Agenda item
Caffe Foresta, Ground Floor, 95 Charlwood Street, SW1V 4PB
Minutes:
WCC LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 2
(“The Committee”)
Thursday 2 November 2023
Membership: Councillor Maggie Carman (Chair), Councillor Judith Southern and Councillor Caroline Sargent
Officer Support Legal Advisor: Michael Feeney
Policy Officer: Daisy Gadd
Committee Officer: Sarah Craddock
Presenting Officer: Kevin Jackaman
Others present: Mrs Chouleebhorn Messing (Applicant), Mr Messing, Mr Maxwell Koduah (Environmental Health Service), Mr Richard Brown (Solicitor, Westminster Citizens Advice) representing a local resident and five local residents.
Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Caffe Foresta, Ground Floor, 95 Charlwood Street, SW1V 4PB
Full Decision
Premises
Caffe Foresta
Ground Floor
95 Charlwood Street
SW1V 4PB
Applicant
Mrs Chouleebhorn Messing
Ward
Pimlico North
Cumulative Impact Area
N/A
Special Consideration Zone
N/A
Activities and Hours applied for
Sale by retail of alcohol (On Sales Only)
Monday to Friday: 09:00-18:30
Saturday to Sunday: 09:00-20:00
Hours Premises Are Open to the Public
Monday to Friday: 07:30-18:30
Saturday to Sunday: 09:00-20:00
Summary of Application
This is an application for a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Premises currently operate as a café serving pre-prepared cold/heated food sandwiches, cakes, soft drinks, juices and tea/coffee. During consultation, the Applicant reduced the start time for the sale of retail of alcohol Monday to Friday from 07:30 to 09:00 hours. There is a resident count of 406.
Representations Received
Metropolitan Police Service (withdrawn on 2 June 2023)
Environmental Health Service
Five local residents
Issues raised by Objectors
- The hours requested will have the likely effect of causing an increase in Public Nuisance within the area and may impact on Public Safety.
- The area is mainly residential with only a few commercial shops.
- Absence of the café owner.
- Litter and rubbish generated by the café.
- Tables and chairs block the pavement and people’s doors.
- Dogs fouling on the fake grass situated outside the café.
- Potential noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
- Detrimental to the Licensing Objectives.
Policy Considerations
Policy HRS1:
A Applications within the core hours set out below in this policy will generally be granted for the relevant premises uses, subject to not being contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy.
Policy RNT1:
A Applications outside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone will generally be granted subject to:
1.The application meeting the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.
2.The hours for licensable activities being within the Councils Core Hore Policy HRS1.
3.The operation of any delivery service for alcohol and/or late night refreshment meeting the Council’s Ancillary Delivery of Alcohol and/or Late Night Refreshment Policy DEL1.
4.The applicant has taken account of Policy SCZ1 if the premises are located within a designated zone.
5.The application and operation of the venue meeting the definition of a restaurant as per Clause C.
C. For the purposes of this policy a restaurant is defined as:
1.A premises in which customers are shown to their table or the customer will select a table themselves to which food is either served to them or they have collected themselves.
2.Which provide food in the form of substantial table meals that are prepared on the premises and are served and consumed at a table.
3. Which do not provide any takeaway service of food and/or drink for immediate consumption, except if provided via an ancillary delivery service to customers at their residential or workplace address.
4.Where alcohol shall not be sold, supplied, or consumed on the premises otherwise than to persons who are bona fide taking substantial table meals and provided always that the consumption of alcohol by such persons in ancillary to taking such meals.
5.The sale and consumption of alcohol prior to such meals may be in a bar area but must also be ancillary to the taking of such meal.
SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS
The Presenting Officer, Kevin Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the application to the Committee.
Mr Messing outlined the application along with Mrs Messing (Applicant). He advised that the café wished to sell alcohol to compete with the other Premises in the area who already had a Premises Licence. He outlined that it would still operate as a café, however, the granting of the application would allow the Premises the opportunity to serve a glass of wine to their customers on request with food. He highlighted how customers had already requested a glass of wine with their food order and when declined had gone elsewhere. He outlined that the Applicant’s vision was for people to enjoy a conversation with a glass of wine and a toasted sandwich/piece of cake. The intention was not to turn the café into a pub.
Mr Messing confirmed that all the conditions proposed by the Metropolitan Police Service and Environmental Health Service had been agreed. He then discussed the Applicant’s ability to provide substantial food to customers as the Premises did not have the facilities to cook food but only to re-heat pre-packaged food and/or pastries/toasted sandwiches. He confirmed that the Premises did not have the space or the ventilation to cook restaurant style meals.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Messing emphasised that the Applicant needed the Premises Licence to sustain the café as currently they were losing business to their competitors. He outlined how the Applicant had marked the outside seating area with fake grass to indicate to patrons where they could sit and/or leave their prams to prevent obstruction of the pavement. He confirmed that most of the outside space belonged to the Premises, and they also had a Table and Chairs Pavement Licence. He further confirmed that all tables and chairs were removed at closing time. He highlighted that waste/rubbish was a nuisance across the whole of the street and how the café staff kept the outside of the Premises clean and tidy by frequently picking up litter. He outlined that the fake grass had been added to the outside area because the landlord did not want to contribute to fixing the bumpy floor/pavement. He advised that it had reduced the noise nuisance and had clearly set out the outside space/seating area for customers.
Mrs Messing confirmed that CCTV was situated inside, outside and in the stock room of the Premises and that although she was often not physically present she monitored the Premises 24/7. She outlined how she would not hesitate to contact the Police if an incident occurred on the Premises and/or there was abuse towards her staff. She advised that the capacity was for 25 patrons (10 patrons seated outside and 15 seated patrons inside the Premises) and there were always two to three staff on duty at any one time. She highlighted her love and passion for good coffee and how she was continuously learning about the café/catering business. She confirmed that she did not wish for the hours for the sale of alcohol to be reduced any further because the hours applied for were within the Council’s Core Hours Policy and she wished to have the flexibility to offer her customers a glass of wine with brunch. She further outlined that alcohol would only be served with food, never by itself and would be limited to one or two glasses per customer.
Mr Max Koduah (Environmental Health Service, EHS) advised that EHS had
maintained their representation to assist the Sub-Committee. He further
advised that the EHS did not have any major concerns regarding public
nuisance and public safety because of the conditions that had been proposed
and agreed by the Applicant. He confirmed that EHS’s concern had further
reduced with the scaling back of the hours to 09:00 hours. He further
confirmed that the Premises would be unable to provide substantial food as
outlined in the Metropolitan Police Service’s proposed conditions and
therefore he had suggested a different condition setting out
‘That the supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated at a table and for consumption ancillary to food.’ He advised that he considered that the Applicant had made a genuine error by agreeing to the Police’s proposed MC66 condition, as this condition was only imposed on restaurant style operations. He confirmed that the proposed conditions and the amended hours should alleviate residential concerns.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Koduah advised that a substantial meal was one that was served by a restaurant and not a pastry or toasted sandwich. He confirmed that the Premises would be unable to comply with MC66 so a more appropriate condition should be offered and placed on the Premises Licence if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the application.
Ms J. S, a local resident, advised that the café was located in a very residential area where there many young families living and that walking past people drinking and being loud during the day could be quite threatening for some people. She requested how residents could go about reporting any misgiving to the Council. Mr Feeney, the legal advisor, informed her that she could get in touch with the Council’s Enforcement Team who would investigate any complaint and if there were serious issues the Licensing Authority could call for a Review of the Premises Licence. She advised that she did not believe that the Applicant often attended the Premises.
Ms E. B, a local resident, advised of the location of her property and how she often picked up rubbish found in the street from the café. She highlighted how dogs had been attached to her gate so she could not leave her property and how the dogs used the fake grass as a toilet. She advised that she respected local businesses and that she purchased a lot of coffee from the café, however, she saw no benefit of this Premises Licence to the community. She advised of her irritation of the fact that there had been very little engagement with the Applicant and of her worry regarding broken glass and increasing noise nuisance in the area if the application were granted.
Mr D.P, a local resident, advised of the location of his property, how he and his wife had welcomed the café and had been customers for years and how very upset they were regarding the lack of community engagement regarding this application. He considered that the neighbourhood was a close community and although the Applicant had talked about good intentions once the Premises had a Premises Licence it could be easily transferred to a new occupier. He highlighted how the café could not serve substantial food because they had very little space and he believed that the alcohol licence would attract people to the area who just wanted to drink which would increase anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance. He advised that the granting of this application could set a precedent for other cafés to apply for a Premises Licence. He considered that it would be inappropriate to grant this application and that it would be the ‘thin end of the wedge.’
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mrs Messing advised that a member of her staff had undertaken training and would be in charge of the day-to-day operation of the café.
Mr Richard Brown (Solicitor, Westminster Citizens Advice), representing a local resident emphasised the residents’ lived experience and how there was always tension between commercial and residential properties in cities such as Westminster and that in reality they needed to coexist next to one another. He highlighted the risk regarding the lack of substantial food available at the Premises in terms of disturbances to local residents. He emphasised how the Metropolitan Police Service had withdrawn on the understanding that substantial food would be available and requested that the food offer at the Premises be made very clear on the Premises Licence if the Sub Committee were minded to grant the application. Mr Brown also noted that according to Google the café currently closed at 5:30pm, so in some respects the application represented an extension of hours.
The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had not engaged with the residents regarding the application for a new Premises Licence and encouraged her to do so in the future. The Applicant agreed to have MC24 regarding the provision of a direct telephone number attached to the Premises Licence if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant.
Mr Feeney, Legal Advisor to the Committee, discussed the wording of the proposed conditions (if the application were granted), with all parties.
During his summing up, Mr Brown advised that the local residents had their reservations regarding the grant of this Premises Licence. The local residents re-iterated their concerns and also drew attention to the fact that the Premises was near an Alcoholics Anonymous centre.
During his summing up, Mr Messing advised that they had every intention of operating the café as a café first and foremost and that the alcohol offer would only form a small part of the business. He advised that there were other shops in the area and that some of these (such as the Tesco’s across the road) would be more likely to appeal to those wishing to drink alcohol. He also stated that the staff in future would do better at clearing up rubbish.
Conclusion
The Committee has determined an application for a grant of a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003. The Sub-Committee realises that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so when determining this application.
The Sub-Committee in its determination noted that the Environmental Health Service was satisfied with the application and had no concerns given the conditions that had been agreed. The Sub-Committee placed great weight on the position of EHS as the responsible authority with primary expertise concerning the licensing objective of public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee felt that the imposition of the proposed conditions would ensure that the Premises would operate as a genuine café and not become alcohol-led. As it became clear during the meeting that the Premises could not offer substantial table meals (and did not intend to do so), the Sub-Committee felt that it was appropriate and necessary to amend one of the conditions proposed by the Metropolitan Police (condition 22) so that the supply of alcohol must be ancillary to the consumption of ‘food’ rather than a ‘substantial table meal’. The Sub-Committee recognised that the Metropolitan Police had withdrawn their representation on the basis of the earlier version of the condition, but the Metropolitan Police at the time cannot have been aware that the Premises was not capable of providing substantial table meals. The Sub-Committee considered that the revised condition 22 (alongside the other conditions) would effectively uphold the licensing objectives and would ensure that the Premises operates as a café rather than as a pub or bar with vertical drinking. In reaching this decision, the Sub Committee again placed great weight on the position of EHS.
The Sub-Committee noted the concerns of local residents concerning rubbish and litter but felt that this could be addressed by way of conditions (see conditions 12-14, 16 below). As the Premises currently does not have a premises licence the grant of a licence with appropriate conditions could help improve the situation. The Sub-Committee also placed weight on condition 11, which states that no noise generated on the Premises shall give rise to a nuisance.
The Sub-Committee also considered that the Applicant had taken appropriate steps to prevent tables and chairs being placed outside the designated areas by providing astroturf. Finally, the Sub-Committee noted the lack of engagement described by local residents so considered the imposition of MC24 concerning the provision of a telephone number to be appropriate and necessary. It is hoped that this will allow a constructive dialogue between the Premises and local residents to exist in future.
The application is not alcohol-led, the Premises is not within a Special Consideration Zone or the West End Cumulative Impact Zone and the application is within core hours. Overall, the Sub-Committee therefore considered that the proposed conditions would promote the licensing objectives and ensure that the Premises operates as a café without causing public nuisance or leading to a rise in crime or disorder.
Having carefully considered the committee papers, the additional papers and the submissions made by all of the parties orally, the Sub-Committee has decided, after taking into account all of the individual circumstances of this particular case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives:-
1. To grant permission for:
Sale by retail of alcohol (On Sales Only)
Monday to Friday: 09:00-18:30
Saturday to Sunday: 09:00-20:00
Hours Premises Are Open to the Public
Monday to Friday: 07:30-18:30
Saturday to Sunday: 09:00-20:00
2. To add relevant Mandatory Conditions to apply.
3. To add conditions proposed to form part of the operating schedule:
9. The supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only.
10. Food and non-intoxicating beverages, including drinking water, shall be available in all parts of the premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises.
11. 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.
12. All waste shall be properly presented and placed out for collection no earlier than 30 minutes before the scheduled collection times.
13. No waste or recyclable materials, including bottles, shall be moved, removed from or placed in outside areas between 19.00 hours and 08.00 hours on the following day.
14. No collections of waste or recycling materials (including bottles) from the premises shall take place between 19.00 hours and 08.00 hours on the following day.
15. No deliveries to the premises shall take place between 19.00 hours and 08.00 hours on the following day.
16. During the hours of operation of the premises, the licence holder shall ensure sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising or accumulating from customers in the area immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and/or washed, and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements by close of business.
17. The approved arrangements at the premises, including means of escape provisions, emergency warning equipment, the electrical installation and mechanical equipment, shall at all material times be maintained in good condition and full working order.
18. The number of persons permitted in the premises at any one time (excluding staff) shall not exceed 25 persons.
19. All tables and chairs shall be removed from the outside area by 20.00 hours each day.
20. The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. 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. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.
21. 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.
22. The supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated at a table and for consumption ancillary to food.
23. A record shall be kept detailing all refused sales of alcohol. The record should include the date and time of the refused sale and the name of the member of staff who refused the sale. The record shall be available for inspection at the premises by the police or an authorised officer of the City Council at all times whilst the premises is open.
24. An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on requires 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
25. A Challenge 21 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.
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. Alcohol consumed outside the premises building shall only be consumed by patrons seated at tables within authorised seating areas.
28. A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.
This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith.
The Licensing Sub-Committee
2 November 2023
Supporting documents:
-
Caffe Foresta final report_Redacted, item 1.
PDF 9 MB - Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 1./2 is restricted