Agenda item

Vanity Bar and Night Club, Basement to First Floor, 4 Carlisle Street, London, W1D 3BJ (“The Premises”) 19/16592/LISEVR

1.

Renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) Premises Licence

The application was to renew the Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) premises licence made by Nags Heads Limited in respect of the Vanity Bar and Night Club, Basement to First Floor, 4 Carlisle Street, London, W1D 3BJ.  It was noted that The Basement to First Floor at 4 Carlisle Street has operated as a sex establishment (Sexual Entertainment Venue) since 2012. In 2014, the licence was transferred to the current Premises Licence Holder. 

2.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Late submissions were received from Mr Elford, the applicant’s solicitor, on 6^th February in the form of a statement and statement matrix from Andrew Bamber (a licensing consultant and former Borough Commander with the Metropolitan Police), a letter from Mr Elford responding to the two anonymous objections, a map detailing the route of the pedicabs and Vanity Clubs Street Management policy and Touting and Pedicab policy.  Also sent on the 6^th of February by the applicant’s solicitor were four TEN’s relating to November and December 2019, a witness statement of Manpal Singh Clair (a Director of Nag’s Head Ltd) and a witness statement of Steve Russell (the designated member of staff with responsibility for dealing with the pedicabs outside the venue).

It was noted that all late submissions were circulated to all parties.

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

The Sub-Committee heard the Objectors

Mr Richard Brown addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the two anonymous objectors. He advised that the club was located in the basement, ground and first floor mezzanine of 4 Carlisle Street, beneath three occupied flats, with residential properties at no 5 next door.  Mr Brown explained that there was a history of complaints and objections regarding the premises and referred to the previous renewal application that had been determined in 2019.He noted that the noise issues relating to the premises had been resolved, but explained that the use of the pedicabs outside the premises was still a problem, though he also acknowledged that the issues relating to the pedicabs were difficult to manage from the point of view of the licensee. 

Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that the principal objection to the renewal of the club’s licence is the noise in the street.  He stated that the club attracts pedicabs which hang around outside the club particularly near closing time (3am), but the pedicab noise invariably starts earlier as they congregate.  Mr Brown made reference to a number of TEN’s held in December 2019 where the premises was open until 5am during the run up to Christmas. Mr Brown pointed out that the SEV licence has a terminal hour of 3am Mon-Sat and 11pm Sunday for ‘relevant entertainment’. Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that the only reason the pedicabs are in Carlisle Street is the presence of the club. If there was no club, there would be no noise. He stated that apart from Vanity there are no very late venues nearby so after everywhere else closes the possibility of picking up a fare is limited hence the attraction of the Vanity club.

Mr Brown informed the Sub-Committee that the 2 objectors make two additional points, namely that there should be a more rigorous approach by local authorities to enforcing against the pedicabs and that consideration should also be given to restricting the ability for pedicabs to use the cut through to Wardour Street at the end of Carlisle Street, via Sheraton Street. 

Objector 2 addressed the Sub-Committee advising that the other objector was unable to attend the hearing.  Objector 2 informed the Sub-Committee that it was peaceful some of the time and recognised the clubs help, but the problem also required the help of the responsible authorities; for example, possibly altering the junction.  Objector 2 continued to inform the Sub-Committee that the pedicab drivers congregate in Carlisle Street, opposite their windows, up to 4 or 5 lined up across the road and on corner of Carlisle Street and Dean Street, Objector 2 referred to photographs included in the report with views outside the club.

The Sub-Committee was informed by Objector 2 that the pedicab divers either sit in their pedicabs or stand around underneath the awning of the Nellie Dean pub next door to number 4.  Objector 2 advised the Sub-Committee that the pedicab drivers laugh, chat, argue etc with no care to the residents who are trying to sleep. Objector 2 noted that the fact that both Carlisle Street and Dean Street are dead ends so there is no passing traffic which lends to its appeal as a pedicab park, where they can leave their vehicles and lurk undisturbed. Objector 2 informed the Sub-Committee that on occasions customers have been seen leaving the Vanity club and being harassed by a number of pedicab drivers, each trying to entice them into their vehicle which adds to the noise.  Objector 2 also noted that all this chat was clearly audible despite bedrooms being double glazed.

The Sub-Committee heard the Applicant’s Case

Mr Elford addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of Mr Ivesha and highlighted a number of things his client undertakes to improve the running of the club, including the work of Mr Bamber an ex Police Officer, who Mr Elford explained had worked for the Nags Head Ltd since 2017, providing due diligence cover check to promote the licensing objectives.  Mr Elford continued to outline the

Applicant’s case, explaining that the application had attracted two representations from local residents, however there were no representations from any licensing authority including the Police.

Mr Elford provided the Sub- Committee with a brief background of the premises advising that Nags Head Ltd was formed in 2007 though the family behind the company, the Singh family, have been operating SEVs since the early 1980s.

The Sub-Committee noted that in 2015 Nags Head Ltd took over the former Candy Bar site in Carlisle Street and applied to Westminster City Council for a SEV Licence. On that occasion the Sub-Committee granted his client a SEV Licence and subsequent Sub-Committees have renewed the SEV Licence for five consecutive years since. Mr Elford implored the Sub-Committee to grant his client’s renewal for a sixth time.

Mr Elford advised that Sub-Committee that anonymous objection 1raises three issues; the suitability of the location for a SEV, staff behaviour and nuisance from pedicabs.  Mr Elford informed the Sub-Committee that the position in relation to the suitability of the location for a SEV was very simple. He explained to the Sub-Committee that in 2015 Westminster City Council formed the view that the location was suitable for a SEV. Mr Elford noted that the position was backed up by the Council’s SEV Policy and has been approved by no less than five Sub-Committees since this time. Mr Elford advised that it was for the Sub-Committee to form a view, however the onus was on the person making objection one to convince then that the character of the relevant locality had changed. Mr Elford advised the Sub-Committee that he and his client felt that nothing had changed, and the Sub-Committee should not be persuaded otherwise.

Mr Elford felt that it was fair to say that his client does not recognise the allegations made in relation to behaviour by staff and contractors as being an accurate reflection of the position on the ground and in his witness statement, Mr Singh Clair deals with these issues. Mr Elford informed the Sub-Committee that pedicabs and the behaviour of pedicabs are issues that he felt the Sub-Committee would be familiar with. He informed the Sub-Committee that in 2019, the premises volunteered to employ a designated member of staff who would operate outside the premises to try and address the problem of pedicabs in the vicinity. Mr Elford also noted that it was acknowledged at the time that the designated member of staff has no power whatsoever to require pedicabs to behave in a certain way and that he or she would not be a substitute for a properly authorised enforcement officer. Nevertheless, the designated member of staff was put in position and has worked in that role for the past 12 months. Mr Russell, in his witness statement, deals with the issues he has faced and how he has approached them.

Mr Elford advised the Sub-Committee that the noise and disturbance caused by pedicabs was a complex issue and asserted that the licence holder was doing its very best to minimise a nuisance that was outside of his control.  Mr Elford advised that it would be a mistake to think that getting rid of the premises will get rid of the problem. Mr Elford advised that his client had made serval observations in his statement with regards to pedicabs and made a number of suggestions for improvements, Mr Elford thanked Mr Brown for recognising his clients suggestions and ideas, however neither are in direct control of his client as they have no enforcement powers. Mr Elford noted that his client would like to work collaboratively with local residents regarding approaching the council, for either tougher enforcement  and/ or liaising with the council’s Highways Service with a view to raising the dropped kerb between Carlisle Street and Sheraton Street, but was unsure if this would solve the problem.

Mr Elford pointed out that one point raised by objection2 that isn’t covered in representation one relates to the use of the premises in December.  He advised that Mr Singh Clair submitted a number of Temporary Event Notices covering the festive period and these cover the later hours complained of. Mr Elford noted that, for the sake of completeness, he sent copies of all of the TENs approved by the council to the Licensing service that he believed had been circulated to all parties including the Sub-Committee.  Mr Enfold advised the Sub-Committee that in the future, residents will receive notification when TEN’s have been approved and the club has been granted later hours as that will avoid unnecessary confusion.  He advised that Nags Head Ltd was a responsible SEV licence (and premises licence holder) and that the premises was going above and beyond what it was required to do to try to control an issue that is wider than just the operation of his client’s premises.

The Sub-Committee sought clarification on the use of TEN’s for sale of alcohol and SEV entertainment until 05:00.  The Sub-Committee also sought clarification on whether the noise limiters had worked, the relationship with pedicab drivers and any wider conversations generally regarding improvements. Mr Elford advised the Sub-Committee that the club was operating as an SEV premises until 05:00 under the TEN and this was something the premises did every year and had been made clear to Westminster City Council.  Mr Elford advised that on the TEN notifications, boxes were ticked for relevant entertainment.  Mr Brown disagreed with Mr Elford’s comments, advising that a TEN cannot extent hours for relevant entertainment.  Mr Brown advised that the noise limiters had been successful, and Objector 2 confirmed that the noise had been much better. 

Mr Ivesha informed the Sub-Committee that Mr Russell’s work of trying to reduce the nuisance of pedicabs sometimes works and sometimes does not, but he felt that the situation had improved slightly.  Mr Elford informed the Sub-Committee that with regard to the wider conversation, whenever visited by council officers his client raises his concerns. He also advised that his client had also sent a number of emails and received no response.  Mr Elford noted that there had been no dialogue with the Police. Mr Elford advised the Sub-Committee that his client was more than happy to enter into discussions with the authorities but, unless the laws are modified, his client is in a difficult position.

The Objector’s Summary

Objector 2 addressed the Sub-Committee advising that in February 2018 there was a meeting with the club management with the supports of Westminster City Council; and for a while the problem with noise and the pedicabs improved but the problem returned. Objector 2 explained that in 2019, along with another Carlisle Street/Dean Street resident they objected to the renewal of the SEV licence which went to the Licensing Sub-Committee on 28th March 2019. Objector 2 noted that at the 2019 hearing, three additional conditions were added to the Vanity Club licence relating to controlling the noise from pedicabs in the street. Objector 2 advised the Sub-Committee that since 2019 there has been no real change to the street noise though the problem with the internal noise where music could be heard in through the building has largely been solved for which Objector 2 advised that they were most grateful to the club.

Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that his clients were looking for a resolution to the problem.

The Sub-Committee sought further confirmation regarding amplified music being a contributing factor.  Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that Objector 1 had found amplified music to be a problem.

The Applicant’s Summary

Mr Elford summarised the submissions that had been made on his client’s behalf, advising that the main concerns for the Objectors was the noise and nuisance caused by the pedicab driver which his client had no enforcement powers to change.  He noted that his client had gone above and beyond what they were required to do to help to improve the pedicab problem.  Mr Elford stated that his client is a good neighbour and wants to continue to work with residents and the licensing authorities to improve the pedicab situation.

Mr Elford queried if the objectors would find bring in the awning at nights helpful.  Objector 2 felt that this would be very helpful.

Sub-Committee Summing Up and Decision

The Sub-Committee thanked everyone for their submissions and commented that the process for licence renewals was different from other licensing applications, as the presumption was that a renewal of a licence would be granted unless there was a reason not to do so. The Sub-Committee had considered the material in detail with additional submissions having also been received. Members of the Sub-Committee had read through everything prior to the hearing, and if a particular piece of correspondence had not been specifically mentioned, it did not mean that the issue had been ignored. 

The Sub-Committee noted that, first and foremost, the concerns of the local residents are paramount and must be respected.  With regard to any concerns about staff behaviour, it was clear that small, casual conversations, even at low volume, could disturb local residents. There was no doubt that the pedicabs operating outside the premises were causing further nuisance and noise disturbance to the residents.

There was discussion as to whether that nuisance and disturbance was being caused because of the presence of the Vanity Club or whether that nuisance and disturbance would be caused in any event on the basis that the street itself was attractive to the pedicab drivers as it was a suitable place for them to park within that general locality. The answer to that question cannot be conclusive but there was evidence that some pedicab drivers were seeking custom from the premises and the Sub-Committee did accept the point made by Mr Brown that Vanity was the only premises in the immediate area to open until 3 am. 

The Licensing Sub-Committee did also accept that the use and operation of the pedicabs was a nuisance and a problem for Vanity itself and that Vanity was doing its best to deal with the problem. It was frustrating to all concerned that there were not more legal powers in place to allow the responsible authorities to adequately deal with the nuisance and disturbance that was clearly being caused. However, the fact that Pedicabs were using that area was not considered to be a reason for concluding that the area was unsuitable for use by premises operating a Sexual Entertainment Venue.      

An issue had arisen during the course of the hearing regarding the provision of relevant entertainment during any extended hours that might be permitted for licensable activities by means of TENs that are given under the Licensing Act 2003. It was mentioned by Mr Elford that the operator had also indicated that relevant entertainment would also take place when submitting the TENs. Mr Brown had indicated that it was not possible to increase the hours for relevant entertainment via a TEN. Having received legal advice on that point, the members agree with Mr Brown. If the applicants do wish to provide relevant entertainment for longer hours than they already have on their SEV licence, they will need to do so by seeking a variation of the SEV licence.   

Although the use of TENs under the Licensing Act 2003 was not strictly relevant to the determination of this SEV renewal application, it was clear that residents were concerned about the longer operating hours that had been permitted by the TENs that were given in 2019 and, as explained above, it does seem that the operator mistakenly though that they could also provide relevant entertainment during those extended hours. Whilst the applicant might well have difficulty in dealing with the pedicabs outside the premises, they did have control of their relationship with local residents. The Sub-Committee therefore encourages the applicant to notify residents whenever they are seeking TENs and encourages residents to report all nuisance and disturbance experienced and to keep a detailed record of those incidents.

The Licensing Sub-Committee also encourages the Licensing inspectorate to carry out regular visits to the premises so as to ascertain for itself the extent of the problems caused by pedicabs. Another issue that had been raised was the opportunity for the pedicabs to use the cut through between Carlisle Street and Sheraton Street. The Licensing Sub-Committee did not itself have any authority to deal with that, but asks that the matter is referred to the Councils Neighbourhood Officer for that area so that options can be considered to deal with that issue.

The Sub-Committee recognised that the premises had worked with residents and some progress had been made since the previous hearing before the Licensing Sub-Committee in March 2019. In particular, Objector 2 has clearly stated that the problem with internal noise has largely been solved and is grateful to Vanity for doing that. Objector 2 has further stated that that the staff do seem to have stopped the pedicabs playing music in Carlisle Street. It is good to note that matters have improved to some extent but it is quite clear that there are still some significant issues regarding the use and operation of pedicabs in Carlisle Street. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the SEV legislation did not give the tools that were available under the Licensing 2003 to deal effectively with ongoing nuisance that was clearly being caused by the pedicabs. If it was considered that the pedicabs would not be using Carlisle Street if Vanity was not operating in that street that might be something that could more easily be explored in relation to the premises licence itself.

The applicant had posed the question as to whether the local residents would wish the awning outside the Nellie Dean public house to be retracted at night time and Objector 2 had confirmed that would be helpful. The applicant is therefore asked to do that in accordance with the offer made by Mr Singh Clair in his statement to the Licensing Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee confirmed that the SEV licence would be renewed without further amendments and subject to the Standard Conditions applicable to licences for sex establishments in Westminster as prescribed by the Council pursuant to Paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

Vanity Bar and Night Club, Basement to First Floor, 4 Carlisle Street, London, W1D 3BJ (“The Premises”) 19/16592/LISEVR

1.

Renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) Premises Licence

The application was to renew the Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) premises licence made by Nags Heads Limited in respect of the Vanity Bar and Night Club, Basement to First Floor, 4 Carlisle Street, London, W1D 3BJ.  It was noted that The Basement to First Floor at 4 Carlisle Street has operated as a sex establishment (Sexual Entertainment Venue) since 2012. In 2014, the licence was transferred to the current Premises Licence Holder. 

2.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Late submissions were received from Mr Elford, the applicant’s solicitor, on 6^th February in the form of a statement and statement matrix from Andrew Bamber (a licensing consultant and former Borough Commander with the Metropolitan Police), a letter from Mr Elford responding to the two anonymous objections, a map detailing the route of the pedicabs and Vanity Clubs Street Management policy and Touting and Pedicab policy.  Also sent on the 6^th of February by the applicant’s solicitor were four TEN’s relating to November and December 2019, a witness statement of Manpal Singh Clair (a Director of Nag’s Head Ltd) and a witness statement of Steve Russell (the designated member of staff with responsibility for dealing with the pedicabs outside the venue).

It was noted that all late submissions were circulated to all parties.

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

The Sub-Committee heard the Objectors

Mr Richard Brown addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the two anonymous objectors. He advised that the club was located in the basement, ground and first floor mezzanine of 4 Carlisle Street, beneath three occupied flats, with residential properties at no 5 next door.  Mr Brown explained that there was a history of complaints and objections regarding the premises and referred to the previous renewal application that had been determined in 2019.He noted that the noise issues relating to the premises had been resolved, but explained that the use of the pedicabs outside the premises was still a problem, though he also acknowledged that the issues relating to the pedicabs were difficult to manage from the point of view of the licensee. 

Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that the principal objection to the renewal of the club’s licence is the noise in the street.  He stated that the club attracts pedicabs which hang around outside the club particularly near closing time (3am), but the pedicab noise invariably starts earlier as they congregate.  Mr Brown made reference to a number of TEN’s held in December 2019 where the premises was open until 5am during the run up to Christmas. Mr Brown pointed out that the SEV licence has a terminal hour of 3am Mon-Sat and 11pm Sunday for ‘relevant entertainment’. Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that the only reason the pedicabs are in Carlisle Street is the presence of the club. If there was no club, there would be no noise. He stated that apart from Vanity there are no very late venues nearby so after everywhere else closes the possibility of picking up a fare is limited hence the attraction of the Vanity club.

Mr Brown informed the Sub-Committee that the 2 objectors make two additional points, namely that there should be a more rigorous approach by local authorities to enforcing against the pedicabs and that consideration should also be given to restricting the ability for pedicabs to use the cut through to Wardour Street at the end of Carlisle Street, via Sheraton Street. 

Objector 2 addressed the Sub-Committee advising that the other objector was unable to attend the hearing.  Objector 2 informed the Sub-Committee that it was peaceful some of the time and recognised the clubs help, but the problem also required the help of the responsible authorities; for example, possibly altering the junction.  Objector 2 continued to inform the Sub-Committee that the pedicab drivers congregate in Carlisle Street, opposite their windows, up to 4 or 5 lined up across the road and on corner of Carlisle Street and Dean Street, Objector 2 referred to photographs included in the report with views outside the club.

The Sub-Committee was informed by Objector 2 that the pedicab divers either sit in their pedicabs or stand around underneath the awning of the Nellie Dean pub next door to number 4.  Objector 2 advised the Sub-Committee that the pedicab drivers laugh, chat, argue etc with no care to the residents who are trying to sleep. Objector 2 noted that the fact that both Carlisle Street and Dean Street are dead ends so there is no passing traffic which lends to its appeal as a pedicab park, where they can leave their vehicles and lurk undisturbed. Objector 2 informed the Sub-Committee that on occasions customers have been seen leaving the Vanity club and being harassed by a number of pedicab drivers, each trying to entice them into their vehicle which adds to the noise.  Objector 2 also noted that all this chat was clearly audible despite bedrooms being double glazed.

The Sub-Committee heard the Applicant’s Case

Mr Elford addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of Mr Ivesha and highlighted a number of things his client undertakes to improve the running of the club, including the work of Mr Bamber an ex Police Officer, who Mr Elford explained had worked for the Nags Head Ltd since 2017, providing due diligence cover check to promote the licensing objectives.  Mr Elford continued to outline the

Applicant’s case, explaining that the application had attracted two representations from local residents, however there were no representations from any licensing authority including the Police.

Mr Elford provided the Sub- Committee with a brief background of the premises advising that Nags Head Ltd was formed in 2007 though the family behind the company, the Singh family, have been operating SEVs since the early 1980s.

The Sub-Committee noted that in 2015 Nags Head Ltd took over the former Candy Bar site in Carlisle Street and applied to Westminster City Council for a SEV Licence. On that occasion the Sub-Committee granted his client a SEV Licence and subsequent Sub-Committees have renewed the SEV Licence for five consecutive years since. Mr Elford implored the Sub-Committee to grant his client’s renewal for a sixth time.

Mr Elford advised that Sub-Committee that anonymous objection 1raises three issues; the suitability of the location for a SEV, staff behaviour and nuisance from pedicabs.  Mr Elford informed the Sub-Committee that the position in relation to the suitability of the location for a SEV was very simple. He explained to the Sub-Committee that in 2015 Westminster City Council formed the view that the location was suitable for a SEV. Mr Elford noted that the position was backed up by the Council’s SEV Policy and has been approved by no less than five Sub-Committees since this time. Mr Elford advised that it was for the Sub-Committee to form a view, however the onus was on the person making objection one to convince then that the character of the relevant locality had changed. Mr Elford advised the Sub-Committee that he and his client felt that nothing had changed, and the Sub-Committee should not be persuaded otherwise.

Mr Elford felt that it was fair to say that his client does not recognise the allegations made in relation to behaviour by staff and contractors as being an accurate reflection of the position on the ground and in his witness statement, Mr Singh Clair deals with these issues. Mr Elford informed the Sub-Committee that pedicabs and the behaviour of pedicabs are issues that he felt the Sub-Committee would be familiar with. He informed the Sub-Committee that in 2019, the premises volunteered to employ a designated member of staff who would operate outside the premises to try and address the problem of pedicabs in the vicinity. Mr Elford also noted that it was acknowledged at the time that the designated member of staff has no power whatsoever to require pedicabs to behave in a certain way and that he or she would not be a substitute for a properly authorised enforcement officer. Nevertheless, the designated member of staff was put in position and has worked in that role for the past 12 months. Mr Russell, in his witness statement, deals with the issues he has faced and how he has approached them.

Mr Elford advised the Sub-Committee that the noise and disturbance caused by pedicabs was a complex issue and asserted that the licence holder was doing its very best to minimise a nuisance that was outside of his control.  Mr Elford advised that it would be a mistake to think that getting rid of the premises will get rid of the problem. Mr Elford advised that his client had made serval observations in his statement with regards to pedicabs and made a number of suggestions for improvements, Mr Elford thanked Mr Brown for recognising his clients suggestions and ideas, however neither are in direct control of his client as they have no enforcement powers. Mr Elford noted that his client would like to work collaboratively with local residents regarding approaching the council, for either tougher enforcement  and/ or liaising with the council’s Highways Service with a view to raising the dropped kerb between Carlisle Street and Sheraton Street, but was unsure if this would solve the problem.

Mr Elford pointed out that one point raised by objection2 that isn’t covered in representation one relates to the use of the premises in December.  He advised that Mr Singh Clair submitted a number of Temporary Event Notices covering the festive period and these cover the later hours complained of. Mr Elford noted that, for the sake of completeness, he sent copies of all of the TENs approved by the council to the Licensing service that he believed had been circulated to all parties including the Sub-Committee.  Mr Enfold advised the Sub-Committee that in the future, residents will receive notification when TEN’s have been approved and the club has been granted later hours as that will avoid unnecessary confusion.  He advised that Nags Head Ltd was a responsible SEV licence (and premises licence holder) and that the premises was going above and beyond what it was required to do to try to control an issue that is wider than just the operation of his client’s premises.

The Sub-Committee sought clarification on the use of TEN’s for sale of alcohol and SEV entertainment until 05:00.  The Sub-Committee also sought clarification on whether the noise limiters had worked, the relationship with pedicab drivers and any wider conversations generally regarding improvements. Mr Elford advised the Sub-Committee that the club was operating as an SEV premises until 05:00 under the TEN and this was something the premises did every year and had been made clear to Westminster City Council.  Mr Elford advised that on the TEN notifications, boxes were ticked for relevant entertainment.  Mr Brown disagreed with Mr Elford’s comments, advising that a TEN cannot extent hours for relevant entertainment.  Mr Brown advised that the noise limiters had been successful, and Objector 2 confirmed that the noise had been much better. 

Mr Ivesha informed the Sub-Committee that Mr Russell’s work of trying to reduce the nuisance of pedicabs sometimes works and sometimes does not, but he felt that the situation had improved slightly.  Mr Elford informed the Sub-Committee that with regard to the wider conversation, whenever visited by council officers his client raises his concerns. He also advised that his client had also sent a number of emails and received no response.  Mr Elford noted that there had been no dialogue with the Police. Mr Elford advised the Sub-Committee that his client was more than happy to enter into discussions with the authorities but, unless the laws are modified, his client is in a difficult position.

The Objector’s Summary

Objector 2 addressed the Sub-Committee advising that in February 2018 there was a meeting with the club management with the supports of Westminster City Council; and for a while the problem with noise and the pedicabs improved but the problem returned. Objector 2 explained that in 2019, along with another Carlisle Street/Dean Street resident they objected to the renewal of the SEV licence which went to the Licensing Sub-Committee on 28th March 2019. Objector 2 noted that at the 2019 hearing, three additional conditions were added to the Vanity Club licence relating to controlling the noise from pedicabs in the street. Objector 2 advised the Sub-Committee that since 2019 there has been no real change to the street noise though the problem with the internal noise where music could be heard in through the building has largely been solved for which Objector 2 advised that they were most grateful to the club.

Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that his clients were looking for a resolution to the problem.

The Sub-Committee sought further confirmation regarding amplified music being a contributing factor.  Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that Objector 1 had found amplified music to be a problem.

The Applicant’s Summary

Mr Elford summarised the submissions that had been made on his client’s behalf, advising that the main concerns for the Objectors was the noise and nuisance caused by the pedicab driver which his client had no enforcement powers to change.  He noted that his client had gone above and beyond what they were required to do to help to improve the pedicab problem.  Mr Elford stated that his client is a good neighbour and wants to continue to work with residents and the licensing authorities to improve the pedicab situation.

Mr Elford queried if the objectors would find bring in the awning at nights helpful.  Objector 2 felt that this would be very helpful.

Sub-Committee Summing Up and Decision

The Sub-Committee thanked everyone for their submissions and commented that the process for licence renewals was different from other licensing applications, as the presumption was that a renewal of a licence would be granted unless there was a reason not to do so. The Sub-Committee had considered the material in detail with additional submissions having also been received. Members of the Sub-Committee had read through everything prior to the hearing, and if a particular piece of correspondence had not been specifically mentioned, it did not mean that the issue had been ignored. 

The Sub-Committee noted that, first and foremost, the concerns of the local residents are paramount and must be respected.  With regard to any concerns about staff behaviour, it was clear that small, casual conversations, even at low volume, could disturb local residents. There was no doubt that the pedicabs operating outside the premises were causing further nuisance and noise disturbance to the residents.

There was discussion as to whether that nuisance and disturbance was being caused because of the presence of the Vanity Club or whether that nuisance and disturbance would be caused in any event on the basis that the street itself was attractive to the pedicab drivers as it was a suitable place for them to park within that general locality. The answer to that question cannot be conclusive but there was evidence that some pedicab drivers were seeking custom from the premises and the Sub-Committee did accept the point made by Mr Brown that Vanity was the only premises in the immediate area to open until 3 am. 

The Licensing Sub-Committee did also accept that the use and operation of the pedicabs was a nuisance and a problem for Vanity itself and that Vanity was doing its best to deal with the problem. It was frustrating to all concerned that there were not more legal powers in place to allow the responsible authorities to adequately deal with the nuisance and disturbance that was clearly being caused. However, the fact that Pedicabs were using that area was not considered to be a reason for concluding that the area was unsuitable for use by premises operating a Sexual Entertainment Venue.      

An issue had arisen during the course of the hearing regarding the provision of relevant entertainment during any extended hours that might be permitted for licensable activities by means of TENs that are given under the Licensing Act 2003. It was mentioned by Mr Elford that the operator had also indicated that relevant entertainment would also take place when submitting the TENs. Mr Brown had indicated that it was not possible to increase the hours for relevant entertainment via a TEN. Having received legal advice on that point, the members agree with Mr Brown. If the applicants do wish to provide relevant entertainment for longer hours than they already have on their SEV licence, they will need to do so by seeking a variation of the SEV licence.   

Although the use of TENs under the Licensing Act 2003 was not strictly relevant to the determination of this SEV renewal application, it was clear that residents were concerned about the longer operating hours that had been permitted by the TENs that were given in 2019 and, as explained above, it does seem that the operator mistakenly though that they could also provide relevant entertainment during those extended hours. Whilst the applicant might well have difficulty in dealing with the pedicabs outside the premises, they did have control of their relationship with local residents. The Sub-Committee therefore encourages the applicant to notify residents whenever they are seeking TENs and encourages residents to report all nuisance and disturbance experienced and to keep a detailed record of those incidents.

The Licensing Sub-Committee also encourages the Licensing inspectorate to carry out regular visits to the premises so as to ascertain for itself the extent of the problems caused by pedicabs. Another issue that had been raised was the opportunity for the pedicabs to use the cut through between Carlisle Street and Sheraton Street. The Licensing Sub-Committee did not itself have any authority to deal with that, but asks that the matter is referred to the Councils Neighbourhood Officer for that area so that options can be considered to deal with that issue.

The Sub-Committee recognised that the premises had worked with residents and some progress had been made since the previous hearing before the Licensing Sub-Committee in March 2019. In particular, Objector 2 has clearly stated that the problem with internal noise has largely been solved and is grateful to Vanity for doing that. Objector 2 has further stated that that the staff do seem to have stopped the pedicabs playing music in Carlisle Street. It is good to note that matters have improved to some extent but it is quite clear that there are still some significant issues regarding the use and operation of pedicabs in Carlisle Street. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the SEV legislation did not give the tools that were available under the Licensing 2003 to deal effectively with ongoing nuisance that was clearly being caused by the pedicabs. If it was considered that the pedicabs would not be using Carlisle Street if Vanity was not operating in that street that might be something that could more easily be explored in relation to the premises licence itself.

The applicant had posed the question as to whether the local residents would wish the awning outside the Nellie Dean public house to be retracted at night time and Objector 2 had confirmed that would be helpful. The applicant is therefore asked to do that in accordance with the offer made by Mr Singh Clair in his statement to the Licensing Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee confirmed that the SEV licence would be renewed without further amendments and subject to the Standard Conditions applicable to licences for sex establishments in Westminster as prescribed by the Council pursuant to Paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.