Agenda item

Iran Restaurant, 27 Shepherd Market, London, W1J 7PR

17/02456/LIPV

1.

Late Night Refreshment

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Kitchen Centre Ltd for a variation of a premises licence in respect of the Iran Restaurant, 27 Shepherd Market, London, W1J 7PR.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.

All parties were invited to make representations to the Sub-Committee in relation to the application.  The parties responded to members’ questions and were given an opportunity to ask questions of each other.

Mr Sepanje, the applicant, advised that the main reason an extension in hours for the sale of alcohol was being requested was to increase the premises’ revenue.  It had been operating for approximately five to six years during which time there had only been a minimal number of complaints. The premises was small in scale with only a limited number of covers. A large number of customers were from oversees and they preferred dining later in the evening which was one of the main reasons a proposed extension in hours had been requested. The premises was predominantly focused on providing high quality food and the sale of alcohol was ancillary to customers taking a table meal. No draught beer was available and there were no alcohol led promotions. The restaurant was well established within the area and approximately 90-95% of customers pre-booked their table. There was a demand from customers to have a longer period to enjoy the food provided and the extra revenue this generated would help with the increasing overheads associated with operating a restaurant.

Mr Sepanje explained how the premises did not cause a nuisance in the local area and the only complaints made had been unfounded. One related to a noise complaint which was investigated and no further action was taken. The second related to the noise of clearing tables and chairs and again following an investigation no further action was taken. If the extension in hours was granted it would not set a precedent in the local area as the other restaurants in the area were much larger, catered for more customers and provided more licensable activities. The clientele at the restaurant were very well behaved, a relaxed dining environment was provided for them and the premises was not alcohol-led. Less than 1% of revenue was generated from sales of alcohol. Finally, the customers frequenting the premises departed from the area once they left the premises and did not remain in the local area.

The Sub-Committee was interested to learn why it was felt an increase in hours was acceptable in the area when applications were generally granted to core hours only? Mr Sepanje stated that customers dined at the premises and once they had finished their meal left the area. The customers were not rowdy or intoxicated and usually consisted of repeat customers such as families or local business workers. The premises was a place for customers to relax and as such no music was played. All staff were also fully trained and this would result in the extension in hours causing no impact on the local area. If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application and subsequently the premises did create disturbance the residents always had the option to instigate a review of the premises licence. Overall though the premises had proven itself as a responsible operator over the last six years.

Mr Nevitt, representing Environmental Health (EH), confirmed that a condition was attached to the current licence requiring the premises to operate as a restaurant. The scale of the operation was very small however EH’s representation was maintained on three grounds:

i)          The application was seeking to operate beyond core hours. Previous Sub-Committees had granted other restaurants an extension in hours until 01:00 however this was subject to the impact they would have on their locality. It was recognised that this premises was not situated within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

ii)         There was a concern that granting the application would set a precedent in the local area. The restaurant was situated in a small pedestrianised area containing residential properties and granting the extension could potentially lead to applications from neighbouring premises.

iii)       Local residents had major concerns over the application. It was a very quiet area late at night with low ambient noise levels. The later in the evening noise was made the more obvious and apparent it would become. This could result from people talking or the scraping of tables and chairs etc.

Mr Nevitt acknowledged that the premises was professionally operated and some unsubstantiated complaints had been made against it. However concerns were raised over the impact the extension in hours would have on the local area.

Mr Thomas, representing the Orbiton Estate, described how Carrington House located nearby was very residential. Mr Thomas introduced a witness, Mr Tim Steel, who was appearing on behalf of the Orbiton Estate residents. Mr Thomas indicated that Orbiton Estates had given specific permission to Mr Steel to speak on their behalf. Mr Steel explained how the licenced premises in the local area had all signed up to a voluntary code to monitor the area and implement schemes such as preventing smokers outside from taking drinks with them in order to minimise the impact they had on residents.

In response to a query from Mr Thomas regarding the percentage of revenue generated from alcohol Mr Sepanje confirmed that it constituted approximately only 1% as it was a food-led premises. Mr Thomas highlighted that the application was seeking to extend hours for the sale of alcohol beyond core hours. For the Sub-Committee to grant the application it had to be satisfied the extension would not cause any problems, bearing in mind there were residential properties directly above the premises. Mr Thomas circulated, with the agreement of all parties, the original Sub-Committee decision granting a premises licence in 2012 which was an application identical to the one before it now. At that time the Sub-Committee granted the application but only until 00:00 due to its location and the residential concerns raised. Nothing had changed since that application. Shepherd Market was a small, enclosed area where any noise generated was exacerbated. The applicant had stated there had been no complaints but the representation submitted by Mr Deavin provided details of the high levels of noise nuisance already generated something this application would increase. The history of the premises also provided some concern. The premises licence had been transferred three times in three years and this gave rise to concerns over how the premises could operate in the future. The applicant had also described how families were one of the main customers at the premises, however this was unlikely to be the case for the later hours requested.

Mr Thomas advised that the application had to be judged on its merits but with the evidence provided by Mr Deavin, the residential nature of the area and the hours requested being beyond core hours the application failed on its merits. The application would inevitably create nuisance to residents and no conditions had been offered by the applicant to provide any reassurance to the Sub-Committee it would promote the licensing objectives. It was recognised that the application would make a difference to the revenue of applicant’s premises however it would also make a detrimental difference to the amenity of local residents.

Mr Sepanje explained that he knew many of the local residents and they had never raised any concerns with him previously. With regards to the future he was planning to extend the lease and remain at the premises for the foreseeable future. He had a commitment to the local area and the proposed extra hours would simply help a local business. It was correct that nothing had changed since the previous application in 2012 as he had subsequently shown that he could successfully operate a restaurant in Shepherd Market.

Mr Thomas brought the Sub-Committee’s attention to the restaurant condition attached to the licence and queried if the applicant was complying with it. Mr Sepanje explained that he did understand the condition but he had sometimes sold alcohol to customers who were waiting for their friends to arrive for a meal. He adhered to all the conditions on the licence but in such circumstances he did not want to turn customers away. The response from Mr Sepanje was of great concern to the members of the Sub-Committee as it clearly indicated that he did not fully understand the clear requirements of his licence but also of licensing law in general.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and expressed sympathy with the applicant over the many difficulties faced by small business owners. It was recognised that the Shepherd Market area was quite unusual due to its mix of residential and business properties. The area did contain pedestrianised, narrow streets and it was acknowledged that any noise created would reverberate around the premises creating nuisance to residents. The original decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee in 2012 had granted the licence to 00:00 hours as it had felt this was appropriate for the area. The Sub-Committee did not believe anything had changed in the area subsequently to justify any further increase in the hours. The application was seeking to sell alcohol beyond the core hours policy and it was felt this was not appropriate for its location and would not uphold the licensing objectives. It was important to strike the right balance in the area due to its nature and the application, as presented, would not help achieve this. Concern was also expressed that granting the proposed hours would set a precedent in the area and result in other licenced premises submitting applications to extend hours for the sale of alcohol. This would have the potential of increasing noise disturbance in Shepherd Market and negatively impact on residents’ amenity. No conditions had been offered by the applicant to provide reassurances that the proposals would uphold and promote the licensing objectives and as such the Sub-Committee refused the application accordingly. The Sub-Committee reminded Mr Sepanje that it was important to abide by all the conditions attached to the licence and ensure all sales of alcohol were ancillary to food.

2.

Sales of Retail by Alcohol – On Sales

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The application was refused; see section 1 for further details.

3.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The application was refused; see section 1 for further details.