Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
West End * None ** West End	20 Berkeley Street    WIJ 8EE	New Premises Licence	21/07322/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.3

(“The Committee”)

 

Wednesday 24 November 2021

          

Membership:      Councillor Jim Glen (Chairman), Councillor Jacqui Wilkinson and Councillor Maggie Carman

 

Officer  Support Legal Adviser:              Horatio Chance

                           Policy Officer:               Aaron Hardy

                           Committee Officer:       Georgina Wills

                          Presenting Officer:        Emanuela Meloyan

                   

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of 20 Berkeley Street

London W1J 8EE 21/07322/LIPN

 

Other Parties Present: Saba Naqshbandi (Legal Representative, Novators Hospitality (Berkeley) Limited), Thomas O’Maoileoin of Thomas & Thomas Solicitors (Agent,Novators Hospitality Limited), Alex D’Aguiar (Operational Director, Novators Hospitality Limited), Phil Campbe (Chef de la Maison, Novators Hospitality Limited), Anil Drayan (Environmental Health), Dr Ulrich Brandt-Pollmann and Richard Brown (Legal Representative representing Mr J Zand, Mr U Brandt-Pollman, Ms JA Chang and M Dunn)

 

                                                     Full Decision

 

Premises

 

20 Berkeley Street London W1J 8EE

 

Applicant

 

Novators Hospitality (Berkeley) Limited

 

Cumulative Impact Area

 

None

 

Ward

 

West End

 

Special Consideration Zone

 

West End

 

Summary of Application

 

The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Premises proposes to operate as a fine dining restaurant. The Premises is located both within the West End Ward and West End Buffer Special Consideration Zone (SCZ). The Premises previously had the benefit of a premises licence (17/01674/LIPT) which was granted in July 2014 and lapsed in August 2020.  The Applicant prior to the hearing provided written submissions addressing the SCZ  including the significant financial investment ploughed into the proposed venture which was noted by the Sub-Committee.

 

There is a resident count of 93.

 

Representations received

 

•        Environmental Health Service (Anil Drayan).

•        17 Berkeley Street Residents Association.

•        6 local residents.

 

Summary of issues raised by objectors

 

The Environmental Health Service had maintained representation on the grounds of the Prevention of Public Nuisance. The 17 Berkeley Street Residents Association and 6 residents had maintained representation on the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and the Prevention of Public Nuisance.

 

Policy Position

 

Policies SCZ1, HSR1 and RNT1 apply under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy apply (SLP).

 

 

SUBMISSIONS  AND REASONS

 

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Novators Hospitality (Berkeley) Limited for a New Premises Licence in respect of 20 Berkeley Street London W1J 8EE. The Presenting Officer provided a summary of the Application and advised that representations had been maintained by Environmental Health, The 17 Berkeley Street Residents Association and 6 local residents. The Premises is situated in the West End Ward and in the West End Buffer SCZ. 

 

Ms Saba Naqshbandi Counsel appearing on behalf of the  Applicant advised that it was proposed for the Premises to operate as a high-end restaurant which offered premium food and beverages. The Premises operational hours would be within Westminster’s core hours. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Premises had been vacant for over 5 years and the previous premise licence had lapsed due to the former occupiers going into liquidation in August 2020. Ms Naqshbandi advised that it was proposed for the Restaurant to open in 2023 and that some five million pounds had been invested in the Premises.  She advised that the Creative Restaurant Group were a good operator and had experience of successfully working collaboratively with residents and other interested parties. The Company operated two restaurants in the Capital which are located within residential settings and there have been no concerns regarding these establishments.

 

Ms Naqshbandi advised that the Premises would have a pool of 50 staff and each employer would undergo in house training. There would be three personal licence holders on site during all periods. This will include a general manager and two deputy managers. The  staff employed would be of a ‘good pedigree’ and had extensive experience in the industry and working in premises that were situated in residential areas. She stated that patrons would be greeted at reception and that there would be a holding space for up to 8 persons located on the same floor. The Sub-Committee noted that there would be no external seating and that seating on the upper floor would be flexible. There would be no increase in the Premises capacity, however,  there would be two private dining areas on the ground floor, and both had a capacity of 25. The Premises capacity would be between 125 and 200 patrons.

 

Bookings would be staggered, and this was to ensure that patrons received a high level of service whilst visiting the Premises and that patrons leaving the Premises would also be staggered in terms of dispersal. Ms Naqshbandi  advised that the Applicant had had dialogue with both Environmental Health and residents. She stated  that the Applicant was aware  the Premises was situated in the SCZ and had agreed to an array of Conditions with Environmental Health. These included that no noise is generated from the Premises, the display of quiet notices within the restaurant, deliveries, waste disposal, CCTV and smoking. Ms Naqshbandi advised that all planning applications regarding the Premises had been made by the Freeholder and confirmed that the Premises would operate as a restaurant and not a nightclub. The Model Restaurant Condition would be adopted. She advised that the Applicant continue to actively engage with residents and that the Premises Managers direct contact number would be made available if residents had any issues.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Ms Naqshbandi advised that the restaurant had a capacity of 200 and commented the kitchen had a ‘turn over’ time. She advised  that it would not be possible for 200 patrons to be served food at a single time and these individuals would also not leave the Premises at the same time. Ms Naqshbandi commented that the agreed Conditions  would ensure that concerns raised by objectors are addressed and these included noise nuisances and staff congregating in areas. She advised that management were aware of these concerns and commented that they were similar to other establishments which they operated and therefore would be addressed appropriately. Ms Naqshbandi advised that a Dispersal Plan would be provided, and that the Applicant did not want to cause any nuisance and would actively work with the relevant authorities.

 

Mr Alex D’Aguiar, Operational Director for the Applicant, advised  that peak times were around lunch and evening times. He stated that the staff members were aware of local businesses in the vicinity and would work collaboratively with these parties.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr D’Aguiar advised that the sale of alcohol would be within Westminster’s core hours policy and that bookings started at 11:00 hours. He advised that it was proposed to introduce a breakfast service in the future. The Premises doors would be manned by door staff, the basement area would be used for food preparation and that their would-be adequate toilet facilities for patrons. The Applicant was reported to have agreed to the Works Condition which required for the Premises to be assessed by Environmental Health before it starts to trade and carry out any licensable activities. Mr Alex D’Aguiar advised that a maximum number of 10 patrons would be permitted to smoke outside the Premises and that these individuals would be supervised by staff accordingly.

 

Anil Drayan, appearing on behalf of the Environmental Health Service confirmed  that he was satisfied with the application and that sufficient information regarding the mitigation of noise breakout including through plant machinery had been supplied as part of the application. He advised that the application was like the lapse licence and that the capacity of the new Premises may be increased. Mr Drayan advised that there were concerns about patrons leaving the Premises and potential noise nuisance during these times. He advised that Model Condition 37 (MC37) should be imposed and commented this would require for the capacity of the Premises to be determined following the clearance of the Works condition and said that numbers should be limited to 200 patrons. Mr Drayan stated that Environmental Health would access capacity on means of escape and how many toilets are being provided. The Sub-Committee noted that an amendment would be added to the Works Condition which would require for new plans to be submitted should  there be any minor changes during the construction phase. In response to the Sub-Committee Ms Naqshbandi advised that the Conditions which had been put forward by Mr Drayan would be accepted.

 

Richard Brown, appearing on behalf of local residents  advised there were some confusion with the Application as the licence granted in 2014 was still shown as the current licence on the Licensing Register. Mr Brown stated  that a planning permission for the Premises had been refused and that an application to extend the operational hours of the previous licence had been made. He stated  that the previous licence had lapsed, and the application was to replace the former licence.

 

Mr Brown commented that the Applicant had applied for ‘Off Sales’ and this was not present in the former Licence and that the Premises licensable activities were to increase. The Sub-Committee were informed that some notable Conditions on the previous license had not been included in the new Licence. He advised that in the previous licence the Premises capacity was capped at 125. Mr Brown confirmed that the Applicant had engaged with residents and advised that it was disclosed that the Premises’ capacity would be limited to 175. The Sub-Committee were advised that residents had concerns over the Premises capacity being increased to 200. Mr Brown commented that Conditions on ‘Off Sales’ should be imposed which included for alcoholic beverages to be in sealed containers and restrictions on sales. He advised that a Condition for smokers was welcomed and stated  that the number of smokers allowed in the previous premises was 6 and this had now been increased to 10.

 

Mr Brown advised that it was acknowledged that patrons leaving the Premises would be staggered and commented that a significant number of individuals would leave the restaurant during high turnovers and at the terminal hour. The Sub-Committee were advised that this would have a significant impact and were reminded that the Premises was situated in a SCZ. Mr Brown advised that residents at Berkley Street had a long history of engaging with the Licensing process and that it had been reported that the area had the same characteristics of a ‘Cumulative Impact Area’. He advised that there were concerns regarding anti- social behaviour, public nuisance and crime and disorder and this was the reason the locality was designated as a SCZ.

 

Mr Brown advised that the SCZ required Applicants to demonstrate that they had considered issues which were prevalent in these areas and must detail the mitigations factors which would address these concerns in their operational schedule. Mr Brown commented that this had not been undertaken. He advised that the application could not meet these requirements if the Premises capacity is increased. Mr Brown advised that the timings for removals and waste collections had changed. He advised that imposing MC 37 would not address residents’ concerns and that the capacity of the Premises was to increase by 55%.

 

Dr Brandt-Pollmann local resident advised that there were concerns regarding the increased capacity of the Premises and commented that Berkley Street and Berkley Square were ‘stress areas. He advised that the area had evolved and now attracted patrons with ‘expensive sport cars’ and that the area was used as a ‘runway’ to showcase these vehicles. Dr Brandt-Pollmann advised that patrons arriving and leaving premises alongside ‘car parades’ caused congestions in the area. He commented that an increase in the Premises capacity would only exacerbate the highlighted concerns. He advised that the Premises would attract a large number of patrons who use private vehicles. The Sub-Committee were advised that increasing the number of smokers permitted to congregate outside the restaurant would ensure that there is a large audience for motorists to display their sports vehicles. Dr Brandt-Pollmann advised that the locality had now become an area where sports vehicles are paraded. He commented that these types of vehicles caused noise nuisance and would add to the ‘stress area’.

 

Dr Brandt-Pollmann advised that the capacity for the previous premises was 125 and this number was a compromise. The Sub-Committee noted that the previous Premises did not trade, and the former Licence Holders did not operate any venues in the capital and that previous Conditions had not been tested. Dr Brandt-Pollmann advised  that residents were concerned that the locality may transform into the ‘New Soho’.

 

In response to questions from the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee , Ms Naqshbandi advised that Model Conditions MC22, MC23, MC24, MC35, MC37, MC43 MC57 and MC8 would be accepted. Ms Naqshbandi advised that a Dispersal Policy would be devised and be implemented by the Applicant and would be made available for inspection to the Responsible Authorities. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed to the Conditions proposed by Environmental Health regarding capacity and minor changes to the new plan.

 

In summing up Mr Drayan confirmed that the previous licence was never operated and that the Unit had been vacant for several years. Mr Drayan advised that a capacity of 125 had been proposed by the former Applicant and reminded the Sub-Committee that each case needed to be determined on its own merits.

 

In summing up Mr Brown advised that the locality was now deemed as a SCZ and this grading was not present when the previous licence application had been made. He commented that an increase in capacity was not necessary and should remain at 125. Mr Brown advised that objectors had proposed several conditions during mediations with the Applicant and this included smokers using external areas to be limited to 6, and that no queues are formed outside Hay Hill and Berkley Street. In response to the Sub-Committee Ms Naqshbandi advised that the Applicant agreed for only 6 smokers to be permitted to congregate outside the Premises and that no queues are formed at both Hay Hill and Berkley Street.

 

In summing up Ms Naqshbandi reminded the Sub-Committee that the Premises was a fine dining high end restaurant and did not wish to attract patrons who wanted to use the locality to parade their ‘sports cars’. She commented that there had been liaison with the responsible authorities and residents about the Premises throughout the application process. She advised that the Applicant wished to work with all interested parties and that the Applicant had taken a pro-active approach and had agreed to additional conditions proposed during the Hearing. This included reducing the number of smokers permitted outside.

 

Ms Naqshbandi advised that the Applicant was a responsible operator and did not wish to add to the concerns raised by the residents and that nature of the restaurant, operational style and proposed Conditions would ensure that the Premises would not cause nuisance whilst having a capacity of 200 and this limit had been granted on a previous planning permission. She state that a capacity of 200 was required to ensure that the Premises is commercially viable. A dispersal policy would be in place and patrons leaving the Premises would be staggered to keep disruption to a minimum for residents.

 

Conclusion

 

The Sub-Committee realises that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so for the purposes of this application. It welcomed the fact that the Applicant had engaged with residents prior to the hearing and was prepared to work with them and the Responsible Authorities by agreeing conditions and that the hours applied for were within Westminster’s core hours.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that this venture is to introduce a brand-new premium food and beverage concept to Mayfair in the heart of Berkeley Street with views over Berkeley Square. The Premises will operate first and foremost as a restaurant and will be over 3 floors with main dining room, cocktail bar area, raw bar with seating, wine cellar, 2 private dining rooms and state of the art kitchen. The concept is to have the best fresh produce from the land and sea with classic, signature and regular chef specials depending on the time of the year. The Bar and Wine program will be best in class with world leading mixologists and sommeliers creating a world class wine and cocktail program The Premises is to be fitted to a very high specification with an anticipated opening in 2023 with the help of a five-million-pound investment to facilitate the process.

 

Based on the evidence before it the Sub-Committee considered the potential for nuisance that might be caused to residents and took the view that the noise conditions imposed on the licence should mitigate the concerns raised by residents.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the style, nature and character of the Premises as described by the Applicant would be that of a restaurant, i.e. food and not alcohol led and this was endorsed by the fact that restaurant Model 66 had been accepted by the Applicant, therefore this added protection would prevent the Premises morphing into a night club venue as might have been feared by residents and so the Sub-Committee concluded that the right balance has been struck.

 

The Sub-Committee was persuaded by the Applicant’s assurances and undertakings, including the ongoing commitment to work in partnership with local residents by forming a fruitful and meaningful dialogue when it came to the day to day running and management of the Premises. This would also extend to the established practices and procedures already in bedded over time that exist within the Applicants premises portfolio and are to be applied and adopted for these Premises which would ultimately have the effect of promoting the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee had no reason to believe that the operator would not be a responsible operator that would run his Premises well in accordance with the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee considered the potential for public nuisance in relation to the terminal hour for when patrons would be leaving the Premises but was reassured by the Applicant that the measures the Applicant was to put in place regarding a dispersal policy of its patrons will help safeguard the public nuisance licensing objective and that a telephone number for the Manager at the premises will be made available to residents. These requirements are now conditioned on the Premises Licence.

The Sub-Committee noted from the Applicant that should the layout of the Premises change then updated plans would be provided to the Licensing Authority before the issue of the Licence. Smokers would also be encouraged to smoke away from the Premises by using the pavement area on Hay Hill and this would be limited to 6 in number to prevent nuisance.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises was in the West End Buffer SCZ and the matters contained in paragraph D48 on page 55 of the SLP had been satisfied by the Applicant based on the evidence before it and so there was no real justification to refuse the application.

 

The Sub-Committee was reassured that had there been specific concerns expressed by the Police with regard to robberies, theft, anti-social behaviour, ambulance call outs at night to the location as a result of intoxication, injury related to intoxication and/or assault they probably would have objected to the application because these pertinent issues would have been considered material to the application when it came to matters of crime and disorder. The fact that the Police failed to object strengthened the application as to why it should be granted in the SCZ. Moreover, conditions have now been imposed on the Premises Licence relating to CCTV, an incident log, that there be no sales of alcohol for consumption off the Premises after 23:00 hours and all off sales of alcohol are to be in sealed containers are conditions which will have the ultimate effect of promoting the crime and disorder licensing objective.  

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had provided valid reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives.  

 

Having carefully considered the committee papers and the submissions made by all the parties, both orally and in writing, the Sub-Committee has decided, after taking into account all the individual circumstances of this case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives: -

 

1.        To grant permission for Late Night Refreshment (Indoors). Monday to Thursday 23:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:00 hours Sunday N/A.  Seasonal Variations: On Sundays immediately prior to bank holidays 23:00 - 00:00. From the end of permitted hours on New Year's Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year's Day.

 

2.        To grant permission for the Sale of Alcohol (On and Off) Monday to Thursday 09:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 09:00 to 00:00 hours

Sunday N/A Seasonal Variations: On Sundays immediately prior to bank holidays until 00:00. From the end of permitted hours on New Year's Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year's Day.

 

3.        To grant permission for the Opening Hours of the Premises:Monday to Thursday: 08:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 00:00 hours

Sunday: 08:00 to 22:30 hours Seasonal Variations: On Sundays immediately prior to bank holidays until 00:00. From the end of permitted hours on New Year's Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year's Day.

 

4.        To grant permission for Seasonal Variations: Sundays immediately prior to a bank holiday Midday to 22:00 hours.

 

5.        That the Licence is subject to any relevant mandatory conditions.

 

6.        That the Licence is subject to the following additional conditions and Informative imposed by the Committee which are considered appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

 

Conditions imposed by the Committee after a hearing

 

 

7.        (a) The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team.

(b)All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition.

(c)The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises and will include the external area immediately outside the premises entrance.

(d)All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and timestamping. (e) Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.

 

8.        A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises is open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

 

9.        No noise generated on the premises or by its associated plant or equipment shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

 

10.      There shall be no sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises after 23.00 hours.

 

11.      All sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers only, and shall not be consumed on the premises.

 

12.      Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.

 

13.      A Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.

 

14.      An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to an authorised officer of the City Council or the Police. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and will record the following:

(a) all crimes reported to the venue

(b) all ejections of patrons

(c) any complaints received concerning crime and disorder

(d) any incidents of disorder

(e) all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons

(f) any faults in the CCTV system, searching equipment or scanning equipment

(g) any refusal of the sale of alcohol

(h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

 

15.      There shall be no sales of hot food or hot drink for consumption off the premises after 23.00 hours.

 

16.      No deliveries to the premises shall take place between 23.00 and 08.00 hours on the following day.

 

17.      No deliveries from the premises, either by the licensee or a third party shall take place between 23:00 and 08:00 hours on the following day.

 

18.      The premises shall only operate as a restaurant,

(i) in which customers are shown to their table or the customer will select a table themselves,

(ii) where the supply of alcohol is by waiter or waitress service only,

(iii) which provide food in the form of substantial table meals that are prepared on the premises and are served and consumed at the table,

(iv) which do not provide any takeaway service of food or drink for immediate

consumption off the premises,

(v) where alcohol shall not be sold or supplied, otherwise than for consumption by persons who are seated in the premises and bona fide taking substantial table meals there, and provided always that the consumption of alcohol by such persons is ancillary to taking such meals.

 

Notwithstanding this condition customers are permitted to take from the premises part consumed and resealed bottles of wine supplied ancillary to their meal.

 

For the purpose of this condition ‘Substantial Table Meal’ means – a meal such as might be expected to be served as the main midday or main evening meal, or as a main course at either such meal and is eaten by a person seated at a table, or at a counter or other structure which serves the purposes of a table and is not used for the service of refreshments for consumption by persons not seated at a table or structure servicing the purposes of a table.

 

19.      The premises may remain open for the sale of alcohol and the provision of late-night refreshment from the terminal hour for those activities on New Year's Eve through to the commencement time for those activities on New Year's Day.

 

20.      No fumes, steam or odours shall be emitted from the licensed premises so as to cause a nuisance to any persons living or carrying on business in the area where the premises are situated.

 

21.      Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke or make a phone call, shall be limited to 6 persons at any one time.

 

22.      Notices shall be prominently displayed at any area used for smoking requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and use the area quietly.

 

23.      A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number and/or is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

 

24.      No waste or recyclable materials, including bottles, shall be moved, removed from or placed in outside areas between 23.00 hours and 08.00 hours on the following day.

 

25.      No collections of waste or recycling materials (including bottles) from the

premises shall take place between 23.00 and 08.00 hours on the following day. 

 

26.      Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke or make a phone call, shall not be permitted to take glass containers with them.

 

27.      No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until the premises has been assessed as satisfactory by the Environmental Health Consultation Team at which time this condition shall be removed from the Licence by the licensing authority. In the event that the layout of the premise’s changes then the Premises Licence Holder shall provide revised plans to the Licensing Authority detailing those changes. 

 

28.      The number of persons permitted on the premises at one time (including staff) shall not exceed (X) persons (which for the avoidance of doubt shall be determined by Environmental Health on clearance of the works condition and  to be no more than 200 people in any case).

 

29.      The Premises Licence Holder shall devise and implement an Operational Dispersal Policy which shall be kept updated from time to time. A copy of the policy shall be made readily available to the Responsible Authorities upon request.

 

If problems persist then a Review of the Premises Licence can be made.

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

24 November 2021