Agenda item
Wok and Fire, 33 Haymarket, SW1Y 4HA
Minutes:
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3
23 February 2023 – ITEM 2
Membership:Councillor Robert Eagleton (Chair), Councillor Concia Albert and
Councillor Melvyn Caplan
Officer Support Legal Adviser: Viviene Walker
Policy Officer: Daisy Gadd
Committee Officer: Jack Robinson-Young
Presenting Officer: Emanuela Meloyan
Other parties present: Siraf Mohammed (Applicant), David Dadds (Dadds LLP Licensing Solicitors), Sally Fabbricatore (Environmental Health Service),
Kevin Jackaman (The Licensing Authority) PC Steve Muldoon (Metropolitan Police Service)
Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Wok and Fire 33 Haymarket SW1Y 4HA 22/11862/LIPN
Full Decision
Premises
Wok and Fire
33 Haymarket
London SW1Y 4HA
Applicant
WK Piccadilly Limited
Ward
St James’s
Cumulative Impact Zone
West End
Special Consideration Zone
None.
Summary of Application
The is an application for a new Premises Licence application. The premises proposed to operate as a noodle restaurant and takeaway.
There is a resident count of 31.
Representations received
• Metropolitan Police (PC Dave Morgan)
• Environmental Health (Sally Fabbricatore)
• Licensing Authority (Kevin Jackaman)
Summary of issues raised by objectors
The Responsible Authorities raised concerns about undermining of all the Licensing Objectives and made specific reference to the fact that this venue is within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone and that the provision of late-night refreshment at the hours sought may cause an increase in public nuisance and may impact on public safety. The premises would become a focal point for late night revellers who may have been consuming alcohol.
Policy Position
CIP1
It is the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone for fast food premises, other than applications to:
1. Vary the hours within Core Hours under HRS1, and or
2. Vary the licence to reduce the overall capacity of the premises.
Applications for other premises types within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone will be subject to other policies within this statement and must demonstrate that they will not add to cumulative impact.
HRS1
Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in Clause C will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies and with regard to the demonstration of compliance in the requirements of Policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.
FFP1
It is the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone for fast food premises, other than applications to:
1. Vary the hours within Core Hours under HRS1, and or
2. Vary the licence to reduce the overall capacity of the premises.
SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS
Ms Emanuela Meloyan, Senior Licensing Officer, presented the report that was before the Sub-Committee, she noted that representations had been received from the Metropolitan Police Service, Licensing Authority and Environmental Health Service. The Premises are located in St. James’s Ward and are within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.
Mr David Dadds, solicitor for the applicant addressed the Sub-Committee, he advised that the conditions proposed by Environmental Health Service and the Metropolitan Police had been agreed and the applicant understood that the premises were within a Cumulative Impact Zone, but similar premises were granted 5 a.m. licence. The applicant was only requesting a 1 a.m. licence. Mr Dadds explained that queuing would not be a large issue for this venue and there would be no sale of alcohol.
The Sub-Committee sought clarification with regard to the opening hours on a Sunday. In response, Mr Dadds explained that 01:30 a.m. had been changed. The premises would operate as a kiosk service, meaning there would not be patrons inside from this time.
The Sub-Committee sought reassurance as to how the premises would not impact on the Cumulative Impact. Mr Dadds replied that an SIA would be employed from 21:00 until closing. The serving food would not add to a concentration of people, and there would be no increase to traffic. He stated that the applicant had used Temporary Event Notices to help prove these points.
Mr Dadds stated that he did not feel that people would be drawn to the area simply for this venue as there are other venues already there and this would only serve to spread patrons around wider. He did not believe that people would stay in the area because they are not allowed to stay on the premises, they are served, and they then leave.
In response to a question from the Sub-Committee Mr Dadds advised that the premises were not a fast-food kebab shop that might attract a certain group of persons and that the food served were healthy and are served quickly. This is a new business with a much more presentable frontage.
In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Dadds advised that food would be served in recyclable paper containers.
PC Muldoon on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, addressed the Sub-Committee. He advised that the premises are near to a tube station and several bus stops. He drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the crime maps submitted and stated this is a major crime hotspot nationally. The Sub-Committee asked about the hours sought and whether lesser hours were welcomed. PC Muldoon, replied, that the Police view was always to keep the hours to within core hours for such venues.
Ms Sally Fabbricatore on behalf of Environmental Health Service (EHS), advised the Sub-Committee that EHS maintained their objection because of the location of the premises and the hours sought. She pointed out that there were no WC facilities services available at the premises, and as such the Sub-Committee may be minded to place a limit on the number of persons. It was welcomed that there would be no deliveries to the premises.
Mr Kevin Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer, for the Licensing Authority stated that their objection was based on the location and that the premises were a fast-food premises open past core hours, serving hot food which are more attractive than a premises serving cold food. He explained that the policy presumption to refuse the application.
The Policy Adviser asked in relation to Condition 6, whether it had been agreed. In response, Mr Dadds stated that the condition was agreed, and this showed the applicant’s way of operation from 21:00 until close.
Mr Jackaman referred the Sub-Committees to the map of premises and informed the Sub-Committee that there are very few venues open until this time serving this type of food and at this speed.
Mr Dadds on behalf of the applicant accepted the point from Mr Jackaman and said this further speaks to his argument that this venue would help spread people out more and lead to a lesser concentration of people queueing, congregating and loitering. Mr Dadds stated that the food being served, would attract those who would be likely to impact on crime. He advised that the applicant’s desire was for 01:00 a.m. and the applicant was happy to accept a limit on the number of persons to 10. In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Dadds replied that the applicant would be content to have a SIA on bank holidays.
Conclusion
The Sub-Committee has a duty to consider the application on its individual merits and took into account all the committee papers, submissions made by the applicant and the oral evidence given by all parties during the hearing in its determination of the matter.
It was noted that the Premises are situated within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone and so the policy presumption is to refuse the application unless exceptional circumstances can be proven under the Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP).
The Sub-Committee noted that representations were received from the Metropolitan Police Service, Environmental Health Service and the Licensing Authority.
All representations were considered by the Sub- Committee.
It was noted that the Responsible Authorities maintained their representations because the Premises are within the Cumulative Impact Zone.
The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives and therefore refused the application.
In terms of the policy considerations, the Sub-Committee had regard to Policy FFP1 which states: Fast food premises which are open after 11pm can attract large groups of customers, many of whom have been consuming alcohol in pubs, bars, or night clubs sometimes some distance away. The congregation of people around these premises leads to additional noise and disturbance and further congestion in the area. Although premises which serve cold food and drink are not subject to licensing and may stay open all night, they are not so attractive to people who have been drinking as those providing hot food and drink. The Council considers that the addition of hot fast food and hot drink adds to the attractiveness of premises to people who have been drinking and who are more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour.
The Sub-Committee appreciated it has discretion when considering the merits of the application but took the view that granting the application would be contrary to other policies. The Sub-Committee had regard to all relevant policies under the SLP, in particular Policy HRS1 which states: Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in Clause C will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies and with particular regard to the demonstration of compliance in the requirements of Policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.
The Sub-Committee also had regard to Policy CIP1 which states: It is the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone for pubs, and bars, fast food premises and music and dancing and similar entertainment, other than applications to vary hours within core hours HRS1, and/or vary the licence to reduce the overall capacity of the premises. Applications for other premises types within the West End Cumulative Impact Zones will be subject to other policies within the SLP and must demonstrate that they will not add to cumulative impact.
The Sub-Committee did consider whether the proposed conditions offered would mitigate the concerns of the Responsible Authorities but was not persuaded by the Applicant that he understood the Policy requirements.
The Sub-Committee was of the view that exceptional reasons had not been provided. The Applicant had not demonstrated as to why the Sub-Committee should have departed from the Policy requirements under the SLP.
Having carefully considered the committee papers and the submissions made by all parties, both orally and in writing, the Committee was not persuaded by the Applicant that the promotion of the licensing objectives would be upheld. The Committee when looking at the evidence had regard to the policy considerations arising under Policies HRS1 and FFP1 under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Applicant failed to demonstrate why the premises would not add to the Cumulative Impact Zone.
The Committee decided that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives and therefore REFUSED the application.
This is the Full Decision reached by the Licensing Sub-Committee.
This Decision takes immediate effect.
Licensing Sub-Committee
23 February 2023
Supporting documents:
-
Fire and Wok, item 2.
PDF 574 KB - Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 2./2 is restricted