Agenda and draft minutes

The Playhouse, 91 Jermyn Street, SW1

16/12363/LISEVN

The Sub-Committee initially consulted the parties present as to whether they were content for any matters relating to the Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) application (16/12363/LISEVN) and the variation to the premises licence (16/13620/LIPV) to be raised during the one hearing.  All the parties, including the Applicant, confirmed they were content to proceed in this way.  It was made clear to the parties that the Sub-Committee would take separate decisions in respect of the two applications.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Kolvin, representing the Applicant.  Mr Kolvin apologised that sufficient clarity had not been given of the essence of the SEV application prior to the hearing.  He intended to explain during the hearing what the application involved, why the SEV application was completely different from that applied for at the premises in 2014 and why the proposal was not contrary to the Council’s policies or the licensing objectives.  He also would refer to the suitability of his clients in relation to correspondence which had been submitted by objectors to the application.

Mr Kolvin advised that customers entered a doorway on Jermyn Street and would head down into the basement.  The basement and sub-basement were the two main trading floors.  The basement from the Jermyn Street entrance was effectively the ground floor of the entrance from Ormond Yard which explained why there was some confusion in the papers regarding the description of the floors. At the far end of the basement there was a door which led directly to Ormond Yard.  Mr Kolvin confirmed that this door was effectively being taken out of commission so that there would be no access or egress from Ormond Yard.  Mr Kolvin stated that from the basement there were a further set of stairs to the sub-basement.  Both of the trading floors had a bar.  There was an existing premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 legislation which permitted opening until 03:30 seven days a week.  The basement capacity was 135 people and the sub-basement was 100.  Mr Kolvin referred to the fact that the premises had previously operated as a nightclub, Abracadabra and that representations had expressed concerns regarding anti-social behaviour and noise when the club had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Playhouse, 91 Jermyn Street, SW1

16/13620/LIPV

Following the decision by the Sub-Committee to refuse the application for a Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) at the premises (16/12363/LISEVN), the Applicant confirmed that the application (16/13620/LIPV) to vary the plans and to vary, delete and update conditions was being withdrawn as it was dependent on the SEV application being granted.

Elgin Food & Wine, Ground Floor, 97 Elgin Avenue, W9

16/14167/LIPV

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Jagtap, representing the Applicant.  He brought to the Sub-Committee’s attention that Mr Hakeem, the Applicant, Owner and Designated Premises Supervisor had run Elgin Food & Wine for the last thirteen years.  Mr Hakeem had held an event having operated with a temporary event notice (‘TEN’) on Friday 24 February and Saturday 25 February until 02:00.  It was believed that no issues had arisen as a result of this event.  He added that the premises had not been subject to crime and disorder or public nuisance during all the time Mr Hakeem had been operating at Elgin Food & Wine.

Mr Jagtap referred to the experienced staff and responsible management at the premises.  There were two members of staff at the premises at all times.  He stated that Mr Hakeem in his capacity as a local trader cared about the neighbourhood.  In order to promote the crime and disorder licensing objective, CCTV at the premises was in keeping with Home Office standards and footage was available to the Police at their request.  Mr Jagtap added that there were various security measures in place and staff had received the relevant training.  He believed all four of the licensing objectives were being promoted.

The Sub-Committee then heard from PC Guerra on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.  He stated that the premises were managed responsibly and there was no evidence of crime and disorder resulting from the premises operating to the current hours.  However, he referred to the hours applied for in the application for a variation of the premises licence exceeding the Council’s Core Hours policy.  PC Guerra advised that the sale of alcohol until 02:00 potentially posed several problems for the Police.  Availability of alcohol until late into the night would potentially add to anti-social behaviour, including further drinking in the street in a sensitive area.  Whilst the convenience store is in a controlled drinking zone and the Police had powers to deal with specific issues relating to alcohol, it would result in an additional drain on Police resources. 

PC Guerra also advised that there was the potential for Elgin Food & Wine to become a destination venue due to the hours being sought.  He was concerned that customers would potentially have already consumed alcohol  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Scotch St James, 13 Masons Yard, SW1

16/10483/LISEVR

An application for the renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue licence.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to the same conditions as attached to the previous licence when it was renewed in December 2015.

The Sub-Committee in granting the application accepted the point made by the Applicant’s Representative, Mr Grant, that there were not any grounds for the current application not to be renewed.  The proposed hours and conditions were the same as those originally attached to the Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) licence in 2012 and there had been no proposed amendments to the renewed applications since then.  SEV licences have to be applied for on an annual basis and the licence had been renewed on a number of occasions by the Sub-Committee.  There was no evidence to suggest that Scotch St James was now having an adverse impact on the character of the relevant locality or that anything had changed within the locality since July 2015 to make it unsuitable.  It is located in Westminster core CAZ north.  The appropriate number of SEVs in this area had been set by the Council at 25 and as the premises are currently licensed, there would not be an increase in the number of SEVs.  Mr Grant also referred to the location being suitable as Scotch St James is situated in a secluded courtyard.

The Committee did not consider that there were any concerns regarding the suitability of the applicant.  Members noted that there had not been any representations from the Responsible Authorities.  Mr Grant stated Mr Lalic continued to run a successful nightclub at the premises which was not causing any issues for local residents.  His client was not intending to bring the SEV licence into effect.  Mr Lalic was applying because it was a valuable asset and it was a condition on his lease that it remained in force.

Mr Grant expressed concerns that he had reason to believe that the one objection to the application was from a competitor who had indicated to his client that unless the business was sold to them they would object to the renewal of the SEV licence.