Skip to main content

Agenda item

1:30 PM: Basement & Ground Floor, 294 Elgin Ave., London W9 1JS

Ward
SCZ *

Site Name & Address

Application
Type

Licensing Reference No.

Maida Vale

 

Basement & Ground Floor
294 Elgin Ave
London
W9 1JS

New Premises Licence

20/10761/LIPN

 

* Special Consideration Zone

 

Minutes:

LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE (3)

Thursday, 11 February 2021

Members Present:       Councillors Jim Glen (Chairman), Susie Burbridge, and Aziz Toki.

Officer Support:          Legal Officer:                                       Viviene Walker

                                       Policy Officer:                                       Terry Simpkin

                                       Committee Officer:                                        Cameron MacLean

                                       Presenting Officer:                                       Kevin Jackaman

Present:                       Mrs Gosia Vasilev (on behalf of the applicant)

Representations:        Representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service (EHS); the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS);[1] and residents.

Applicant:                    Mr Dragan Romanic

Ward:                           Maida Vale

CIA[2]:                             Not applicable

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence.

INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the Members of the Sub Committee and the Council Officers who would be supporting the Sub Committee. The Chairman explained the procedure that would be followed at the meeting before inviting the Presenting Officer, Mr Kevin Jackaman, to present the report.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Mr Kevin Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer

Mr Jackaman summarised the application as set out in the report before the Sub Committee. He stated that the applicant, Mr Dragan Romanic, would be represented by Mrs Gosia Vasilev, the Premises General Manager and proposed Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). He stated that, following consultation with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the applicant had amended the application and reduced the hours applied for the sale of alcohol both on and off the premises.

Mr Jackaman stated that representations had also been received from the Environmental Health Service (EHS), the Paddington Waterways & Maida Vale Society (PWMVS), and local residents. However, after agreement with the PWMVS on proposed conditions and operating hours, it too had withdrawn its representation.

Regarding the representations by local residents, Mr Jackaman confirmed that neither resident would be attending today’s hearing, but that a further submission had been made by one of the residents and this was included in the Additional Information Pack circulated to Members.

In conclusion, Mr Jackaman stated that the Premises was located within the Maida Vale Ward and was not within a cumulative impact area.

Mrs Gosia Vasilev, General Manager and Proposed Designated Premises Supervisor (on behalf of the applicant, Mr Dragan Romanic)

Mrs Vasilev introduced herself and stated that she had been working at the premises for 15 years and knew the area and the shopping parade very well. She stated that the business [The Peppermint] was a small independent business which had been trading in Maida Vale for 25 years, first, at 302 Elgin Ave, and now at the current address, 294 Elgin Ave.

She said that the business had always had a good reputation as a friendly, local eatery surrounded on the parade by several corporate entities making it necessary to work hard to sustain the business given the competition of neighbouring premises. However, there was nothing the business could have done to prepare itself for the Coronavirus pandemic, which had had a devastating effect on the business.

Mrs Vasilev stated that the changes that the applicant wished to introduce were in direct response to the Coronavirus pandemic and that the applicant had agreed to all the conditions that had been proposed in an effort to allow the business to survive and continue to serve the Maida Vale community.

In addressing the concerns raised by residents, Mrs Vasilev made the following points.

1.     That it was not the intention to turn the premises into a bar as confirmed by the applicant’s agreement to the following proposed Conditions set out in Appendix 4 on Page 58 of the report before the Sub Committee:

Condition 11

The supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a table meal there and for the consumption by such person as ancillary to their meal.

Condition 12

“The supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall be by Server, Waiter or Waitress service only.”

Condition 20

Alcohol consumed outside the premises building shall only be consumed by patrons seated at tables and ancillary to their meal.

2.     Vagrancy: vagrants [street drinkers] bought the cheapest alcohol available from stores with an off-licence, not from licensed restaurant premises.

3.     Noise from the Applicant’s Kitchen: in 25 years of trading, the applicant had never been made aware of noise nuisance from the premises’ kitchen. However, the applicant would do whatever could reasonably be done to minimise any noise.

4.     If it had not been for Coronavirus, the applicant would have met with residents to discuss any concerns they might have had about the application and to reassure residents that the applicant did not wish to cause any business on the part of resident or be the source of any public nuisance.

In response to a request by the Chairman, Mrs Vasilev stated that the applicant would be willing to agree to amending proposed Conditions 11 & 12[3] to add the words:

“… at all times”.

In answering a number of questions by Members, Mrs Vasilev provided the following information.

1.     The number of covers presently possible had been significantly reduced because of the Coronavirus Regulations

2.     There were two small tables seating six persons outside the premises and that, if it was necessary to obtain a licence, the applicant would be willing to reduce the hours at which alcohol could be consumed outside the premises.

3.     The basement comprised a kitchen, baking area, a room with fridges and an office. No customer covers were provided in the basement area.

4.     Referring to the plans of the premises, the only licensed areas would be on the ground floor as indicated by the red line on the Plan.

The Chairman noted that the outside seated area was within the proposed licence area. Therefore, proposed Condition 19 should be amended to read, as follows:

“Sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers only.” [4]

Mrs Vasilev confirmed that the applicant agreed the proposed amendment to Condition 19.

Mr Anil Drayan, Environmental Health Service (EHS)

Mr Drayan stated that EHS had only maintained its representation as the application was going before the Sub Committee. He stated that the EHS was satisfied with the proposed conditions as agreed with the applicant.

Regarding the capacity of the premises, Mr Drayan noted that there was one means of escape on the ground floor which would normally restrict the capacity of the premises to 60 persons. Referring to the Plans, he had calculated that the premises seating plan could accommodate about 40 persons inside and six persons outside. Therefore, it was likely that the premises would be operating with a capacity of less than 60 persons and, therefore, he did not require a condition on a licence stipulating a maximum number of persons on the premises at any one time. He stated that, if the basement area was to be used for customers, then he would wish to make the capacity of the premises a condition of the licence.

Regarding the tables and chairs outside the premises, Mr Drayan stated that the EHS was satisfied that 10:30 PM was a suitable time at which to end licensable activities. He noted that the EHS would normally allow outside licenced areas to such as this operate until 11 PM if, as in the present case, there had been no previous concerns about the premises. He noted that the outside space was a private forecourt used by the applicant as a seated area for customers.

Regarding the Conditions on Page 59 of the report, Mr Drayan noted that proposed Conditions 24 and 29 were the same and that the list of proposed conditions should be suitably amended.

Regarding the complaint about noise from the premises’ kitchen, Mr Drayan stated that, if this noise was occurring during the night, the EHS would, in all likelihood, have been notified and would have taken appropriate action. However, no actionable noise complaints had been received.

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

1.     Given the possibility that the premises could be taken over by another operator, the Sub Committee, if it so wished could impose a condition of the licence that the premises’ capacity be set at 60 as that would be in accordance with fire regulations as it would be the maximum capacity at which the premises could operate.

2.    It was a policy of the EHS, in response to a request by the Sub Committee, that, if there were representations on an application by residents, not to withdraw its representations, even if the EHS had no objections to the application, so that it could assist the Sub Committee and residents with any questions they might have, or requests for information.

3.    Licensable activities would only take place on the ground floor.

4.    Regarding waste collections, the applicant had agreed to the following proposed Conditions:

Condition 31

“All waste shall be properly presented and placed out for collection no earlier than 30 minutes before the scheduled collection times.”

Condition 32

“No waste or recycling materials, including bottles, shall be moved, removed from or placed in outside areas between 21:00 hours and also hundred hours on the following day unless placed outside during the scheduled collection times.”

Questions from Officers

in response to a question by Viviene Walker, Legal Adviser, regarding how the applicant would implement proposed Condition 21, which stated –

“When accepting delivery orders including alcohol, staff must remind the customer the premises operates Challenge 25. Customers will be asked to provide ID on delivery if they look younger than 25. Restaurants must notify delivery drivers if an order contains alcohol. Similar procedures shall be implemented in respect of online orders.”

Mrs Vasilev stated that the applicant had contacted Deliveroo about the procedures adopted by its drivers for inspecting customers’ ID, and would be contacting Uber Eats to request the same information. She stated that for online orders, the customer would have to state that they were of a legal age to buy alcohol before placing an order. Mr Drayan stated that Condition 21 was a standard condition requested by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). It was further strengthened by the requirements of proposed Condition 22 which stated:

“Sales of alcohol consumption of the premises shall only be supplied with, and ancillary to, a takeaway meal.”

SUMMING UP

The Chairman invited the parties to sum up their presentations. Both Mr Drayan and Mrs Vasilev stated that they had nothing further to add to their presentations.

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow Members to retire to consider their decision. He 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

It was the Sub Committee’s decision to Approve the application, as set out in the Decision attached to these minutes as an appendix.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having read the report by the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before it; the written submissions of the applicant and those parties and objecting to the application; and, having heard a presentation on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s responses to several questions, the Sub Committee was satisfied that, in accordance with the Home Office Guidance,[5] it was appropriate and proportionate to Approve the application.

In reaching its decision, the Sub Committee took the following matters into consideration.

1.     The premises had operated in the same location for over 25 years and there was no history of any significant complaints associated with the premises.

2.     The complaint about “washing-up” noise emanating from the premises’ kitchen area was not actionable.

Sub Committee was satisfied that the Environmental Health Service (EHS), based on the evidence submitted to the Sub Committee, would have taken action in response to noise complaints if they had received complaints and if the complaint proved to be warranted.

3.     The Environmental Health Service (EHS) had stated it had no objections to the application and had only maintained its representation to the Sub Committee accordance with a policy decision not to withdraw its representations when there were representations by residents on a particular application.

4.     The Applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the Environmental Health Service (EHS), as amended by the Sub Committee.

In conclusion, the Sub Committee was satisfied that, in all circumstances, it was reasonable, proportionate and appropriate to grant a licence.

 

 

 

 



[1] Subsequently withdrawn after agreement between the MPS and the applicant regarding a reduction in the proposed hours for the sale of alcohol both on and off the premises.

[2] Cumulative Impact Area

[3] Condition 11: The supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a table meal there and for the consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal"; and

Condition 12: Supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall be by server, waiter or waitress service only."

[4] There being no requirement to include the words "… save for any external seating area shown on the plan".

[5] Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, April 2018

Supporting documents: