Agenda and draft minutes

Bok Bar 56 Blandford Street, W1 – Review of Premises Licence

15/04320/LIREVX

Ms Lawrance referred in her presentation to the written submission of Mr Hughes, representing the Licence Holder that the review had been issued incorrectly ‘in that it seeks to review a premises licence namely 13/02784/LIPT which has expired”. Mr Hughes had asserted that a premises licence which has expired clearly cannot be the subject of a review application and further submitted that the applicants should issue a correct review before this matter can proceed any further.    Ms Lawrance responded that the Licensing Authority deemed the review application to be valid.  The internal processes of the City Council’s Licensing Authority had led to the change of the number on the licence following a minor variation application.  There was only one premises licence for Bok Bar and the Licensing Authority believed it was clear that the review was in relation to this licence.  The full licensing history was set out in the report.  Mr Hughes was given the opportunity by the Sub-Committee to comment as to whether he wished to maintain his objection to the review proceeding.  Mr Hughes advised that he did not wish to pursue that point any further. 

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Brown, representing the Applicants.  He stated that the purpose of the review was set out in the report (it had been submitted on the grounds of public safety and the prevention of public nuisance).  The Applicants were all long term residents of Chiltern Street and Blandford Street who lived in close proximity to Bok Bar.  It was the position of the Applicants that large numbers of customers gathered outside Bok Bar at the frontages on to Blandford Street and Chiltern Street.  Mr Brown commented that it was typical to have 50 patrons outside Bok Bar with the maximum being approximately 100.  There was a significant amount of noise nuisance caused to local residents.  Customers were sometimes located behind the barriers but the Applicants also had experience of them not doing so.  There was use of the public highway and the pavement was often blocked.  Mr Brown explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Duke of York, 45 Harrowby Street, W1

16/11644/LIPN

1.

Recorded Music (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Grimsey, representing the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee.  He confirmed that the application was for a secondary or ‘shadow’ licence. The primary licence, which had been granted by the Sub-Committee on 13 October 2016, would be the one operated by the future tenant at the Duke of York.  Mr Grimsey referred to there being two representations by residents at the 13 October hearing.  One representation had been withdrawn prior to the hearing as a result of the Applicant agreeing that the outside area would not be used after 22:00.  The application of 13 October had been granted with the requirement that outside tables and chairs would be rendered unusable by 22.00 each day.

Mr Grimsey stated that his client was applying for the secondary licence in order to be protected if the operating licence was surrendered or revoked.  He made the point that the local resident who had made a representation was objecting to an application for a premises licence that would almost certainly never be traded.  He expressed the view that it would be odd if as requested by the local resident the tables and chairs outside were no longer used after 21:00 when there was a primary premises licence in place which permitted external use until 22:00.

Mr Grimsey advised the Sub-Committee that the tables and chairs were very heavy and could not practically be rendered unusable.  Mr Grimes added that the tables were collapsible and would be taken indoors.  They would be stored in the lobby area after 22:00 (operating under the primary licence).

Mr Grimsey explained that the private parties, which the local resident had expressed concerns about in his written representation, had taken place when the premises had not been trading.  The landlords, Mr Grimsey’s clients, had permitted small businesses to act as caretakers at the Duke of York.  They accepted that the caretakers had overstepped the mark when the parties had been held.  They had warned the caretakers when the Licensing Authority had informed them of the complaint.  The Applicant believed that it was in the interests of all parties that the tenant now took possession of the premises.  

The Sub-Committee heard that there had been meetings between Mr Milner, the director of the Applicant Company, the prospective tenant, Environmental Health and the Fire officer during the previous week.  It was hoped Environmental Health would approve the works  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Churreria Espanola, 177-179 Queensway, W2

16/12377/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On and Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

This is an application for the sale of alcohol from 11:30 to 20:30 every day of the week with the premises closing to the public at 21:00.  There had been representations from Environmental Health, Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Authority which had been withdrawn.  The Responsible Authorities had proposed conditions which had been agreed by the Applicant.

There was one remaining representation from a local resident, Ms McAskie.  She had expressed concerns that the licence would result in more noise late at night from the premises.  Ms McAskie was not in attendance at the hearing on 12 January.

Members of the Sub-Committee, in deciding to grant the application, were satisfied that the application would not add to cumulative impact in the Queensway and Bayswater Cumulative Impact Area.  The terminal hour for the sale of alcohol and the closing time would not have an adverse impact on the area.  Members did not consider that there would be noise late at night at the premises, which was the concern of the local resident, on the basis of the granted hours and the conditions attached to the licence.  Members also took the view that the proposed conditions promoted the licensing objectives.  These included the Council’s model restaurant condition and that no noise generated on the premises, or by its associated plant or equipment, shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.  All tables and chairs would be required to be removed from the outside area by 21:00 each day.

2.

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 Sub-Committee granted the application, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

To consider the representation received against the interim step determined at the Licensing Sub-Committee on 6^th January 2017 pending the full review of the premises licence for Rah Rah Rooms, 215-217 Piccadilly, W1

15/04320/LIREVX

In the early hours of the morning on New Year’s Day, serious crime and disorder took place at the premises.  Three males sustained serious injuries, which the Police believe to be stab wounds.  An application was made by the Metropolitan Police on 4 January 2017 for a summary review of the premises licence pursuant to section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003.  A hearing of the Licensing Sub-Committee took place on 6 January 2017 within 48 hours of the Police submitting the application.  The Sub-Committee was required to consider whether it was necessary to take interim steps pending the determination of the review applied for.  Members decided to suspend the premises licence pending the full hearing which will take place within 28 days of the Police submitting the summary review application.  On 10 January 2017 the Licence Holder submitted representations against the interim step.  A hearing was therefore scheduled for the Sub-Committee to consider those representations on 12 January 2017.

At the beginning of the hearing the Metropolitan Police requested that the public and press were excluded as the Police investigation into the events of the early hours of 1 January was on-going and they were keen that any disclosure of information did not prejudice the investigation.  The Sub-Committee decided to approve this request and the public and press were therefore excluded from the hearing.

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Woods, representing the Premises Licence Holder.  He had set out his reasons for his clients making the representations against the Sub-Committee’s decision to suspend the premises licence pending the full hearing which had been taken on 6 January 2017.  He confirmed that his clients wished to show different CCTV evidence to that shown by the Police at the interim steps hearing.  The Premises Licence Holder had not shown CCTV evidence at that meeting.  He wished to demonstrate that those running the premises on the night of New Year’s Eve / New Year’s Day were promoting the licensing objectives and that Rah Rah Rooms should remain open until the full review hearing.  Mr Woods referred to the supporting evidence from Mr Halton  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.