma 15 Henrietta Street & 29-30 Maiden Lane London WC2E 7JS	New Premises Licence	20/06917/LIPN

 

LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE No. 3

Wednesday, 22 October 2020

 

Membership:               Councillors Jacqui Wilkinson (Chairman), Susie Burbridge         and Maggie Carman.

 

Officer Support:          Legal Officer:                                      Viviene Walker

                                      Policy Officer:                                      Aaron Hardy

                                      Committee Officer:                                       Cameron MacLean

                                      Presenting Officer:                                      Kevin Jackaman

 

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE 20/06917/LIPN

 

Present:                       James Anderson, Poppleston Allen (Solicitors for the Applicant); Jack De Wet, Development Director (for the Applicant), Enrico Pireddu, Operations Director (for the Applicant); Angela Seaward, Licensing Authority; David Nevitt, Environmental Health Services; PC Bryan Lewis, Metropolitan Police Service; Richard Brown, Citizens Advice, Licensing Advice Project (on behalf of Tom Cooke, Resident); David Kaner, Covent Garden Community Association

 

Representations:        Representations were received from the Metropolitan Police Service; Environmental Health Service; the Licensing Authority; The Soho Society (representing a resident); and Complete Licensing (representing an objector)

Applicant:                    Big Mamma Holdings Ltd

Ward:                           West End

CIA[1]:                             West End

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

The application was for a new premises licence allowing the premises to operate as a lounge bar.

INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed everyone to today’s meeting of Westminster City Council’s Licensing Sub Committee. In welcoming everyone, the Chairman introduced the Members of the Sub Committee and the Council Officers who would be supporting the Sub Committee. The Chairman then confirmed the names of the parties and representatives present and explained the procedure that would be followed at the meeting.

The Chairman then invited the Presenting Officer, Mr Kevin Jackaman, to present the report that was before the Sub Committee.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Mr Kevin Jackaman, Licensing Officer

Mr Jackaman, Licensing Officer, stated that this was an application for a new premises licence which included the provision of Late Night Refreshment and the sale by retail of alcohol both on and off the premises. Mr Jackaman summarised the various representations that had been received, noting that additional representations had been received from Capital and County CG Ltd and Capital and County CG Nominee Ltd represented by Alun Thomas of Thomas & Thomas Partners LLP.

In conclusion, Mr Jackaman noted that the premises were within the St James’s Ward and the West End Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

Mr James Anderson, Poppleston Allen (Licensing Solicitors), on Behalf of the Applicant

Mr Anderson noted that the Applicant ran similar premises in Rathbone Place with a capacity for 240 patrons and that the Applicant was a premium Italian restaurant operator. Mr Anderson then described the proposal to convert the former Mabel’s cocktail bar premises into a Big Mamma restaurant with the same operating hours as the former Mabel’s premises. The proposed premises would operate within the same footprint as Mabel’s but with a significantly different entrance on Henrietta Street. [Mr Anderson went through the various floor plans for the proposed premises, describing each area and detailing the various entrances and exits to the premises]. Mr Anderson stated that converting the premises into a Big Mamma restaurant would be a significant investment in the area.

Referring to the Council’s various licensing policies, Mr Anderson stated that the Applicant was mindful that the premises were within a CIA but were of the view that the application fell within a few exceptions to those policies. Unlike Mabel’s, there was no application for regulated entertainment, including live or recorded music. The most significant difference when compared with Mabel’s would be the reduction in occupancy from 430 where the consumption of alcohol was not ancillary to a table meal, to the present proposals whereby the capacity would be a maximum of 260 persons of which 120 would be seated on the ground floor level.

Unlike the existing licence, which permitted off sales until all 01:00 hours, the present application was for off sales to 23:00 hours to be ancillary to a substantial meal, and no drinking would be permitted outside the premises. Accordingly, the proposed application met the requirements of the Council’s licensing policies. In addition, the bar areas marked in blue on the plans would, in all probability, like the Rathbone Place premises, be used by diners.

Regarding Conditions, Mr Anderson stated that agreement had been reached with the Police, including the provision of door staff at the Henrietta Street entrance from 21:00 hours, Thursday to Saturday. In addition, agreement had been reached with Mr Kaner and the CGCA on a written Dispersal Policy and conditions relating to deliveries and collections which were more restrictive than the Council’s model licence conditions. In addition, the Applicant had agreed to surrender the existing Mabel’s licence, as per the Council’s Model Condition 62, before any new licence would come into operation.

Mr Anderson stated it had not been possible to reach agreement on a proposed extension of the current condition restricting the use of the Henrietta Street entrance to 23:00 hours. In an attempt to compromise with residents, the Applicant had proposed that use of the Henrietta Street entrance be permitted until 23:30 hours (which was within Core Hours) to allow customers to enter and exit the premises using the main entrance and to avoid the requirement that customers leaving the premises after 11 o’clock having to walk through the restaurant, downstairs and through the bar to exit into Maiden Lane. In addition, those customers sitting in the basement and ground floor areas near to the Maiden Lane entrance/exit would leave by that exit in any event.

In response to several questions by Members of the Sub Committee, Mr Anderson and Mr De Wet provided the following information.

(a)        There was a waste storage space with waste compactors in the basement which allowed waste to be stored until such time as it was placed outside for collection at the prescribed collection times.

(b)        It was anticipated that customers would decide which exit they wished to use when leaving the premises and that their proximity to the nearest exit would make this largely self-policing. To direct customers to specific exits depending upon where they were seated within the restaurant would be problematic. In addition, door supervisors and staff at the main reception area would be on duty to assist in dispersal into Henrietta Street.

(c)        Smokers would use either Henrietta Street or Maiden Lane to smoke, depending on where they were seated.

(d)        Model Condition (MC) 38 would apply to the ground floor other than the area shaded blue on the floor plan which was a reserved bar area, not subject to any conditions, but which would likely be used by customers. Regarding the basement area, the whole of the public area on the right of the plan was reserved bar space where there would be a condition that customers be seated and drinks served by waiters/waitress service.

(e)        The seating in the ground floor bar space area was fixed and, although it could operate as a vertical drinking bar, it would require an application for a variation to the premises licence to remove the seating in this area. The occupancy on the ground floor bar area was 71 covers and 59 in the basement bar area.

(f)          There would be one door supervisor at the Henrietta Street entrance from 9 PM, Thursday to Saturday. There was no proposed condition requiring a door supervisor at the Maiden Lane entrance/exit.

(g)        The Applicant was of the view that MC 38 was more appropriate for these premises as MC 66 was more restrictive e.g. customers would not be allowed to order alcohol at the bar. It was more a difference of emphasis rather than a substantive difference in the way in which the premises planned to operate. [The Applicant confirmed that they would be prepared to accept a condition not to use disposable dining utensils/crockery].

(h)        Off sales would be until 23:00 hours and ancillary to a substantial meal and hot food and drink after 23:00 hours would be by way of delivery only. At present, there was no proposal to do delivery food, but the Applicant wished to retain that possibility which would accord with the Council’s CIA policy.

(i)          Artisan deliveries included a small van fish delivery from Cornwall and two meat deliveries in similarly sized vans. Deliveries were made at 5:30 AM four days a week (excluding Sundays) and the delivery drivers had keys to the premises to allow them to leave the deliveries inside the premises.

(j)          There were several other restaurants within the vicinity of the Henrietta Street entrance, and it was believed that most of those premises would operate in accordance with Core Hours with a terminal hour generally of midnight. There were more bars and licensed premises within the vicinity of the Maiden Lane entrance.

Ms Angela Seaward, Licensing Officer, on Behalf of The Licensing Authority

Ms Seaward noted that the premises fell within the West End CIA and that the Applicant had been encouraged to consider operating the premises as a restaurant in accordance with the Council’s MC 66 rather than MC 38 as this would allow the application to be considered under the Council’s Restaurant policy. However, as the premises intended to operate without ancillary conditions in some areas within the premises, the premises fell within the Council’s Pubs & Bars policy which required that licence applications for premises within a CIA be refused unless the Applicant could show there were exceptional circumstances that would allow the application to be granted.

Regarding the Applicant’s expressed intention to retain some flexibility as to the manner in which the premises operated, Ms Seaward suggested that this might be achieved by authorising licensable activities subject to these activities being ancillary to the main operation of the premises as a restaurant under the Applicant’s chosen name for the premises. This would then obviate some of the potential problems of the premises changing hands.

In response to questions by Members of the Sub Committee, Ms Seaward provided the following information.

(a)  The bar areas on the ground floor and the basement floor were exempt from MC 38 and the sale of alcohol would not be ancillary to any food requirements.

(b)  There was a condition that customers in the basement area be seated and that the supply of alcohol be by waiters/waitress service only.

Mr David Nevitt, Environmental Health Service (EHS)

Mr Nevitt stated that the proposed reduction in the capacity of the premises was welcomed  as it eliminated the previous drink led and regulated entertainment activity in what had previously been a destination venue within the CIA, and replaced it with a restaurant. However, it remained a concern that there were areas within the premises where alcohol consumption would not be ancillary to the consumption of food. The requirement that, in the basement area, customers be seated had, to some extent, ameliorated this concern.

Regarding the bar area on the ground floor, it was proposed that, within the context of the operation of the premises, a small element of vertical drinking was acceptable. The Applicant’s other premises in Rathbone Place were well-managed and there were no concerns about that food led operation.

Regarding the proposed main entrance on Henrietta Street, there was no evidence to suggest that the use of this entrance during Core Hours would be problematic, as there were no outdoor tables or chairs.

The Environmental Health Service (EHS) had maintained its representations in respect of this application for two reasons –

(1)  To ensure that suitable and appropriate conditions were agreed; and

(2)  That residents’ concerns were addressed.

Accordingly, the Police and the EHS had collaborated in putting together several proposed conditions intended to address the concerns of residents; the CIA policies; and which would promote the Licensing Objectives. These conditions had subsequently been agreed with the Applicant.

In response to questions by the Chairman, PC Bryan Lewis stated that, in addition to a door supervisor, there would be a member of staff who would meet and greet customers as they arrived. Mr Anderson confirmed that the provision of a door supervisor at the Henrietta Street entrance was to address some of the concerns raised by residents and to allow the Applicant to use that entrance until 23:30 hours.

In response to questions by Members of the Sub Committee, Mr Nevitt provided the following information.

(a)        Regarding waste collection, Mr Nevitt referred to the proposed Condition 5 set out in the Joint Environmental Health and Metropolitan Police submission that was before the Sub Committee which stated –

 “MC 43: No collections of waste or recycling materials (including bottles) from the premises shall take place between (23:00 hours) and (08:00 hours) on the following day”.

(b)        Mr Anderson stated that the Applicant had agreed with Mr Kaner and the CGCA to a stricter condition prohibiting deliveries and collections between 20:00 hours and 08:00 hours, except for the three Artisan deliveries.

PC Bryan Lewis On Behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

PC Lewis stated that the MPS had maintained its representations as it remained concerned about the operation of the bar areas within the premises in relation to the CIA. He stated that agreement had been reached with the Applicant on the proposed conditions set out in the Police and EHS submission and, therefore, the Police objection was solely on policy grounds.

Richard Brown, Licensing Advice Project, Citizens Advice Westminster (representing Tom Cooke, Resident)

Mr Brown stated that Mr Cooke’s concern was the effect the proposed Henrietta Street entrance to the premises would have on residents and the fact that his property shared a party wall with the premises.

Mr Cooke did not object to the use of a main entrance to the premises on Henrietta Street if the impact on residents of using that entrance could be kept to a minimum up to 23:00 hours, and if there was no impact on residents after 23:00 hours.

Mr Brown then referred the Sub Committee to the Conditions he had proposed in his email on Page 47 of the Additional Information Pack, and to the proposed Condition at Paragraph 4.8.1 of his “Submission on behalf of Tom Cooke” on Page 8 of the Additional Information Pack, which read –

“The Henrietta Street entrance will be closed after 11 PM with all customers and staff entering and leaving thereafter via Maiden Lane”.

Mr Brown explained the rationale for this proposed condition, stating that 11 PM correlated with the provisions of the Operational Management Planning document, which represented a sensible time. He stated that the half-hour between 11 PM and 11:30 PM was when Mr Cooke and his wife were most likely to be disturbed by patrons leaving the premises. He noted that, although the premises was less likely to be used as a bar than had previously been the case, the existing licence did not impact on Henrietta Street. He proposed that the Sub Committee had to balance the convenience to the operator of being able to use the Henrietta Street entrance until 11:30 PM and the potential inconvenience to residents if customers could use the entrance until that time.

 

Mr Kaner, Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA)

Mr Kaner referred to his submissions on Page 11 of the report before the Sub Committee and on Pages 33 to 34 in the Additional Information Pack. He stated that there had been a number of discussions with Mr Anderson who was representing the Applicant and that agreement had been reached on several of the conditions proposed by the CGCA, in particular, conditions regarding dispersal and service arrangements, and that these conditions would lead to an improvement on the current arrangements.

The CGCA remained concerned about the impact on residents in Henrietta Street, noting that most of the licensed premises on Henrietta Street were restricted in their operation to Core Hours. The CGCA were of the view that it was preferable that the Henrietta Street entrance/exit not be used after 11 PM. Regarding the inconvenience to some customers of having to walk through the premises to exit into Maiden Lane, Mr Kaner stated that, in a Covid-19 environment, people were now used to using one-way systems to enter and exit it premises. Therefore, he questioned how difficult it would be to encourage customers to leave by that exit after 11 PM. Therefore, the CGCA would support Mr Brown’s recommendation that there be no exit into Henrietta Street after 11 PM. In addition, for those customers using only the bar areas, the CGCA would support a proposal that, after 11 PM, those customers leave by the Maiden Lane exit.

In conclusion, Mr Kaner noted that there was a requirement that the Applicant keep the dispersal policy under review should there be any problems regarding dispersal.

Mr Alun Thomas on Behalf of Capital & Counties CG Ltd and Capital & Counties CG Nominee Ltd (Capco)

Mr Thomas referred to his submissions supporting the application which were on Page 12 of the report before the Sub Committee. He stated that it had taken Capco some considerable time to find a tenant for these premises and that, as landlord, they were appreciative of what the Applicant had done elsewhere and what they proposed to do with these premises in Covent Garden.

As the landlord, Capco had discussed the premises licence conditions in detail with the Applicant including the modest proposal for a bar on the ground floor. Mr Thomas stated that there would be a significant reduction in the capacity of the premises and a move away from regulated entertainment. The current premises licence allowed for a 430-capacity vertical drinking venue and that was how it had operated. He believed that, along with the landlord, local stakeholders would appreciate the change in operation. Referring to the Pubs & Bars policy and Paragraph 2.4.7[2], Mr Thomas stated that he believed that the proposed reduction in capacity provided the necessary exception to allow the application to be granted, not least because the Applicant was asking for something less than they presently held. In addition, because the application was subject to the Applicant surrendering the existing licence, the proposals allowed the Applicant to future proof the premises in a way that the current licence did not permit.

In response to a Member’s question, Mr Nevitt confirmed that the capacity of the premises was 260 with seating for 250 persons.

Ms Vivien Walker, Legal Officer

Ms Walker asked Mr Anderson (representing the Applicant) for confirmation that the proposed Conditions set out on Pages 34 to 47 of the Additional Information Pack had been agreed. Mr Anderson confirmed that most of the conditions had been agreed and that he would send Ms Walker a list of the agreed conditions. He stated that, because of last-minute negotiations, there had been insufficient time to prepare a comprehensive list of the agreed conditions before today’s hearing.

Mr Aaron Hardy, Policy Officer

In response to a question by Mr Hardy regarding the effect of the present application in reducing the impact the premises had on the CIA, Angela Seaward, Senior Licensing Officer, confirmed that each application was taken on its merits and that the Licensing Authority had taken the view that it was for the Sub Committee to determine whether the proposed reduction in capacity constituted an exception to the Pubs & Bars policy in relation to CIA’s.

SUMMING UP

The Chairman invited the various parties to sum up their presentations.

Mr Alun Thomas on Behalf of Capital & Counties CG Ltd and Capital & Counties CG Nominee Ltd (Capco)

Regarding the bar on the ground floor of the premises, Mr Thomas made the point that the Applicant was asking for less than what was already permitted under the current licence. He reiterated the point that the application represented a significant reduction in capacity that would be of benefit to residents and local stakeholders.

Ms Angela Seaward, Senior Licensing Officer, on Behalf of The Licensing Authority

Ms Seaward confirmed that she had nothing further to add.

Mr David Nevitt, Environmental Health Service (EHS)

Mr Nevitt stated that, regarding policy matters and cumulative impact, he wished to give some context to the location of the premises. He said that the Porterhouse Pub, which allowed vertical drinking for up to 800 people until midnight, was opposite the premises rear entrance on Maiden Lane. On Henrietta Street, there was a hotel with a public bar that was open until 1 AM for members of the public, and 24-hours for hotel guests. Therefore, the opportunity to reduce the capacity of these premises would have a material benefit in reducing the overall cumulative impact in this area. Furthermore, as the application did not include regulated entertainment, he did not see a need for a condition requiring a sound limiter.

PC Bryan Lewis On Behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

PC Lewis proposed that there should be a requirement for an ongoing review of security to the premises on the Maiden Lane entrance, given the location of the Porterhouse Pub opposite the premises.

Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Advice Project, (representing Tom Cooke, Resident)

Mr Brown asked the Sub Committee to draw a distinction between the cumulative impact granting the licence would have on Henrietta Street vis-à-vis the overall reduction in the cumulative impact of the premises. He noted that, at present, the premises did not add to the cumulative impact on Henrietta Street and it was for that reason that he proposed that there be a condition that the Henrietta Street entrance/exit should not be used after 11 PM.

 

Mr Kaner, Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA)

Concurring with Mr Brown, Mr Kaner stated that the application, if granted, would result in an overall reduction in the cumulative effect the premises had in the area. However, that was not true of Henrietta Street where granting the licence would add to the cumulative impact on that street. Therefore, he too proposed that use of the main entrance on Henrietta Street be limited to no later than 11 PM.

Mr James Anderson, Poppleston Allen (Licensing Solicitors), on Behalf of the Applicant

Regarding the use of the main entrance on Henrietta Street, Mr Anderson stated that staff would exit the premises via Maiden Lane, as set out in the operating schedule. In addition, the Applicant, in response to PC Lewis’s comments, would be willing to undertake a risk assessment regarding the use of door supervisors at the Maiden Lane entrance/exit.

Mr Anderson went on to make the following points.

(a)  Future Proofing: this was a reference to something that did not exist in any relevant legislation or government guidance. However, its use as a means of granting a licence to the Applicant and at the same time removing the right of the Applicant to transfer the property was legally questionable.

(b)  Considering the Application on Its Merits: as the Sub Committee was required by law to consider the application on its merits, it could not look to the future with a view to future proofing an application.

(c)   CIA Policy: that the Council’s Pubs & Bars policy allowed an application such as the present one to be granted and that the application presented an opportunity to lessen the cumulativeimpact of premises in the West End by terminating the existing Mabel’s licence and replacing it with a significantly less impactful licence, as stated by Mr Nevitt and PC Lewis.

The premises would trade as a restaurant, but the Applicant would like the flexibility afforded by the bar spaces on the ground floor and in the basement. It was for this reason that the Applicant had opted for these premises as it had an existing licence. Taking the Applicant’s successful trading history in Rathbone Place, and the conditions that had been offered and agreed, it was proposed that the Applicant could be trusted to operate these premises in a responsible manner.

Regarding the operation of the Henrietta Street entrance, to refuse to allow the Applicant to use this entrance after 11 PM would mean that the premises had a greater restriction imposed upon it than any other premises in Henrietta Street allowed to operate to Core Hours. In addition, Westminster City Council’s Licensing Model Conditions did not recognise a last entry time of 11 PM. As a compromise, and because of the commercial significance of having a main entrance open until 11:30 PM, it was proposed that customers could enter and exit the premises using the Henrietta Street entrance until 11 PM and from 11 PM to 11:30 PM only customers exiting the premises into Henrietta Street be allowed to use the main entrance/exit.

In response to Member’s questions, Mr Anderson provided the following information.

(a)  How well an operator managed their premises was not something that Members of the Sub Committee could take into consideration when determining what might be grounds for an exception to the Council’s CIA policies. Mr Anderson proposed that the exceptions in this case would be –

·       The replacement of a high-impact licence with a lower impact licence; and

·       A reduction in vertical drinking in these premises

(b)  The Applicant had agreed MC 62 which would require that the Applicant surrender the current licence before the applied-for licence, if granted, would become operable.

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman adjourned the meeting so that Members could retire to consider their decision. She stated that the Sub Committee would not announce its decision today but that a summary of the decision would be sent to the various parties within five working days.

The Chairman then closed the Live part of the virtual meeting.

DECISION

To APPROVE the application.

 

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Sub Committee’s reasons for approving the application are set out in the Full Decision attached as Appendix 1 to this minute.