Agenda item

The Cavendish, 35 New Cavendish Street, London W1G 9TR (“The Premises”)

19/09289/LIPV

1.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Conditions to be added

Condition

Between the hours of 08:00 and 10:00 Monday to Saturday, and 08:00 to 12:00 Sunday, the supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal.

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

The Sub-Committee had before it an application for a variation of a premises licence for a Premise currently operating as a two-floor restaurant and bar. The Applicant was seeking to vary the commencement of the sale of alcohol to 08:00hrs daily. To include an additional Condition which required the supply of alcohol to be ancillary to a seated table meal. The variation was sought in order to enable the provision of a Champagne Breakfast menu. The operational hours were currently 10:00hrs to 23:30hrs Monday to Saturday and 12:00hrs to 23:00hrs Sunday.

Kevin Jackaman, the Presenting Officer advised that representations had been received from Environmental Health and six local residents. There was supportive representation from two local residents. There were additional information submitted by the Applicant and Interested parties and these were circulated to all parties. The Metropolitan Police withdrew their representation. The Application is not located in the Cumulative Impact Area.

Mr Robert Sutherland, the Applicant’s Legal Representative, advised that the Premise had come under new management `and measures were being put in place to ensure that concerns raised were addressed. The Sub-Committee were advised that the Applicant had agreed to the Conditions proposed by the Metropolitan Police. These included providing the direct contact number for Managers, cordoning areas for smokers, withdrawing the ‘off sales’ of alcohol and restricting the use of the outside area so as to prevent public nuisance. 

Anil Drayan, Environmental Health Officer advised the Sub-Committee that the Applicant had agreed to all the Conditions proposed by Environmental Health and this included withdrawing ‘off sales’ of alcohol. Mr Drayan advised that the application met core policies and that representation had been maintained to enable the Sub-Committee to consider the request.

Bob Jung, resident, advised that he had resided in his dwellings since 1992 and commented that anti-social behaviour would emanate from the Premises. He raised concerns about noise nuisance and trespassing. Mr Jung advised that customers and employees congregated and would smoke in the door step of residential buildings. He stated that smoke from cigarettes would travel into residents’ homes. Mr Jung commented that there were several establishments in the locality and advised that these Premises in his opinion were better managed. He informed that staff members in these establishments would supervise their customers and ensure that they did not stray from the Premises. He also raised concerns about the use of mobile phones and noise from telephone conversations generally. Mr Jung advised that employees were approached about loud telephone conversations and would ‘cross the road’ when asked to lower their voices, He commented that residents had been adversely affected by the poor management of the Premises.

Lorraine Goodhew, resident, advised the Sub-Committee that she had resided in the area since 2000. Ms Goodhew advised that the Premises previously operated as a public house and during this period there was no nuisance. She advised that the nuisance started to occur when the Premises started to operate as the Cavendish. The Sub-Committee was advised that customers which frequented the Premises were often ‘clubbers’ and differed to those who visited nearby establishments. Ms Goodhew advised that staff members were inexperienced and did not supervise their customers properly and were unable to control crowd overspills. Ms Goodhew advised that patrons left rubbish in the immediate area. She commented that residents would be adversely affected if the Premises was to open at 08:00hrs and raised concerns about noise from cars and banging of doors during these hours. She informed the Sub-Committee that the area had several residential buildings and was previously quiet.

Nicholas McGill, local resident, advised that he agreed with the representation made by both residents. He raised concerns about the Premises opening at 08:00hrs and alcohol being served at these hours. He advised that pedestrians had difficulties in navigating chairs which were left outside the Premises and customers would often obstruct the pavement. Mr McGill advised that customers became verbally abusive and were reluctant to move from the pathways when asked. He commented that customers needed to be supervised and that measures should be put in place which assures that they remain within the Premises’ boundaries. Mr McGill raised concerns about customers smoking near residential buildings and refuge being left at pedestrian crossings.

Suzanne Philips, local resident, advised that she resided in an adjoining building located next to the Premises. Ms Philips advised that she agreed with the early submissions made by the local residents and commented that customers would drink and smoke whilst congregating on the front steps of residential buildings. She advised that customers became confrontational when residents requested that they move from their private properties. It was stated that the immediate areas near the Premises were reported to be littered with broken glass and refuge thereby causing nuisance. Ms Philips advised that residents were adversely affected by the smoke from cigarettes and from the noise and vibrations from the Premises. She further advised that in her opinion the Premises were poorly managed and that any extension in the operation hours would exasperate the problems currently experienced by residents.

Dr Nicholas Day, resident, advised that she supported the representation made by local residents. He advised that on a former weekend loud screams could be heard from the establishment. Dr Day raised concerns regarding littering, customers congregating on the pavement and obstructing pedestrians and customers using prohibited substances. He advised that the Premises management in his opinion appeared to have disregard about nuisance caused to neighbouring properties. Dr Day advised that increasing alcohol consumption may pose a safety risk and commented that a pedestrian crossing was located near the Premises and also near a busy junction and taxi rank. He advised that concerns over obstructing public highways needed to be addressed.

The Sub-Committee raised questions about the obstruction of the public highway and was advised by Mr Drayan, Environmental Health Officer that a visit to the Premises had been undertaken and it was noted that some 60 customers were congregated around the exterior. Mr Drayan advised that this had occurred at an exceptional period as the ‘World Cup’ tournament was taking place and England was one of the teams ‘playing’. Mr Drayan confirmed that visits to the Premises took place between 27 – 28 June 2018, and that there were no further reports received about the public highway. The Sub-Committee noted that glass containers had been left on railings near to the Premises and was advised that there was uncertainty as to whether these came directly from the Premises or other nearby premises.

Mr Drayan advised that the Applicant had agreed to Conditions which required customers to be supervised and be prevented from causing a nuisance. He advised that the current Conditions on the premises licence required for the outside area to be kept clean and litter free. He advised that on previous visits to the Premises it was reported that refuge had been left out near a pedestrian crossing around 10:00hrs. Mr Drayan advised that one of the existing Conditions on the Premises Licence required all refuge to be left outside no earlier than 30mins before collection time. He advised the Sub-Committee that Conditions could be managed and that any breaches should be reported so they can be investigated by officer and the relevant issues taken up with the Applicant.

Ms Spomenka Matic, General Manager for the Applicant, advised that she was aware of the representation which had been made by the resident and informed that she had met with them to discuss concerns. Ms Matic advised that residents will be provided with a direct contact number. She stated that she had only been in position since October 2019 and that several training gaps had been identified for staff. She commented that training on security and smoking ‘zones’ will be provided to staff members. The Sub-Committee was advised that smoking zones had been incorporated and there were now restrictions on where this activity could take place. Ms Matic also informed of other steps which had been undertaken to address public nuisance. This included ensuring that immediate surrounding areas are kept tidied, placing refuge outside at specified time slots and reducing music volume during the latter part of the evening. She also advised that a rope would be used to cordon the terrace, and this was to ensure that customers do not obstruct the public highway. Ms Matic advised that she was willing to work with residents to resolve current concerns.

Mr Sutherland advised that residents had welcomed that Ms Matic had liaised with them and was implementing steps to address concerns. Mr Sutherland commented that letters of support had been submitted by two residents and that their contents presented a different account on how the Premises was managed and operated and accordingly these were taken into account by the Sub-Committee. He commented that the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health had withdrawn their representation and that there were no concerns raised from Responsible Authorities about the use of prohibited substance at the Premises. Mr Sutherland commented that it was difficult to ascertain whether the noisy individuals were customers from the Premises or other nearby establishments. He advised that the entrance at Westfield Street would be closed from 22:00hrs. He reminded the Sub-Committee that the Applicant had agreed to Conditions relating to the use of the external area and had agreed to withdraw ‘off sales’ from the application.

Mr Sutherland highlighted that the Applicant had acknowledged the concerns raised by residents about nuisances and advised that the music volume levels would be turned down after 22:00hrs. The Sub-Committee noted that one of the existing Conditions on the Licence prohibited noise or vibrations to be heard in residential flats and commented that this existing Condition was not being adhered too. Following questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Drayan advised that all noise transfers should be reported to Environmental Health and that these complaints would be logged and used as evidence where required. The Sub-Committee stressed the importance of monitoring premises that had been reported for nuisances and these included instances where a sole complaint was received. The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee stated that a single incident at a Premise could still amount to a nuisance and this should not be dismissed outright because that all depended upon the circumstances of the situation and the specific facts arising,

The Sub-Committee were informed by local residents that it was acknowledged that they lived in Central London and advised that their concerns were in relation to the management of the Premises. They also welcomed that the Applicant was willing to have a dialogue with the residents.

Mr Sutherland advised that the Applicant would agree to a Condition which required for a direct contact number to be made available to residents and also additional Conditions deemed appropriate which would mitigate the concerns that had been raised.

Having carefully listened to the Applicant, Environmental Health and local residents the Sub-Committee felt that it had no alternative but to refuse the Application based on the evidence before it. The Sub-Committee was most concerned about the poor management of the Premises and the breaches of current Conditions which were already in place and how this impacted on local residents. The Sub-Committee did not feel that the management procedures in place were robust enough to warrant approval of the application at this point in time that would lead to the promotion of the licensing objectives. Whilst the Sub-Committee has a duty to consider each case on its individual merits the Sub-Committee were not convinced that the Applicant had demonstrated that they would be able to run their Premises, in an effective and efficient manner, should it be minded to approve the variation that would ultimately lead to the  promotion  of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was also disappointed to note that the Applicant had only recently engaged with local residents given the historical issues centred around, public nuisance which had all too become apparent and made abundantly clear by local residents during their oral submissions to the Sub-Committee. The Applicant had acknowledged that there had been failings on its part in terms of its management of the Premises and that staff were now being trained to ensure compliance with the conditions imposed on the premises licence and the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee agreed that a new management plan should be devised by the Applicant going forward which would hopefully direct the Applicants mind to address fully the various issues referred to above. The Applicant was advised that they would be required to provide evidence of sustained improvements in the operation of the Premises before the Premises Licence could be varied but of course any future application submitted by the Applicant would be determined on its individual merits because the Sub-Committee could not predict or prejudge the outcome of any potential new application the Licensing Authority is likely to receive. The Sub-Committee instructed that the Applicant provide details of the Managers direct contact number to be immediately made available to local residents and requested that Environmental Health continue to monitor the Premises for the anti-social behaviour complained of.

2.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The Sub-Committee refused the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).