Agenda item

Vanity Bar and Night Club, Basement to First Floor, 4 Carlisle Street, London, W1D 3BJ (“The Premises”) 18/15940/LISEVR

1.

Renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 03:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Ms Michelle Stewart (Presenting Officer) confirmed the application, advising the Sub-Committee that this was a renewal of a Sex Establishment Venue license application made by Nags Head Limited.  She advised that four objections had been received to the renewal of the application along with one e-mail supporting one of the objectors from a Ward Councillor.  Ms Stewart advised the Sub-Committee that the premises were in West End Ward.

Mr Julian Skeens (Applicant’s Solicitor) addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that he would not go through all the papers however, he wanted to ensure that everyone had a copy of the letter from TLT Solicitors dated the 15^th March 2019 (which appeared at page 3 of the supplementary bundle).  He advised the Sub-Committee that the premises were located on Carlisle Street and had been in this location since 2012.

With regard to the objections, Mr Skeens advised that they mainly related to noise in relation to the pedicabs and requested that the Sub-Committee review the photographs that were submitted by the objectors and which showed part of the problem with regards to the pedicabs.  Other photographs showed the door supervisor from the Bar, groups of pedicabs and people on the corner of Dean Street and Carlisle Street.  Mr Skeens then showed the Sub-Committee a map of the immediate area. 

Mr Skeens explained that pedicabs often had loud music blaring out and assumed that this was the music that was being heard by the residents that have complained.  He was sure that no music was escaping from the premises itself and advised that in relation to the premises there are conditions which limit noise nuisance. Mr Vivian would be able to help with further detail regarding noise levels within the Bar, as he installed and set the sound limiters in the Bar which cannot exceed a set decibel level.  Mr Skeens informed the Sub-Committee that the noise limiters were set and could not be changed or tampered with and the decibel levels were agreed with Environmental Health Services. 

Mr Skeens advised that his client had been trying to manage the outside area with door staff moving pedicabs and pedestrians away from Carlisle Street. With regard to Mr Brown’s letter (at pages 83 to 86 of the additional bundle), his client was happy to meet with local residents to demonstrate how the noise limiters work and that the noise was not coming from the Bar.  The letter stated that the noise levels had been better recently, and Mr Skeens felt that the best way forward was for residents to monitor the noise levels and report any breaches to WCC as suggested by Objector 1. Mr Skeens informed the Sub-Committee that pedicabs had been a problem in Westminster and his client has been effective in keeping pedicabs away from Carlisle Street. However, his client was unable to stop the pedicabs going up and down Carlisle Street and if they do stop outside his client’s premises, his client does not have the power to make them move. He can only encourage them to move on.  He advised that his client does not want to upset his neighbours and had tried to maintain a good relationship with his neighbours.

Richard Brown (CAB Project Officer, representing Objectors 1, 3 and 4) addressed the Sub-Committee. He advised that two of the objectors wished to protect their anonymity and would be referred to as Objector 1 and Objector 4. Jane Doyle (Objector 2, representing the Soho Society), waived her right to anonymity.  Mr Brown referred to his submission dated 25^th March, which detailed the events over the last year.  He advised that Objector 1 had lived in her flat since 1987 and Objector 4 for a similar amount of time and both had witnessed the development of the premises over time, including the previous use as the Candy Bar.  Mr Brown informed the Sub-Committee that there had been problems with loud music for over a decade and that was resolved by a review of the basement operation in the Candy Bar.

Mr Brown advised that the renewal of the SEV licence in 2018 was objected to due to the nuisance being caused by the pedicabs. He agreed that this was not an issue with an easy solution. He advised that during the SEV renewal process in 2018, WCC helpfully arranged a mediation meeting attended by the applicant and their legal team, and Objector 1 and himself. The meeting was productive and resulted in Objector 1 withdrawing her objection.  He advised that Objector 1 met the DPS and was shown around the premises and the settings for the music controls on the mezzanine floor.  He also informed the Sub-Committee that, at that time, Objector 1 was told that the area would be caged, so that no one would be able to tamper with the agreed settings for the music system.

Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that the noise nuisance was sporadic, and his clients suspected that it emanated from the first-floor private dance area.  He refuted Mr Skeens comments that the music was from the pedicabs. While they do play music, Objector 4 is only disturbed by the pedicabs as he does not have partitioning walls with the premises, but he does not have a complaint about music being played too loudly.  Mr Brown advised that the noise herd in Objector 1’s flat has currently ceased due to Mr Vivian’s interjection, and it was hoped that this would be a permanent resolution, however Mr Brown advised that for residents this was a reoccurring issue that gets resolved and then reoccurs again and again. He advised that the residents were happy to meet with the Applicant in order to find a way forward.

With regards to the pedicabs, Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that Objectors had submitted accounts and photographs of the problems. He recognised that these were not isolated incidents and that it was a Soho wide issue.  Mr Brown advised that meetings held in 2018 and the procedures that management had put into place did improve the pedicab issues for a time.  Mr Brown advised that both Objectors 1 & 4 had noted improvements recently but queried why his clients could not have a long-term resolution, instead of sporadic periods of improvement.  Mr Brown also queried the acoustics report, questioning the need for Mr Vivian having to tweak the musical amplification system which was meant to be secured so as to prevent the settings being altered.

Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that with regard to the SEV application specifically, the existence and recurrence of these issues required the Licensing Sub-Committee to examine whether or not the operation of the premises engages the provisions of Schedule 3 para 12(3) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (“the Act”) i.e. that granting the renewal of the licence would be inappropriate, having regard:

i)         To the character of the relevant locality;

ii)       To the use to which any premises in the vicinity are put;

iii)      To the layout, character or condition of the premise, in respect of which the application is made.

With regard to policy, Mr Brown referred the Sub-Committee to the Entertainment Venues Statement of Licensing Policy 2012’ (“the SEV Policy”) i.e. LO1 (character of relevant locality’; LO2 (use of premises in the vicinity); L03 (layout, character or condition of the venue).

Mr Brown referred to Mr Elford’s point that nothing had changed since the last application, however asked the Sub-Committee to consider that Carlisle Street is a small cul-de-sac with little or no traffic to mask the noise from pedicabs and no other late-night premises in the vicinity.  Mr Brown asked the Sub-Committee to consider why the pedicabs gather where they do, pointing out that it was not because of any of the other nearby premises as these operate to core hour or close at around 12:00 when the pedicabs become a nuisance. Mr Brown advised that it was a reasonable assumption to make that a significant reason for them to be there was because of the Vanity Bar.  Mr Brown advised that that the Applicant could do more to improve the pedicab issue as shown last year when there was an improvement. There was no objection to the premises operating as an SEV per se, provided the noise escape and pedicab issues were resolved once and for all.

The Sub-Committee briefly heard from Mr Richard Vivian (Acoustics Consultant), who confirmed that he first visited the premises in January 2019. The sound system had previously been set by Ian Watson (WCC Environmental Health Officer).  Mr Vivian advised that he had introduced some tweaks so that the system was electronically set at 4 including bass level. The system was then calibrated, and a certificate issued. It would then be impossible for the volume to be increased above that level. 

The Sub-committee queried the nature of the entertainment on the first floor, ground floor and basement of the premises. Mr Skeens advised that the first floor was open with no booths and was used for VIP entertaining. Mr Clair (Applicant) advised that the ground floor was the main bar and dancing area, and the basement was used as another VIP dancing area. All three floors were used for dancing and entertainment.  The Sub-Committee raised questions regarding additional sound proofing on the first floor and the annual reissuing of the volume calibration certificate. In response to the Sub-Committee query, Mr Skeens advised that sound proofing had been completed on the first floor.  Mr Vivian advised that it would be best to renew the certificate if there were any changes to the equipment. 

Objector 1 addressed the Sub-Committee and spoke of the age of the building and the noise transference and attempts to apply monitors.  The Objector also spoke of the many issues with the previous tenant Candy Bar which played music in the basement and the need to have the basement soundproofed. However, there were concerns regarding the soundproofing of the remainder of the premises.  The Objector advised that the noise had improved since the beginning of the year and she would continue to monitor the situation.  Objector 1 advised the Sub-Committee that the issue with the pedicabs has improved, however voices carry, and she could still hear arguing and chatting to such an extent that it led to her being woken at 03:30 on 13^th March and again at 02:00 on 26^th March.

Councillor Tim Barnes on behalf of Councillor Glanz, his fellow ward member, addressed the Sub-Committee in support of local residents.  Councillor Barnes drew the Sub-committee’s attention to a number of wider issues relating to points already raised, the first being the nature of an older building stock and the complications that can bring when associated with a narrow street and the noise transference which has been seen elsewhere. The second point was in regard associated activities such as antisocial behaviour and pedicabs. Councillor Barnes informed the Sub-Committee that he wanted to highlight the problems and express the wider support that exists for the residents.  He felt that is was also important to consider the nature of Soho with its pockets of quiet residential areas.

The Sub-Committee made further queries regarding the fixed noise levels and sought assurances from Mr Vivian that there would be no increase to the set noise levels.  Mr Vivian advised that each floor (zone) had been set electronically and was tamper proof.  Referring to condition 38 (the noise limiter condition), Mr Skeens advised that this condition on the licence could not be changed without consulting with Environmental Health.  The Sub-Committee made further queries, regarding members of staff heard congregating outside the premises late at night and Mr Brown queried weather there was signage inside the premises with regard to dispersal and being quiet on egress.  Mr Skeens advised that members of staff do not congregate outside the premises and as per the photographs, the noise could be attributed to members of staff asking Pedi cab drivers to move on. He also confirmed that there was ‘quiet on egress’ signage displayed inside the premises and advised that staff members are trained to deal with dispersal issues. 

The Sub-Committee made further enquiries into the number of patrons visiting the bar, where taxis and cabs drop off and pick up patrons and the general route for egress and dispersal at the end of the night.  Mr Clair confirmed that there were approx. 30-40 people in the premises at any given time, with a maximum capacity of 10 persons in the basement, 70 on the ground floor and 9 on the first floor. He also confirmed that taxis and cabs tended to drop people off at Oxford Street and they would walk through to Carlisle Street. He also described this as the main route for dispersal and egress from the premises.  With regard to pedicabs, Mr Skeens advised that his client was happy to help and would hold conversations with residents and try to put further measures in place to help with the problem.

The Sub-Committee advised that this was a SEV application and not a premises licence application and that the narrative had been reviewed in respect of the SEV licence.  It was felt that the Objectors would have been advised that any issues that they have concerning the premises licence can best be dealt with by a review of that licence and that avenue is open to them in the future.  The Sub-Committee thanked the Objectors for attending and presenting their concerns regarding the operation of the venue and their pragmatic view regarding the nature of their concerns and how the Sub-Committee might address them.  The Sub-Committee felt that it was beneficial to hear from the noise consultants regarding the operation of the noise limiters and referred to the existing conditions.

The Sub-Committee again wanted to thank all the parties for their pragmatic view on pedicabs and the ability to work together on further resolving the issues.  The Sub-Committee granted the application but noted the objections regarding the noise escape from the premises and the noise disturbance associated with the pedicabs. It also noted the measures the Applicant had made to address the concerns but wanted to make it absolutely clear that those measures had to be implemented and maintained so as to avoid the regular recurrence of the noise problems that local residents had been experiencing.  The Sub-Committee noted the touting and pedicab policy that had been produced by the applicant and it was decided that a number of elements contained within that policy could be added to the conditions on the existing licence, though it was also noted that Mr Skeens had expressed concern as to whether the third condition imposed was actually enforceable. The three additional conditions to be imposed were as follows:

1.     The licence holder will employ a designated member of staff who will work in Carlisle Street outside the venue during the early hours of the morning, up until closure and a period thereafter for dispersal of customers and staff.

2.     The designated member of staff will be tasked with encouraging pedicab drivers that look for fares in the Dean Street area to respect the needs of local residents by being quiet and also ask them to move away /not congregate in Carlisle Street or near the venue.

3.     The designated member of staff will record any unresolved disputes with rickshaw or pedicab drivers in the venue’s incident log.  The venue will share information with Westminster City Council in furtherance of any specific enforcement work by the authorities around nuisance caused by pedicabs in the Soho area.