Agenda item

Basement and Ground Floor, 88 Great Portland Street, W1

17/11140/LIPN

1.

Films

Monday to Sunday:                                     07:00 to 23:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application had been adjourned from a previous hearing held on 14 December in order for the Applicant Company to address concerns raised at the meeting and to provide clarification in respect of the proposed operation of the premises.

This was a new application for a Premises Licence in respect of premises which, according to the application, would operate as a nail and beauty salon. The supply and consumption of alcohol at the premises would be restricted to patrons attending the premises for, and ancillary to, nail and beauty treatment as well as the guests of such patrons. 

Jonathan Millet (Director, Applicant Company) began by stating that the application was for a new nail and beauty salon concept that would offer a relaxed environment for both working professionals and local residents. He asserted that the area had a high footfall with many working professionals employed in the area which made for an ideal location for a premises of this type. The premises covered over 2,000 square feet, with a large manicure bar located on the ground floor and the basement used for specialist treatment. The premises had undergone a high end refurbishment and Mr Millet stated that the average customer spent 45 to 60 minutes on the premises. The application to supply alcohol and show films had been made to enhance the customer experience, however both of these activities would be ancillary to the premises’ main use as a nail bar. Mr Millet stated that it was also intended for the premises to be used by other organisations, such as Estee Lauder, for private events and if the Sub-Committee agreed to this, the Applicant Company would be happy to limit such events to a duration of 2.5 hours by condition. Mr Millet stated that the premises would operate so that working professionals and local residents could visit in the morning before normal work hours, lunchtime and earlier in the evening. The premises core hours would be 09:00 to 21:00 and there was already high customer demand, so the premises may open until 22:00 on some days to accommodate this.

Charles Holland (Counsel representing the Applicant Company) then addressed the Sub-Committee and referred to the conditions that had been agreed between the Applicant Company and Environmental Health. Mr Holland first drew Members’ attention to proposed conditions 30 to 32 in relation to prevention of accumulation of litter and waste outside the premises, a Challenge 21 proof of age scheme and recording refusal of sales of alcohol. With regard to proposed conditions 26 and 27, Mr Holland stated that this would ensure that sale and consumption of alcohol and the showing of films would remain ancillary to the premises’ use as a nail and beauty salon. He advised that there would be no cinema area in the premises and that a screen located above the stairs on the ground floor would be used to show films. There would also be no bar that customers could sit at and all alcohol provided to customers would be through staff. Conditions 19 and 20 addressed capacity issues, including during private events to address residents’ concerns and Mr Holland advised that there would be 2 toilets on the premises, with one solely for staff use on most occasions. In respect of conditions 22 and 23, Mr Holland requested that the restrictions for times for waste and recycling collection be amended from 20:00 to 08:30 to 21:00 to 07:00 as recycling collection times commenced prior to 08:30 in the neighbourhood. He also suggested that proposed condition 34 could replace proposed condition 23 in respect of waste and recycling materials being placed outside. In respect of an email sent by Sharon Palazzo (local resident) requesting similar conditions to that of Whisky Exchange which was located near the premises, Mr Holland asserted that these had been offered by the premises licence holder of Whiskey Exchange.

Maxwell Koduah (Environmental Health) then addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Koduah advised that most of his concerns had been addressed and that proposed conditions 43 and 45 be duly added as requested by the Applicant Company in respect of waste and recycling collections. Mr Koduah stated that he would have no objection to proposed condition 44 being deleted in respect of placing waste and recycling outside if condition 34 was agreed. He confirmed that he was otherwise satisfied with the application.

Richard Brown (Solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau, representing local residents Sharon Palazzo, Debroah Knight, Sarah Cole, Frank Thaxton and Anjuli Dhawan) then addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Brown stated that residents had initially been particularly concerned about proposals for the premises to be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and they welcomed the revised reduction in proposed hours. In respect of Whisky Exchange, Mr Brown stated that residents had worked hard to have suitably restrictive conditions imposed on the premises licence and the applicant had subsequently agreed to reduce the terminal hour for licensable activities and opening times to 20:00, as well as conditions relating to deliveries and events. Residents desired consistency and felt similar hours and conditions relating to deliveries and events should apply to this application. Mr Brown stated that 5 new units were being developed on Great Portland Street and one already had a licence to sell alcohol. Whilst acknowledging that there had been extensive engagement between the Applicant Company and residents, Mr Brown stated that it had been difficult for residents to liaise with the Applicant Company since last week over conditions due to the number of changes proposed. Residents felt that the hours proposed were still excessively late. Mr Brown disputed that this part of Great Portland Street experienced a high footfall and he asserted that it was a much quieter part of the street, particularly later in the evening. He then referred to the photographs in the report and stated that the building’s owners were planning on selling the flats above the premises and the residents who would move in would not have had the opportunity to make representations. Mr Brown suggested that sale of alcohol be restricted to a terminal hour of 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 18:00 on Sunday.

Mr Brown then referred to the proposed conditions. Drawing Members’ attention to condition 13 in respect of maximum persons permitted not exceeding the figure prescribed by the risk assessment, Mr Brown suggested that this condition would be difficult to enforce. In relation to condition 19 regarding a capacity of 25 persons when one toilet was available to customers and a capacity of 49 persons when two toilets were available, he felt that the difference was too great. Condition 20 in relation to private events was not sufficiently tight and any event outside regular business hours should be appropriately controlled. Mr Brown suggested that a maximum capacity of 16 persons should be set for any pre-arranged events to reduce the potential number of customers consuming alcohol. The Sub-Committee heard that there was another beauty salon nearby which closed at 20:00 hours. In respect of condition 21 concerning dispersal and smoking policy, Mr Brown suggested that model condition 71 of the City Council’s basket of model conditions would be more appropriate. Residents were content with condition 27 limiting the supply and consumption of alcohol, apart from the reference to bona fide guests which had the potential to significantly increase the number of customers partaking in this activity. Mr Brown stated that recycling collections commenced at 07:00 only on Thursdays. Condition 48 concerning signage requesting patrons to leave the area quietly could be placed inside the premises. In respect of condition 52, Mr Brown acknowledged that there was to be no bar on the premises, however one was shown on the plans. He added that condition 58 should prescribe the maximum number of smokers outside. Mr Brown confirmed that residents were content with proposed condition 26 which stated that licensable activities authorised by this licence and provided at the premises shall be ancillary to the main function of the premises as a nail and beauty salon.

During Members’ discussions, further information was sought concerning private events and clarification on who the bona fide guests were likely to be, and as these guests were not receiving treatment, did this mean they could be on the premises solely to consume alcohol. It was remarked that condition 20 meant that up to 25 customers could be consuming alcohol for up to 2.5 hours. Further details were also sought in relation to showing films and how many would be shown during the course of the day. In relation to private events booked by local companies, the Sub-Committee asked if this was part of the Applicant Company’s business plan and would this aspect of activities be advertised. Members asked what the average length of treatment would be and clarification was sought as to whether there would actually be a bar on the premises as one was marked in the plans, and if there was to be one, would customers be able to drink from it. It was asked whether the premises would have a reception area and further information was also sought concerning the Applicant Company’s intention to operate for extended hours on some occasions.

In reply to issues raised by the Sub-Committee, Mr Millet advised that the premises could accommodate up to 16 persons having treatment at the same time which took between 45 to 60 minutes. Customers may be waiting for treatment and so this was why a limit of 25 persons had been proposed. Mr Millet stated that private events were unlikely to take place on the ground floor because of the large manicure fixture located there. He stated that 95% of business would be customers receiving treatment, however occasionally companies might approach the Applicant Company to request booking the premises for a private event, although this activity would ancillary to the premises’ main use as a nail and beauty salon. Mr Millet stated that companies had already made such requests, however the Applicant Company did not want to hold too many private functions as this could dissuade the core customer base. In respect of bona fide guests, Mr Millet emphasised that alcohol would only be provided to them by staff serving them these drinks.  He advised that the Applicant Company did not intend to hold film events and the application to show films was so that recorded films could be shown at low volume as background entertainment. Films would be shown on a loop and may include classic older films such as Casablanca and there was no designated film area. Mr Millet did not strongly object to the condition stating that there would be no bar and all patrons would be served whilst seated. He confirmed that there was a reception area immediately after the entrance of the premises. Mr Millet stated that having extended hours was essential to the business. The core hours would be between 09:00 to 21:00, however on some days the Applicant Company may want to remain open until 22:00 and the application to operate until that hour had been made to give the Applicant Company scope to do so if there was a clear demand later in the evening.

Mr Holland stated that although a bar had been marked on the plans, the word had erroneously been made by the draughtsman producing them and in fact the area marked as a bar was a shelving area and customers would not be able to be seated around it. He confirmed that there would be no dispensing of alcohol from a ‘bar’ on the premises. Alcohol would be displayed so customers could see what was on offer and would include products such as bottles of champagne.

Chris Wroe (Policy Adviser) asked the Applicant Company if they would be content to agree model condition 39 stating that the supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only. Mr Wroe stated that residents had concerns about the potential for customers to be consuming alcohol whilst standing and would this be taking place on the premises and did the capacity take account of this. In respect of proposed condition 27 relating to bona fide guests, Mr Wroe invited the Applicant Company to suggest a maximum number of bona fide guests per customer.

Barry Panto (Legal Adviser) remarked that condition 42 as proposed by Environmental Health in relation to securing alcohol outside the hours of authorised sales was a model condition in and he asked the Applicant Company why they objected to this. Mr Panto sought the Applicant Company’s views in respect of proposed condition 53 relating to patrons leaving and re-entering the premises and condition 57 concerning films being shown as an ancillary activity to the premises’ main use as a nail and beauty salon.

In reply to questions from Mr Wroe and Mr Panto, Mr Holland, on behalf of the Applicant Company, confirmed that they would be happy with model condition 39 to be added to the premises licence. Mr Holland suggested that the Applicant Company’s proposed conditions 26 and 33 already addressed conditions 53 and 57 respectively as proposed by residents. Mr Holland stated that some customers, including their guests, may wish to stand whilst they were waiting and they also may be consuming alcohol whilst doing so or be seated elsewhere from the person they had arrived with. The physical constraints of the building limited capacity to 25 persons and there were 16 treatment places. In respect of the proposed opening hours, Mr Holland stated that the premises was not in a cumulative impact area and in his view the Whisky Exchange decision did not set a precedent. Mr Holland suggested that nail and beauty salons tended to remain open later than other types of retail establishment and he asserted that Great Portland Street had a high volume of traffic during the day and night which led to a higher level of background noise.

Mr Holland confirmed that the proposed works condition 13 could be withdrawn as a capacity limit had been set and conditions 19 and 20 were appropriate and suitably rigorous and condition 19 could replace proposed condition 41. In respect of waste and recycling, Mr Holland stated that Environmental Health had advised that the commencement hour of 08:00 could be problematic because of recycling collection times in the area sometimes commencing at earlier times, although the Applicant Company wished to accommodate residents’ wishes where possible. In respect of proposed condition 48 suggested by residents, Mr Holland felt that this was not appropriate as the premises was not a bar or a nightclub and he suggested that staff taking a personal approach to customers in ensuring customers left the premises quietly would be more effective than placing signage. In respect of proposed condition 58 prohibiting people from smoking outside the premises, Mr Holland stated that this was not enforceable as the area was a public highway.

Mr Millet felt that proposed condition 25 was sufficient instead of condition 42. In relation to condition 27, he suggested that the number of bona fide guests be restricted to a maximum of 3 per patron. Mr Millet then agreed to Mr Panto’s suggestion that conditions be added stating that the premises must not operate as a drinks led establishment and the mandatory film condition.

The Sub-Committee granted the application, subject to adding the mandatory film condition and a condition stating that the premises must not operate under this licence as a drinks led establishment, as agreed by Mr Millet at the hearing. Model condition 39 stating that the supply of alcohol shall be by waiter or waitress service only, was also added as agreed by Mr Milllet at the hearing. Model condition 22 limiting the number of customers to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, such as to smoke, to 5 persons was also added to address the concerns raised by local residents. The condition in respect of bona fide guests of patrons was amended to limit the number to a maximum of 3 guests per patron, as suggested by Mr Millet at the hearing and to address residents’ concerns. The condition relating to private events was amended to state that there shall be no pre-arranged, private events authorised under this licence lasting more than 2.5 hours or accommodating more than 25 customers at any one time. The proposed condition in relation to managing patrons who are smoking outside the premises was replaced by model condition 71, as suggested by Mr Brown. Other proposed conditions were also deleted where they were already covered by similar worded conditions, or not felt appropriate or enforceable.

In determining the application, the Sub-Committee recognised that the premises would operate primarily as a nail and beauty salon, it was not located in a cumulative impact area, and the hours applied for were well within core hours. The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the premises licence would be subject to extensive conditions that would help address concerns raised by local residents. The Sub-Committee also considered that the conditions to be added to the premises licence would help the Applicant Company to uphold the promotion of the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

2.

Sale by retail of alcohol: On and Off Sales

Monday to Sunday:                         10:00 to 22:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Hours premises are open to the public

Monday to Sunday:                         07:00 to 23:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).