Agenda item

1 St James’s Market, London, SW1Y 4AH  (“The Premises”)

17/06464/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On and Off

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 23:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by The Crown Estate for a new Premises licence in respect of 1 St James’s Market, London, SW1Y 4AH.

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

Mr O’Maoileoin explained how the application related to the 7^th floor of an office building which had recently been redeveloped by the applicant who he was representing, The Crown Estate. Conditions proposed by the applicant and the City Council’s Environmental Health Department (“EH”) had been agreed aside from a slight amendment to EH’s first condition so it would read “There shall be no fixed bar area at any time at the Premises.” To provide reassurance to the Sub-Committee that the general public would not be able to access the Premises condition 10 had been proposed to ensure that alcohol could only be sold or supplied to Directors, partners, officers and employees of the Licensee and their bona fide guests. Also, a list of those attending private events would be maintained at the reception and be made readily available for inspection by the relevant authorities upon request. Mr O’Maoileoin stated to the Sub-Committee that the hours requested were slightly less than core hours and the licence would be ancillary to the use of the Premises as corporate offices.

Mr O’Maoileoin recognised that the Premises was located within a Cumulative Impact Area (“CIA”) however it was felt the nature of the application and the proposed conditions to be added to the licence would satisfy the Sub-Committee that it would uphold the promotion of the licensing objectives and not add to cumulative impact in the area. It was stated that the Licensing Service’s representation focused on the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. In response it was highlighted to the Sub-Committee that the Premises was not located in a residential area, there were no residents living within the immediate vicinity and the highway it was located on was not particularly busy. The conditions proposed by the applicant addressed those licensing objectives in particular. They would ensure:

• no events could be held at the Premises by external promoters;
• no draught sales of beer;
• if staff or guests leave the Premises to smoke they would not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them; and
• notices would be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses.

Staff would be on-site at all times when the Premises was in use and help ensure patrons exited the building in a respectful manner. The ground floor of the building was always fully staffed and CCTV would also be operation throughout the entire building to guarantee there was an appropriate level of security and control in place. There would be no fixed bar at any time in the Premises in order to provide reassurance that the Premises would remain an office space. It was acknowledged that the Premises contained a terrace area which could be a source of contention however it was proposed for it to be open throughout the day but with access prohibited after 21:00 hours. To provide extra guarantees that the Premises would not create any noise disturbance a condition had been proposed requiring no noise to emanate from the building.  Mr O’Maoileoin highlighted that the Police had not made a representation as they were satisfied that the application would not create any nuisance or crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee’s attention was also drawn to condition 17 which related to the capacity of the venue. As yet a capacity had not been specified for the premises when the licence was in use and it was hoped this could be agreed at a later date with EH and the District Surveyor. Based on the toilet provision on the floor however it was felt when hosting an event the maximum capacity would be approximately 180 people.

Mr O’Maoileoin was of the opinion that that the conditions offered and agreed hopefully provided assurances to the Sub-Committee that that the application would not add to the cumulative impact in the area and addressed any concerns raised.

Mr Sycamore, representing the Licensing Authority, noted that the Premises was located within a CIA and expressed concern that approximately 180 extra people would have access to alcohol in this sensitive location. It was unclear in the application how many events the Applicant envisaged  planning to hold each year and whether they would also be held on weekends? Further clarification was also sought on the style of events planned to be held at the Premises along with how the Applicant would ensure the dispersal of customers did not result in more people entering further into the CIA.

Mr Koduah, representing EH, provided further details with regards to the issues surrounding the capacity of the venue. It was explained that when licensable activities were taking place the toilet provision of the venue would limit the capacity to 180 persons. However, discussions were still on-going as to the capacity of the premises and in particular how this would change depending on how many persons would be drinking alcohol. Mr Koduah confirmed that EH had no concerns over the use of a temporary bar at the premises.

Mr O’Maoileoin was unaware how many events the applicant intended to hold each year and the number of people expected to attend. Due to the Applicant not being present at the hearing this could not be confirmed to the Sub-Committee However, it was believed the number of events held would be seasonal with more expected in the summer months and around the Christmas period. The Sub-Committee was reminded that the Premises was primarily an office space however and events would not be held on a daily basis. It was submitted that the Applicant, The Crown Estate, was a very responsible organisation and would be very particular with what events they were associated with.

The Sub-Committee was interested to learn why the Applicant felt prohibiting draught beer but allowing the provision of bottled beer would help uphold the licensing objectives? Mr O’Maoileoin confirmed that bottled beer would be available. The availability of draught beer though was generally associated with a different style of event which would normally be drink-led. This application was not seeking to become a drink-led Premises and by prohibiting draught beer was aiming to avoid this. The Sub-Committee noted the Premises location and requested further information on why it was felt this application would not add to cumulative impact in the area? Mr O’Maoileoin highlighted the high degree of security and supervision in place for customers using the Premises. Extensive CCTV coverage, a list held at reception of all potential guests attending events and a large degree of staff supervision would all contribute to ensuring the application did not add to cumulative impact in the area.

The Sub-Committee expressed concern that there seemed to be a lack of clarity with regard to the extent and type of events to be held at the Premises along with the capacity of the venue. Mr O’Maoileoin recognised the difficulties over capacity and was of the opinion that it would be no more than 180 persons. Further clarity over the number of events to be held could not be provided, however this would be limited as the Premises was primarily operating as an office space. The events held would be of a corporate nature and would be hosted in partnership with companies that worked, or had links with, The Crown Estate. Concerns over customers smoking were raised by the Sub-Committee  and Mr O’Maoileoin confirmed that the terrace area could be used by customers up to 21:00 hours. After such hour they would have to smoke on the street and would be prohibited from taking drinks or glass containers with them. 

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application but was of the opinion that it was difficult to make an informed decision on the application due to the lack of clarity in respect of several important elements of the application. It was currently unknown the number of events it was expected to be held each year, the type of events to be held, the capacity of the Premises and what type of affiliated companies would be utilising the Premises all key information the Sub-Committee required in determining the matter.  The Applicant was not present before the Sub-Committee to provide the necessary further information required and to answer these specific questions. The Sub-Committee was therefore of the view that it could not determine the matter properly without this essential information from the Applicant and to be able to reach an appropriate and  proportionate  decision. In the absence of this information the Sub-Committee therefore agreed to adjourn the application to a future Sub-Committee meeting.

2.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Sunday: 00:00 to 00:00

Note:

The general public do not have access to the premises and there will be no external advertising of licensed facilities. Off-sales are restricted to other areas within the building.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was adjourned, the reason for the decision is detailed in section 1.