The Licensing Sub-Committee (3) of Westminster Council met on Thursday 06 November 2025 to consider two licensing applications. The committee granted a new premises licence for Cafe Murano at 52-55 Dorset Street, London, W1U 7NH, with a number of conditions. The committee also revoked the premises licence for Mangia Tutto at 94 Bishop's Bridge Road, London, W2 5AA, due to persistent breaches of licensing conditions and a lack of cooperation with authorities.

New Premises Licence for Cafe Murano, 52-55 Dorset Street, London, W1U 7NH

The committee granted a new premises licence for Cafe Murano, located at 52-55 Dorset Street, London, W1U 7NH, following an application by Ah (Marylebone) Limited. The application sought permission for late-night refreshments and the sale of alcohol. The proposed hours for late-night refreshment were until 23:30 Monday to Thursday, midnight on Friday and Saturday, and 22:30 on Sunday. Alcohol sales were requested from 09:00 to 23:30 Monday to Thursday, 09:00 to midnight on Friday and Saturday, and 09:00 to 22:30 on Sunday. The premises would be open to the public from 08:00 to 23:30 Monday to Thursday, and 08:00 to midnight on Friday and Saturday, and 08:00 to 22:30 on Sunday.

The application received objections from two interested parties, primarily concerning potential public nuisance. However, the Environmental Health Service (EHS) initially raised concerns which were later withdrawn following the agreement of additional conditions. The Metropolitan Police Service raised no objections.

The applicant, represented by Thomas O'Maoileoin of Thomas & Thomas Solicitors, highlighted that the restaurant is part of a successful group owned by renowned restaurateur Angela Hartnett, with no prior complaints or sanctions against their other Westminster establishments. They explained that the application aimed to align the licence with the council's core hours and update archaic conditions on the existing licence. The applicant had attempted to engage with the objectors, offering meetings and telephone calls, but the objections were maintained.

Councillor Judith Southern questioned the applicant's efforts to meet with the objectors, to which Mr O'Maoileoin confirmed they had offered to meet and speak, and had also held a neighbours' evening prior to opening.

The committee discussed specific conditions, agreeing to delete condition 23 as it was a duplication of condition 24, and to amend condition 27 regarding capacity to not to exceed TBC pending a final determination.

In its decision, the Sub-Committee granted the application, finding that the proposed conditions, which were described as robust and up-to-date, would promote the licensing objectives. They noted the applicant as a responsible operator with a proven track-record. Condition 9 was imposed to ensure the premises operates as a bona fide restaurant, with the bar area serving as a holding area. The committee also acknowledged the applicant's proactive engagement with the local community, evidenced by the lack of objections from residents on Dorset Street. The agreed conditions with EHS were considered sufficient to address the concerns of the objectors. The committee also noted that the proposed opening hours, including an 08:00 start, were not considered disproportionate given the focus of objections on late-night noise. The variation for New Year's Eve was also deemed acceptable.

The granted licence includes:

• Late night refreshment: Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30; Friday to Saturday: 23:00 to 00:00. Seasonal variations apply for New Year's Eve and Sundays prior to bank holidays.
• Sale by Retail of Alcohol: Monday to Thursday: 09:00 to 23:30; Friday to Saturday: 09:00 to 00:00; Sunday: 09:00 to 22:30. Seasonal variations apply.
• Hours premises are open to the public: Monday to Thursday: 08:00 to 23:30; Friday to Saturday: 08:00 to 00:00; Sunday: 08:00 to 22:30. Seasonal variations apply.

A number of conditions were imposed, including those relating to CCTV, incident logs, waste management, and a Challenge 25 proof of age scheme. Condition 9 specifically states that The supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a substantial table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal; save for those patrons in the designated bar area.

Review of Premises Licence for Mangia Tutto, 94 Bishop's Bridge Road, London, W2 5AA

The committee unanimously decided to revoke the premises licence for Mangia Tutto, located at 94 Bishop's Bridge Road, London, W2 5AA, following an application for review by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The review was brought on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

Representations in support of the review were received from the Licensing Authority and the Environmental Health Service (EHS). Notably, no representations were received from the Premises Licence Holder (PLH).

The MPS, represented by Gabriel Nelson, detailed a pattern of obstructive and uncooperative behaviour from the premises towards both the police and council officers. This included alleged aggression, attempts to intimidate officers, and a lack of knowledge or engagement regarding the premises licence conditions and the designated premises supervisor (DPS). Evidence suggested the premises was operating unsupervised, with reports of further criminality including fights, assaults, and drug dealing, and indications of links to organised crime. The MPS requested the licence be revoked due to breaches of conditions, including alcohol supply without a DPS or personal licence, alcohol served independently of meals, and failure to provide CCTV access.

PC Steve Muldoon confirmed that the premises was currently closed for refurbishment and may have changed hands again. He stated that if the licence were revoked, the MPS and Licensing Authority would monitor the premises to ensure they were aware of the lack of a licence.

The Licensing Authority, represented by Jessica Donovan, supported the police's application, citing continuous failure to comply with licence conditions, obstructive behaviour, and the removal of public notices advertising the review. The failure of the PLH to attend the hearing was seen as a lack of respect for the licensing process.

Gam Gurung, Senior Environmental Health Officer, presented evidence of severe hygiene issues, including mouse droppings, a dead mouse, out-of-date food, and poor cleaning standards. A Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notice was served, which was subsequently removed from the premises, constituting a further breach. Mr Gurung stated that the premises would require permission to reopen and would need to follow a specific procedure. Anil Drayan from the Environmental Health Service supported the revocation, stating the operator was not responsible.

The committee considered the options available, including modifying conditions, excluding licensable activities, removing the DPS, suspending the licence, or revoking it. Based on the overwhelming evidence of non-compliance, obstruction, and a complete lack of confidence in the PLH's ability to promote the licensing objectives, the committee determined that revocation was the only appropriate and proportionate action. The committee noted that the PLH's failure to engage with the review process demonstrated an irresponsible and uncooperative operator.