Agenda item

Boxcar Butchers Ltd, 7A Wyndham Place, W1

17/14687/LIPN (“The Premises”)

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr McCann, representing the Applicant.  He stated that the provisional name for the Premises would be Boxcar Visions.  The concept was that the Premises would be a delicatessen with a limited number of seats for consumption of food and drink inside the Premises and in the outside area.  The alcohol offer would comprise wine and Craft beer and the food would include cheese, bread, sandwiches, salads.  The Premises has an A1 planning use so there was a restriction in terms of what food could be prepared on site.  It was stated that no primary cooking would be permitted on the Premises.

Mr McCann advised the Sub-Committee that the outside area in Crawford Street is part of the demise of the Premises.  It was not public highway.  The Sub-Committee was advised that a property licence with conditions had been agreed between Portman Estate, the landlord and the Applicant to use this area.  Inside the Premises there was a range of produce on a large table, including charcuterie.  There would be shelves for provisions including milk, tea, coffee and eggs.  There would be seating and stools on the ground floor.  A decision was yet to be made as to whether there would be a table and two stools/chairs underneath the stairs in the basement.

Mr McCann referred to the representations received in relation to the application.  Proposed conditions in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application had been agreed with the Metropolitan Police and they had subsequently withdrawn their representation.  Proposed conditions had also been agreed with Environmental Health save for one condition that outside of the operating hours alcohol should be secured in a locked store room or behind locked grilles.  This had now been replaced with a condition agreed between the Applicant and Environmental Health that ‘all tills shall automatically prompt staff to refuse an alcohol sale outside the hours permitted for the supply of alcohol’.  Mr McCann added that the tills at the delicatessen were programmed so that they did not permit the Applicant to sell alcohol outside of the permitted hours.

In terms of the residents’ representations, Mr McCann identified that one of the key concerns was the hours of operation.  He explained that the reason the Applicant had applied for Core Hours was to have the scope to cater for customers in the event the Premises was popular during the evening.  It was possible that customers would only visit the Premises to have a tea or coffee or a glass of wine with their lunch and that there would be some demand immediately after working hours.  If that was the case the Applicant would look at closing the Premises at 18:30 hours.  Mr McCann added that there were other premises in the vicinity that  operated until Core Hours.

Mr McCann stated that the other area of contention for residents was the use of the outside area in Crawford Street.  He made the point that whilst this was deemed to be part of the demise and that a tables and chairs licence was not required, this would not result in the Applicant abusing their privilege in terms of how the outside area was used.  If the licence holder did not meet the terms of the property licence agreed with the landlord for the outside area, the latter could terminate the licence.  Mr McCann expressed the view that it was far easier to terminate the licence arrangement than it was to terminate the lease. 

The Applicant had agreed proposed conditions for the outside area with Environmental Health in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.  Mr McCann referred to customers having to be seated, that the licence holder had to ensure there would be no obstruction of the highway (there was the potential for a review of the premises licence if this was not complied with) and all outside tables and chairs would be rendered unusable by 22:00 each day (this had been amended from 23:00 by the Applicant).

Mr McCann said that there was office space and not residents directly above the Premises.  He disputed that there was insufficient width for tables and chairs to be acceptable outside the Premises which was an issue for residents, advising that the complete width of the pavement (the Applicant’s area plus the pavement) was 10 feet 8 inches or 3.25 metres (there were bollards and a lamp post on the pavement).  Mr McCann made the point that in the event the outside area was not part of the Applicant’s demise, there would have to be a minimum of 1.8 metres of public highway and that would leave 1.45 metres for a tables and chairs licence if this had been required.  It was intended that tables and chairs would be parallel to the window to reduce the overall space used outside.  He also added that if the Applicant had not applied for the sale of alcohol, there would be no restriction on the use of the outside area.

Mr McCann did not accept the argument in the written representations that the proposed hours on Sunday were unacceptable as they were within the Council’s Core Hours policy.  He emphasised that the Premises were small and not located in one of the Council’s designated cumulative impact areas.  However, in the spirit of good community relations, the Applicant wished to work closely with residents and management telephone contact details were available.     

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Watson on behalf of Environmental Health.  He stated that the application was inside Core Hours.  The Premises had A1 retail use and could not be a restaurant.  There would be no primary cooking.  There would be customers that would come to the Premises, buy something and then leave and in those circumstances it was rare to require a capacity condition.  The basement area was quite small and inside the Premises there would probably be less than 20 people.

Mr Watson confirmed that he had agreed a condition with the Applicant that ‘all tills shall automatically prompt staff to refuse an alcohol sale outside the hours permitted for the supply of alcohol’.  He advised that he was withdrawing the amendment to proposed condition 13 regarding the removal of waste or recyclable materials, including bottles.  The content of the condition which specified the hours unless collections are arranged during the times for the Council’s own commercial waste collection service for the street would be examined by the Council’s legal services prior to being proposed in future by Environmental Health.

Mr Watson spoke about the conditions that had been agreed by the Applicant.  These included that there would be no self-service of alcohol, the supply of alcohol would be by waiter or waitress service to seated customers inside and outside the Premises and licensable activities at the Premises would be ancillary to the main function of the Premises as a retail shop and delicatessen.  Alcohol would not be a major part of the offering.

Mr Watson advised that the Council’s policy on the use of tables and chairs outside tends to support applications to 23:00.  However, the Applicant had reduced the terminal hour for their use to 22:00.  He added that he was content with the application.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by local residents.   Mr Frazer-Price stated that he lives opposite the proposed site.  His concerns related to the licensing hours and the placement of tables and chairs outside the Premises.  Adding to the concerns was that there is a school next door to the Premises and how the outside area would be managed with the likes of over 40 schoolchildren and also mothers with prams needing to get past the tables and chairs, particularly during school hours.  Mr Frazer-Price commented that there was also restricted space due to the bollards and lamp post fronting the Premises from the pavement.

Mr Frazer-Price requested that drinking outside the premises ceased at 21:00.  This was in order that it was in line with the permitted hours for The Larrik Pub in Crawford Place.  He had concerns that a later permitted hour for outside drinking would create a precedent in the area, including the Duke of Wellington across the road if it reopened.

Mr Barham made the point that the space from the lamp post to the end of the demise of the shop was 95cm.  This he believed this would create problems for mothers with prams and pushchairs, particularly if customers in the outside area decided to stand on the pavement.  He also was concerned that customers would buy alcohol inside the Premises and want to make use of the benches in Wyndham Place.

Mr Barham was content with the shop opening at 08:00 but was keen that tables and chairs were not placed outside at this time on the ground it would cause noise for local residents living opposite.  He acknowledged that residents had requested no Sunday trading but added that he was particularly seeking that the terminal hour on Sunday was reduced.  In general, he had concerns regarding trade at the delicatessen at a later hour in a residential area.  This was because of the impact of the noise on residents from people outside talking, car engines starting up or car doors being slammed.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Brown, representing Mr Fyfe and also Mr Fyfe.  Mr Brown expressed concerns that the pavement in Crawford Street outside the premises being very narrow.  The bollards were slightly set in from the kerb.  According to Mr Fyfe’s measurements, the distance between the lamp post and the beginning of the demise of the Applicant is 3 feet 3 inches.  The distance between the Applicant’s demise and the doorway of the premises is 4 feet 5 inches.  Mr Brown added that Mr Fyfe was of the view that people would be blocked from being able to walk along the street.

Mr Brown queried whether the Applicant would not require a tables and chairs licence due to the proximity of the demise to the highway.  He also requested further details of the property licence agreement for the outside area between the Applicant and the landlord in terms of what the constraints were.  Mr Brown explained that residents did not know how many tables and chairs would be placed outside by the Applicant.  He referred to Environmental Health’s written representation which had indicated they had discussed with the Applicant there being up to 6 to 8 seated outside on the private forecourt.  Mr Brown believed this indicated approximately 2 to 3 tables and that much would depend on the size of the tables used.  These he added would need to be small.  Mr Fyfe was concerned about the close proximity of the school.

Mr Brown commented that it was his understanding that the premises licence for The Duke of Wellington pub opposite had been surrendered.

Mr Fyfe spoke of there being several restaurants further down towards Baker Street which had outside tables.  However, they did not have bollards or lamp posts outside on the pavements.  This was likely to add to congestion for pushchairs and occasional wheelchairs.  Any tables and chairs would need to be set parallel to the shop.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr McCann whether it was intended that the tables and chairs would be located on the left hand side of the premises to avoid the lamp post or whether they would be positioned in front of the whole frontage.  He replied that it was yet to be decided.  A table would not be positioned at a pinchpoint.  The tables were likely to be 2 to 2 feet 6 inches in size.

Mr McCann said that it was appreciated by the Applicant that alcohol purchased at the Premises could not be consumed in Wyndham Place.  It was necessary for it to be consumed at the tables and chairs directly outside the premises.  The Applicant was also aware that there is a school next door and Mr McCann commented that there was no reason to think that this would cause any issues. 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr McCann estimated that there would be a maximum of 15 people inside and 8 outside at the 4 tables.

Mr McCann clarified for the Sub-Committee what the terms of the property licence agreement were between the Applicant and the landlord for the outside forecourt area.  It was stated that the Applicant had covenanted to use the area for the permitted use and these included keeping the forecourt clean, no playing of music, no noise escape, no smoking of shisha, removing furniture from the forecourt outside the opening hours, take all reasonable steps to remove glasses, bottles and cutlery and not allow customers to obstruct the public highway.

The Sub-Committee noted the concerns of local residents regarding the proposed hours and the operation of the outside area. The Sub-Committee considered that the Applicant would be able to use the outside area without any restrictions if the sale of alcohol was not permitted.  In granting the application, the Sub-Committee was able to restrict the use of the outside area to 22:00 as agreed by the Applicant and which was acceptable to Environmental Health and attach conditions.  The Sub-Committee decided to restrict the maximum numbers using the tables and chairs in the outside forecourt to 8 at any one time in line with discussions between the Applicant and Environmental Health.  The Sub-Committee expected the Applicant to proceed in accordance with the stated aim of Mr McCann at the hearing and not allow customers or chairs and tables to create an obstruction at the pinchpoints.    

The Applicant had agreed conditions proposed by the Responsible Authorities, including that customers would have to be seated outside and that the licence holder would ensure that there would be no obstruction of the public highway from patrons and/or furniture from the Premises.  The Applicant had appreciated that not only was it necessary to comply with the property licence agreement with the landlord but that if the conditions were not complied with and the licensing objectives were not promoted, particularly in the event of public nuisance being caused to local residents, there was the potential for the premises licence to be reviewed. 

Mr McCann clarified that the aspect of the application relating to the additional hours sought from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve until the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day had been withdrawn.      

2.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and Off)

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.

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):

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below.

4.

Seasonal variations / Non-standard timings

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr McCann clarified that the aspect of the application relating to the additional hours sought from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve until the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day had been withdrawn.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the proposed hours for Sundays prior to Bank Holidays.