Agenda and minutes

Vanity Bar & Nightclub, 4 Carlisle Street, W1

14/06704/LISEVV

Application:

Application to vary the sexual entertainment venue licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as follows:

·              To amend the plans and remove condition 25 to allow Relevant Entertainment on the ground and first floor of the premises.  The licence currently restricts Relevant Entertainment to the basement.

·              To increase the terminal hours for Relevant Entertainment Monday to Thursday by 3.5 hours from 23:30 to 03:00.

·              To increase the terminal hours for Relevant Entertainment Friday to Saturday by 1 hour from 02:00 to 03:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

At the beginning of the hearing, Mr Skeens, representing the Applicant, informed the Sub-Committee that the Metropolitan Police had intended to submit a representation in respect of the application to vary the sexual entertainment venue (‘SEV’) licence in addition to the Licensing Act 2003 application but this had been overlooked administratively.  Mr Skeens stated that he did not wish to request that the Police were prevented from making a submission regarding the SEV application.  However, he was not aware of the Police’s grounds for their objection and would be at a distinct disadvantage in terms of responding to any points PC Sollars might make.  PC Sollars confirmed that he did wish to speak at the hearing, specifically on the grounds of crime and disorder.  Mr Panto advised that there were different regulations for SEV hearings than Licensing Act hearings as objections could potentially be considered out of time.  However, it was also important that the applicant was not disadvantaged in being faced with a point they were not prepared for and might not be in a position to adequately respond to.  The Sub-Committee agreed to allow PC Sollars to speak at the hearing on the basis that he might be able to assist Members and that he did not introduce new aspects to the hearing which had not previously been raised.  All parties would be able to ask the Police questions.  Mr Panto added that it was open to Mr Skeens to make a submission if he felt his client was being prejudiced by something that was said by the Police during the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Vanity Bar & Nightclub, 4 Carlisle Street, W1

14/06652/LIPV

1.

Change of plans

(i)    To amend the plans so as to

        a) Revise the layout of the basement, specifically removal of stage 

            area and introduction of new fixed and removable booths;

        b) Install a podium/stage area on ground floor;

        c) Install new fixed and removable booths on the first floor.

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.  The Sub-Committee noted that the application had been submitted in conjunction with a variation of the Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) Licence (ref: 14/06704/LISEVV) being considered at the same meeting to permit relevant entertainment to take place on the ground and first floors.  Relevant entertainment was already permitted in the basement.  The change of plans related to the permitting of relevant entertainment for the SEV application which the Sub-Committee granted. 

The Sub-Committee noted that there were no proposed increases in hours for licensable activities for the application submitted under the Licensing Act 2003 legislation.  The increase in hours related to the SEV licence.  There were also no proposed changes to the capacity for the Licensing Act 2003 application.  The capacity would reduce significantly when the premises operated as a SEV. 

2.

Remove the following conditions from the Premises Licence:

10.  This licence is subject to all the former Rules of Management for 

       Places of Public Entertainment licensed by Westminster City Council,

       in force from 4 September 1998 and incorporating amendments

       agreed by the Council on 25 October 1999, 30 June 2000, 16 January

       2001 and 1 October 2001.

15.  Dancing and striptease shall only take place in the basement.

30.  All licensees to possess the National Entertainment Licensees

       Certificate or an equivalent qualification or to be in the process of

       acquiring such qualification.

32.  Substantial food and suitable beverages other than intoxicating liquor

       (including drinking water) shall be available during the whole of the

       permitted hours in all parts of the premises where intoxicating liquor is

       sold or supplied.

34. On any evening where the premises or part of the premises are open

      for music and dancing and a section 77 Special Hours Certificate is in

      operation, intoxicating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Cumberland Food & Wine, 11 Great Cumberland Place, W1

14/09194/LIPV

1.

Sale of Alcohol: On the premises

Monday – Saturday 10:00 to 23:00

Sunday 12:00 to 22:30.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was deferred to a later hearing.

Mr O’Maoileoin explained that the application was purely for the outside area.  His client was seeking a small café there.  The Sub-Committee also heard from Mr O’Maoileoin that despite extensive efforts it had not as yet been confirmed with the Land Registry whether the outside area was part of the premises’ demise.  He had attempted to contact the property directors who had dealt with the matter originally but their company had merged with another firm and the papers had been sent to storage.  Mr O’Maoileoin believed that the outside area was part of the premises’ demise but accepted that his client would need to apply for a ‘tables and chairs’ licence if it was not. 

It was agreed that the application would be deferred to give the Applicant time to check the current position with the Land Registry.  The Licensing Service would also look to confirm the current position with the Council’s Highways Department.  Mr O’Maoileoin had offered the option of conditions that the Applicant would need to satisfy the Licensing Authority or the Council’s Highways Department that the area applied for was part of the premises’ demise and that if this was not the case the licence would have no effect until a ‘tables and chairs’ licence was permitted.  The onus would be on the Applicant to send the relevant documentation from the Land Registry.  The Sub-Committee considered however that Mr O’Maoileoin’s alternative offer to request the adjournment of the application was more appropriate as Members would have all the available information before them and they would be able to assess whether it met the licensing objectives, in particular the public safety licensing objective.   

The Sub-Committee noted the point made by Mr O’Maoileoin that his client had agreed conditions proposed by the Police which had led to the withdrawal of their representation and also those proposed by Environmental Health.  His client would also be prepared to surrender the existing right to provide regulated entertainment, namely the unrestricted right to provide recorded music and private entertainment.  Mr O’Maoileoin and Ms Thomas both referred to the fact that the application was for less than the Council’s Core Hours and was not located in one of the designated stress areas.  Alcohol would be ancillary to food.  Environmental Health’s original concerns regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Ceru, Basement And Ground Floor, 29 Rathbone Place, W1

14/09445/LIPN

1.

Sale of Alcohol: On and Off the premises

Monday to Thursday – 10:00 to 23:30

Friday to Saturday – 10:00 to 00:00

Sunday – 12:00 to 22:30

Sunday Before Bank Holiday - 12:00 to 00:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Warne, representing the Applicant.  It was his client’s intention to operate Ceru as a restaurant until April/May 2015 after which the building would be redeveloped.  The concept would be tested whilst a permanent site was sought.  The food offer was from the Levant region including pastries and wraps in the morning and more formal dining later including small dishes to be shared.  The alcohol range was fairly limited in scope and was not that of a bar.  A restaurant menu was available.  The proposed capacity was 30 people inclusive of staff with 18 inside the premises and potentially 8 outside although Ceru would not be operating beyond the spring.

Mr Warne referred to the fact that the proposed hours were within the Council’s Core Hours policy.  He was of the view that the application was in keeping with policy RNT1 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2011 for a restaurant outside the stress areas.  Conditions had been agreed with Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health and they had subsequently withdrawn their representations.  Mr Warne addressed Members on the representation of Mr Arias.  It was the view of Mr Arias that Ceru was operating later hours than other premises in the vicinity.  Mr Warne, however, asserted that it was a restaurant operating to Core Hours outside the stress areas and there were other licensed premises in the area operating until later.  There was very little potential for crime and disorder in restaurants.  He also stated that TENs had been operated at the premises without any complaints.  He informed Members that he had an email confirmation of the TENs in response to there being no record of this on the licensing service database.

Mr Wroe advised the Sub-Committee that the proposed restaurant condition did differ from the Council’s model restaurant condition in that it only required alcohol to be ancillary to meals and not substantial table meals.  Mr Warne made the point that it was in his view a proportionate condition based on the size and capacity of the premises.  It had been agreed with the Police.

Mr Brown represented Mr Arias.  He stated that Mr Arias lived approximately 50 metres  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Pickle and Toast, 72 Wardour Street, W1

14/09446/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment: Indoors

Thursday to Saturday 23:00 to 01:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Chairman on behalf of the Sub-Committee asked Mr McCann, representing the Applicant, to describe the nature of the operation.  This was in order to assess where the application stood in relation to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.  The Applicant was seeking a new premises licence with a terminal hour for licensable activities that was beyond Core Hours in the West End Stress Area.  It would be necessary for Members to consider whether the application was likely to add to cumulative impact.  Mr McCann informed the Sub-Committee that the concept for Pickle and Toast was an exciting new one with slow cook toasted sandwiches (eight minutes duration) on the finest quality bread, cheeses from the West Country and locally sourced vegetables.  There would be a particular focus on premium Craft beer.  There was no formal bar area and customers would be seated at tables or high stools. 

Mr McCann took Members through the conditions which he had discussed with Environmental Health and the Police prior to the hearing.  Three matters in particular were looked at in detail.  Firstly, the Applicant had agreed a condition with the Police and Environmental Health that had one amendment to the Council’s model restaurant condition.  This was that only after core hours would the supply of alcohol be by waiter or waitress only.  The Applicant intended that during the day customers would have the option of taking the food back to the table with them. 

Secondly, the Applicant was seeking a capacity of 35 including members of staff.  This was one aspect that had not been agreed as Environmental Health had recommended a capacity of 15 persons including staff based on British Standard 6465 relating to toilet provision.  Mr McCann made the case that the British Standard was guidance, that it was not possible to have more than one toilet at the premises due to the configuration of the building and that it was up to staff to manage the matter.  It would not, in his view, impact on the licensing objectives.  The establishment would be dry led and not wet led.  There would be plenty of ‘turnover’ of customers.  Mr Sanjay Ahuja commented that the emphasis was very much on the Applicant Company being vendors of an artisan product including Montgomery cheese.  Craft beers would be sold but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.