Agenda item

Studio 88, 47 Whitcomb Street, WC2 (“The Premises”)

17/08880/LIPN

1.

Films (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms Davies, representing the Applicant.  She referred to the Premises having a chequered past with the licence of the previous tenant, who had no connection with the current Applicant, having been revoked two years previously (the Premises had previously been known as Press).  Ms Davies advised that the Premises had not operated since then.  The landlord was keen to bring in the right tenant.

Ms Davies explained that Mr Lorrimer currently operated an establishment known as The Piano Works in Farringdon.  The Piano Works are located in a cumulative impact area in the London Borough of Islington and Ms Davies said that Mr Lorrimer therefore had experience of meeting the exacting requirements of a cumulative impact area.  The Premises in Farringdon had previously been the subject of two reviews as a result of the actions of former Premises licence holders.  Ms Davies made the point that Mr Lorrimer had turned the Premises round and gained the trust of the authorities.

Ms Davies described the concept which was the subject of the current application.  It was intended that Studio 88 would be a live music venue where a number of musicians would come together and play live music based on impromptu requests of the audience.  The Sub-Committee was advised that there would be two grand pianos, a drummer and a guitarist and the performers would not necessarily have played together previously.  The target market was principally female aged 20-35.  Ms Davies stated that the Premises had previously operated as a nightclub and had good acoustic integrity.  She also made the point that the Applicant intended to employ approximately 80 members of staff.

Ms Davies addressed the Sub-Committee on the food offer at the Premises.  It was anticipated that in excess of 85% of the people who would come to the venue would pre-book several weeks in advance.  Customers would be invited to take up a booking which was linked to food rather than alcohol.  

Ms Davies referred to the testimonials of musicians who praised The Piano Works in Farringdon and letters of support from Amy Lame, Night Czar at the Greater London Authority, the Music Venue Trust and also Caffe Nero.

Mr Lorrimer advised that it was very important for his business to nurture new talent.  The business employed over 50 musicians.  It was his long term aim to set up a world class music venue at 47 Whitcomb Street and also a music academy to teach students.

Ms Davies addressed the Sub-Committee on the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”).  She referred to paragraph 1.3 of the SLP which states that the Council ‘gives high priority to the development of greater diversity in the types of entertainment and cultural activity on offer and in the age groups attracted to them’ and also that ‘it is a key feature of the SLP that its policies are intended to encourage change in the composition of Westminster’s night-time economy so that it becomes more widely based and less dominated by alcohol led premises, and this promotes the licensing objectives’.  Ms Davies also quoted paragraph 2.4.25 of the SLP which states that ‘the Licensing Authority wishes to encourage the provision of a range of entertainment…and to reduce the extent of dominance of pubs, bars and night clubs in the West End Cumulative Impact Area’. Ms Davies mentioned paragraph 2.5.22 which she believed was relevant although it specifically referred to pubs and bars.  ‘They provide venues for live music which, aside from its cultural benefits and its enjoyment by customers, often has a positive effect on licensing objectives’.  Finally, Ms Davies referred to paragraph 2.5.36 of the SLP which states that ‘The Council welcomes the vital contribution that theatres, cinemas, concert halls and other performance venues make in providing the diverse cultural and entertainment that attracts people of all ages into Westminster, and maintains its status as a world class city. The Council as the Licensing Authority accepts that these types of uses are unlikely to be linked with crime and disorder, and generally have less impact on residents than other licensable activities. The substitution of these types of uses in the Cumulative Impact Areas in place of pubs, bars and alcohol led music and dance venues will be likely to promote the licensing objectives’. 

Ms Davies said that for the above reasons the application would promote the licensing objectives.  The exceptional reasons for granting the application were the nature of the entertainment, that Studio 88 would be a performance venue and that it was a unique cultural offering, that the venue was 85% pre-booked with the bookings taking place a number of weeks in advance, the application was not drink led, there was an emphasis on food promotion, there would be substantial seating, customers would be there principally for the live music.  Ms Davies also made the point there were no objections received in response to the application from residents.

The Sub-Committee heard from Ms Davies that proposed conditions had been agreed between the Applicant and Environmental Health and the Police.  She also explained the additional steps that the Applicant was prepared to take to promote the licensing objectives in terms of its management of the Premises.  This included security staff patrolling significantly beyond the area of the demise of Studio 88. 

Mr Moffatt informed the Sub-Committee of his experience, including managing bars and working for higher end establishments.  It was his intention at Studio 88 to have similar service standards which are present at The Piano Works.  This would include 5 hosts, 10 waiters, 6 managers, a team of chefs and 9 glass collectors. It was also intended that an area of approximately 300 metres around the premises would be kept clean and that external CCTV and the lighting in Whitcomb Court would be improved.

Mr Sycamore on behalf of the Licensing Authority initially asked a question of the Applicant.  He asked for clarity in respect of the seating arrangements.  Mr Moffatt replied that there was fixed seating for 350 out of a total capacity of 400.  The dancing area would be around the stage.  There would be tables around the fixed seating.

Mr Sycamore commented that as there was dancing the application did fit into policy MD2 for music and dancing in a designated cumulative impact area.  It is the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications for music and dancing in the cumulative impact areas, other than applications to vary hours within Core Hours.  He did not believe the Applicant had explained sufficiently as to why there should be a capacity of 400 in the West End Cumulative Impact Area well past Core Hours which would add to cumulative impact quite significantly.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Nevitt.  He referred to the licence for Press being revoked and the venue being empty for the last two years.  Mr Nevitt was content that there was good acoustic integrity and it was very unlikely that there would be any noise breakout.  He stated that on one hand the SLP clearly favoured entertainment and performance venues to pubs and clubs.  He believed Policy 2.5.33 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy was potentially relevant.  However, there was music and dancing involved in the application.  The application was for hours significantly beyond Core Hours in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.  Mr Nevitt also queried whether the Applicant had demonstrated that the application would not have a detrimental effect on cumulative impact.  He confirmed that the Applicant had agreed Environmental Health’s proposed conditions.

Mr Nevitt also mentioned the improvements being offered by the Applicant in terms of improved lighting, CCTV coverage and street cleaning.  He expressed the view that this was a very different operation from the previous tenant’s running of Press.  Mr Nevitt confirmed that he and PC Guerra had visited The Piano Works at Farringdon (this was not during trading hours).  It was not in his view a typical nightclub operation.

Mr Nevitt advised that it was for the Applicant to consider whether there needed to be any flexibility in relation to the application, including the operating hours and the conditions such as management of queues or outside smokers.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, he said that the key issue for Environmental Health was likely to be the dispersal of up to 400 people at 03:00 (the Sub-Committee noted that the capacity was also likely to include an additional 80 staff).  However, the operation of the Premises was likely to be different from a nightclub in that customers were less likely to drink excessively with food and live music being available, there would potentially be a more phased departure of customers and the customers would be mostly seated in the Premises.

The Sub-Committee also heard from PC Guerra on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.  He drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to there having been two Premises licences in existence for Press.  The ‘primary’ licence held by the tenant had been revoked but the ‘shadow’ or ‘secondary’ licence for the Premises in the name of the landlord had not been revoked in 2015 and was capable of being used.  Some of the conditions on the licence had been reflected in the new application.

PC Guerra advised that whilst the application was for an entertainment venue, it was still alcohol led.  It was not similar to a theatre show where alcohol was less of a significant factor.  The Police had proposed that there were polycarbonate drinking vessels at the venue.  It was the view of the Police that the later the terminal hour, the greater the risk would be that customers would cause crime/disorder or become victims of crime.  It was up to the Applicant to demonstrate that the application would not add to crime and disorder.  PC Guerra recommended introducing a last entry time as this would go some way to demonstrate that customers were going to the venue for the entertainment and not just to consume more alcohol.  He advocated the Applicants having an effective plan in place to manage the queues and the smoking areas to reduce the potential for conflict outside.  The Police had proposed conditions including that the designated smoking area would be supervised at all times it was in use and that body worn video systems would be used by the premises immediately during any verbal altercation.  PC Guerra was of the view that even if the conditions were added, there was still some risk because it was an alcohol led venue.

The Sub-Committee noted that there were aspects within the SLP which set out that there should be greater diversity in the types of entertainment and cultural activity on offer.  A live music venue would potentially fit within this category and was potentially attractive in terms of bringing the venue to Westminster.  However, the Applicant was proposing a venue with a large capacity until beyond Core Hours in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.

Clarity was provided to the Applicant that the application did not fit within Policy PVC2 for theatres, cinemas, other performance venues, and qualifying clubs in the Cumulative Impact Areas Policy.  The PVC policy specifically excludes venues where facilities are included for a person to take part in the entertainment and MD2 would apply.  There was a presumption against the grant of the premises.  There were aspects of the application that were attractive, however, in order for the Sub-Committee to determine the application in accordance with the SLP and to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives it needed to be clear on the type of application it was dealing with and the intended business model for these Premises.  The difficulty for the Sub-Committee and a key reason for the adjournment was that the Applicant’s case was that the application was entertainment and food led and yet this was not fully reflected in the proposed conditions.  The only commitment from the Applicant in this regard was that substantial food would be available where alcohol was sold.  This was the type of condition that was attached to drink led nightclub licences.

It was explained to the Applicant that an opportunity was being given to produce more specific proposals in terms of licensing conditions which would ensure that it complied with being entertainment and food led.  One aspect of this would be that the Premises licence could not be transferred to another operator and run as a nightclub.  It was recommended that the Applicant discuss the proposals with the Responsible Authorities who had made representations in respect of the application.

2.

Live Music (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was adjourned to a later date (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Recorded Music (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was adjourned to a later date (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

4.

Performances of dance (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was adjourned to a later date (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

5.

Anything of a similar description to live music, recorded music or performances of dance

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was adjourned to a later date (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

6.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was adjourned to a later date (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

7.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was adjourned to a later date (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

8.

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):

The application was adjourned to a later date (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

9.

Seasonal variations / Non-standard timings

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was adjourned to a later date (see reasons for decision in Section 1).