Agenda item

App No	Ward / Cumulative Impact Area	Site Name and Address	App Type	Licensing Ref No.
2.	West End Ward/ West End Cumulative Impact Area	Sophisticats Basement & Part Ground Floor 3-7 Brewer Street London W1F 0RD	New Premises Licence	20/06824/LIPN

 

LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE No. 2

Thursday, 8 October 2020

 

Membership:               Councillors Tim Mitchell (Chairman), Barbara Arzymanow       and Aicha Less.

 

Officer Support:          Legal Officer:                                      Viviene Walker

                                      Policy Officer:                                      Aaron Hardy

                                      Committee Officer:                                       Toby Howes

                                      Presenting Officer:                                      Jessica Donovan

 

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE 20/06824/LIPN

 

Present:                       Michael Bromley-Martin, QC (Counsel for the Applicant), Jack Spiegler, Thomas & Thomas Partners LLP (Solicitors for the Applicant), John McKeown (Applicant), PC Bryan Lewis, Metropolitan Police Service, Daisy Gadd, Licensing Authority, Anil Dryan, Environmental Health Services, Richard Brown, CAB Licensing Project (on behalf of The Soho Society), Jane Doyle, The Soho Society, Marcus Lavell, Complete Licensing (representing Tony Nash, Objector).

Representations:        Representations were received from the Metropolitan Police Service; Environmental Health Service; the Licensing Authority; The Soho Society (representing a resident); and Complete Licensing (representing an objector)

Applicant:                     John McKeown Clubs Ltd
Ward:                            West End
CIA[1]:                              West End

Summary of Application

The application proposed a new premises licence on the same terms, conditions, layout and hours as the existing premises licence, save for the removal of Condition 9 viz. The sale of intoxicating liquor shall be ancillary to the provision of striptease entertainment and whilst the premises is operating under a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) licence.

Proposed Licensable Activities and Hours

Live Music, Recorded Music, Performance of Dance, Anything of a Similar Description (indoors)

Monday to Saturday:  09:00 hours to 03:00 hours

Sunday:                                   09:00 hours to 23:00 hours

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour when British summertime commences.

Late Night Refreshment (indoors)

Monday to Saturday:  23:00 hours to 03:00 hours

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour when British summertime commences.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On and Off Sales or Both) (On the Premises)

Monday to Saturday:  09:00 hours to 03:00 hours

Sunday:                                   09:00 hours to 22:30 hours

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour when British summertime commences.

Hours Premises Are Open to the Public

Monday to Saturday:  09:00 hours to 03:00 hours

Sunday:                                   09:00 hours to 23:00 hours

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour when British summertime commences.

Representations Received

1.     Metropolitan Police Service (represented by PC Bryan Lewis)

2.     Licensing Authority (represented by Ms Daisy Gadd)

3.     Environmental Health (represented by Mr Anil Dryan)

4.     Ms Jane Doyle of the Soho Society (represented by Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Bureau, Licensing Project)

5.     Mr Tony Nash (represented by Mr Marcus Lavell, Barrister, Complete Licensing)

 

Summary of Issues Raised by Objectors

Metropolitan Police Service

That, if granted, the application would undermine the Licensing Objectives viz it would exacerbate policing problems in the location of the venue in the West End Cumulative Impact Area where, traditionally, there were high levels of crime and disorder,

Environmental Health Services

The types of regulated entertainment and the proposed hours of operation could result in increased Public Nuisance in the West End Cumulative Impact Area as well as adversely affecting Public Safety.

Licensing Authority

It was the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications in the Cumulative Impact Areas other than applications to vary hours within Core Hours unless the applicant could demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, it was proposed that the applicant provide further submissions as to how the premises would not add to the cumulative impact in the Cumulative Impact Area.

Complete Licensing (on Behalf of an Objector)

That the applicant, in the person of John McKeown, was unfit to hold a Premises Licence.

Richard Brown, CAB Licensing Project, on Behalf of The Soho Society

The Soho Society objected to the application as it was currently presented on the grounds that, without added conditions as proposed in the representation, the application did not promote the Licensing Objectives.

Policy Position

Policy CP1

It was the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications in the Cumulative Impact Areas for: pubs and bars, fast-food premises, and premises offering facilities for music and dancing, other than applications to vary hours within the Core Hours under Policy HRS1.

Applications for hours outside the Core Hours would be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies.

Policy HRS1

Applications for hours within the Core Hours would generally be granted, subject to not been contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy.

Policy MD2

It was the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications in the Cumulative Impact Areas other than applications to vary hours within Core Hours under Policy HRS1.

Policy PB2

It was the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications in the Cumulative Impact Areas other than applications to vary hours within Core Hours under Policy HRS1.

INTRODUCTION

Ms Jessica Donovan, Senior Licensing Officer, stated this was an application by John McKeown Clubs Ltd for a new premises licence to replace the existing licence, the details of which good be found on pages 32 and 33 of the report before the Members of the Sub Committee.[2]

 

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

The Sub Committee considered an application by John McKeown Clubs Ltd.

 

Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant

On a preliminary matter, Mr Bromley-Martin, QC, asked the Sub Committee to consider whether or not the representations made by Mr Tony Nash amounted to relevant representations for the purposes of section 18 of the Licensing Act 2003.[3] Specifically, it was Mr Bromley-Martin’s contention that the representations were frivolous and vexatious and that the issues raised by Mr Nash had previously been considered by the Sub Committee at its meeting on 10 April 2019, the minutes of which could be found on Page 55 of the Additional Information Pack.

The Chairman stated that the Sub Committee would take legal advice on the preliminary matter raised by Mr Bromley-Martin. He added that this was not a Court of Law and that the application was for a premises licence and not a personal licence, and the Sub Committee would take that into consideration in its deliberations.

Mr Bromley-Martin acknowledge that a relevant representation was required to be about the likely effect of the grant of a premises licence on the promotion of the Licensing Objectives and that the fitness or otherwise of a Director of the applicant company, referred to in the representation made by Mr Nash, was not relevant.

On behalf of the Applicant, Mr Bromley-Martin made the following submissions.

(a)   The reason for the application being made was a direct result of the introduction of the Covid-19 Regulations resulting in the premises closing on 23^rd March and, in keeping with all SEV’s, unlike other hospitality venues, having to remain closed.

(b)   Regarding the representations by the responsible authorities and The Soho Society, these had been resolved by the Applicant’s agreement to further conditions as set out on Page 25 of the Additional Information Pack.

[Mr Bromley-Martin summarised the conditions which had been agreed].

(c)   It was implicit that, should the licence be granted, the two premises licences would not operate at the same time. Should the government’s Covid-19 regulations permit the reopening of SEV’s, the premises would operate under the SEV licence and not as a lounge bar, should the present application be granted.

(d)   Regarding policy considerations, Policy PB2[4] was relevant. Paragraph 2.5.23 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy dealt with exceptions to Policy PB2 where there were exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstance in this instance was the replacement of the existing licence with a similar licence with added conditions but excluding Condition 9 of the present licence.

(e)   If granted, the replacement licence would operate in the same way as the existing licence. Therefore, there would be no effect on the cumulative impact area.

(f)    Referring to the representations made by Mr Nash, Mr Bromley-Martin made the following submissions –

i.       The representations took the form of an objection i.e., that the applicant was unfit to hold a premises licence, by which it was understood that the objection was that Mr McKeown, as a Director of the applicant company, was not fit to be a director of a company holding a SEV licence.

ii.     The objection was supported by a large amount of evidence which went to the fitness of Mr McKeown and were not, therefore, relevant representations. However, Mr Bromley-Martin would address various allegations set out in the representation, as follows. That –

·         Mr McKeown was involved in a mortgage fraud (Paragraph 44 of Mr Nash’s Witness Statement: Page 62 of the papers before the Sub Committee).

Mr Bromley-Martin referred the Sub Committee to various matters in the papers stating that there was no evidence of fraud on the part of Mr McKeown. Furthermore, the allegation had been presented to the Sub Committee at its meeting on 10 April 2019. In his summing up, the Chairman of the Sub Committee at that meeting had made it plain that it was not a function of the Sub Committee to make findings of fact in relation to allegations of criminal conduct. In making today’s representations, Mr Nash had ignored the comments of the Chairman in his summing up.

·         Mr McKeown and Mr Langer had arranged for evidence relating to other SEV’s to be fabricated and used to support objections to the renewal of premises licences of these SEV’s. Mr Bromley-Martin referred the Sub Committee to Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Witness Statement of Mr Langer (Page 66) where it was stated (Paragraph 14) –

“I explained to Mr Pelling that Mr McKeown wanted him to go into the clubs and see if girls were breaking the rules or doing anything else that may be a breach of licence conditions…”.

Mr Bromley-Martin stated that this was a clear indication that Mr McKeown’s purpose was not to fabricate evidence but to find out if other clubs were observing their licence conditions and if they were not, to report that fact to the licensing authorities.

Westminster City Council Licensing Sub Committee subsequently found, as a matter of fact, that there had been breaches of the licensing conditions at the SEV’s in question and refused to renew one SEV licence. Therefore, Mr McKeown made no apology for reporting these breaches of licence as he had found it increasingly difficult to run his business in accordance with the licence conditions when other SEV’s were breaching their licence conditions.

·         Mr McKeown had paid for taxis taking customers to and from the premises.

Mr Bromley-Martin noted that, in so doing, Mr McKeown in compliance with Conditions 30 and 45 of the premises licence.[5]

iii.    That the representations were not relevant.

Submissions on Behalf of The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

PC Bryan Lewis, on behalf of the MPS, stated that the Police objected to the exclusion of Condition 9 which would allow the premises to operate as a bar, should a new premises licence be granted. He noted that a number of significant conditions had been proposed should the licence be granted.

In response to Members’ questions, PC Lewis stated that there had been no recent reports of nuisance relating to these premises.

Submission on Behalf of the Licensing Authority

Ms Daisy Gadd, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, noted that this was an application to permit licensable activity outside Core Hours for a time limited basis until September 2021. The Council’s policy was not to refuse applications for licences that went beyond Core Hours, but to consider each application on its merits. In so doing, applicants were expected to consider issues such as dispersal, and it would be helpful if the applicant could be heard on this matter as the type of activity within the premises would change if the licence was granted. As it had been proposed that the premises may operate as a lounge bar and/or restaurant, it would be helpful if the applicant were to inform the Sub Committee if the proposed lounge bar was the preferred option and how this might operate.

The main concern for the Licensing Authority was the temporary change in the way alcohol would be sold at the premises as the licence, if granted, would permit the operation of a bar. Accordingly, the Council’s policies on pubs and bars would have to be taken into consideration as there was the potential for the premises to be used exclusively or primarily for the consumption of alcohol which would require the applicant to rely on exceptional circumstances that would allow the Sub Committee to depart from the policy. As the premises was located in a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA), the Sub Committee would have to be satisfied that, should the licence be granted on a temporary basis, this would not add to the cumulative impact in the area.

 

Submission on Behalf of Environmental Health Services

Mr Anil Dryan on behalf of Environmental Health Services (EHS) stated that, as the applicant had agreed to the proposed conditions, EHS no longer had any objections to the application. However, he did wish to draw the Sub Committee’s attention to a number of matters, as follows.

(a)  The premises used to operate as Shadowlands Nightclub and, as such, had generated a lot of complaints to EHS about noise transfer from the nightclub to residential premises above the nightclub.

(b)  The applicant had agreed not to change the sound limiter setting which had been set by EHS in accordance with the operation of premises as a SEV (it was noted that sound levels in SEV’s were not generally set at the level used for nightclubs).

(c)   Enquiries to City Inspectors who inspected the premises every quarter confirmed that, having checked the records, there had been no issues with the way in which the premises had operated.

(d)  EHS would advise against any changes in conditions that would allow the premises to revert to a nightclub operation.

Mr Bromley-Martin stated that the applicant had agreed with EHS that the premises would not operate as a nightclub should the licence be granted.

Submission by Mr Richard Brown, CAB Licensing Project (on Behalf of The Soho Society)

Mr Richard Brown, representing of The Soho Society, stated he had not submitted a written representation as he had been in communication with Mr Spiegler about conditions to be added to the licence, if granted. He stated that the proposed conditions had been agreed subject to one amendment.

He stated that his purpose in attending the meeting was to clarify the position of The Soho Society; and to consider how the proposal that the premises might operate as a restaurant and any concerns that this might raise.

Mr Brown noted that, during the consultation period, Mr McKeown had met with some of the residents living above the premises to explain why the application was being made i.e., that SEV’s had been excluded from reopening as part of the relaxation of the Coronavirus Regulations. He stated that, in terms of impact on the licensing objectives, residents preferred that the premises operate as a SEV and not as a nightclub. Therefore, they were willing to give the applicant some leeway with regard to the present application and had asked The Soho Society to make representations on their behalf. Accordingly, The Soho Society had taken the residents’ view into consideration when submitting its representations.

Mr Brown stated that the position adopted by The Soho Society with regard to this application was, given the particular circumstances of the application, without prejudice to the position The Soho Society might adopt in relation to any other premises licence applications.

Regarding the proposed operation of the premises as a restaurant, Mr Brown concurred with the submission made by Ms Gadd that it would be helpful to have more information on how a restaurant might operate in these premises.

Ms Jane Doyle, Resident

Ms Doyle stated that she had nothing further to add to the comments made by Mr Brown. However, residents were concerned about the proposal that the premises might operate as a restaurant. In particular, residents were concerned that appropriate measures be in place for deliveries, odour extraction and waste disposal.

Ms Doyle concurred with Mr Brown that any acquiescence by the residents in relation to the present application was without prejudice to any representations and/or objections that residents might wish to make with regard to any other premises licence applications. Residents would also welcome any measures taken by the applicant to discourage pedicabs operating within the vicinity of the premises late at night, although this was not presently an issue given the restrictions on opening hours.

In response to a Member’s question, Mr Dryan, EHS, stated that the capacity of the premises operating as a SEV was 100. It had been agreed with the applicant that, when there were changes to the Coronavirus Regulations, the Applicant would ensure that the premises would operate in accordance with those changes, including measures to ensure social distancing was maintained, and that this be made a condition of the licence. City Inspectors would ensure compliance with the Regulations.

Regarding the operation of the premises as a restaurant, the applicant had confirmed that the premises had full-height discharging extract ventilation and that odours should not cause a nuisance. The current licence required food to be provided, but not to the extent that would be provided if the premises were operating as a restaurant.

Mr Dryan stated that EHS had not objected to the application as they had not received any representations from residents living immediately above the premises. Having received complaints from residents when the premises operated as a nightclub, Mr Dryan stated that he was confident that residents knew to contact EHS should they have any concerns.

Submission by Mr Marcus Lavell, Counsel: Complete Licensing

Before making his submission, Mr Lavell stated he wished to address a number of points raised by Mr Bromley-Martin in his submission. The Chairman agreed that Mr Lavell be allowed to address the Sub Committee on those points before making his formal submission.

Response to Matters Raised by Mr Bromley-Martin

Mr Lavelle stated that his representations had been submitted to the Licensing Authority under the Licensing Objective of Prevention of Crime and Disorder and that the representations were not a comment on whether or not a director of the applicant company was a fit and proper person to hold a premises licence. However, where a company had a Sole Director and that Director had failed to promote the Licensing Objectives, as in the Camden case to which Mr Lavell would refer in his submission, and the same Director was the Sole Director of the present applicant, it was appropriate for the Sub Committee to take that history into consideration in its deliberations.

Referring to various points raised by Mr Bromley-Martin, Mr Lavell made the following submissions.

(a)   Regarding the allegation of mortgage fraud, he did not intend to address that as it was a matter for the Sub Committee.

(b)   There was no foundation in fact that Mr Nash was employed by Mr Langer, as suggested by Mr Bromley-Martin.

(c)   Referring to Mr Bromley-Martin’s comment –

“From the horse’s mouth, it just sounds as if Mr McKeown wanted to do the right thing effectively and identify breaches were taking place elsewhere.”

in relation to paragraph 14 of Mr Langer’s Witness Statement on Page 66 of the papers before the Sub Committee, Mr Lavell stated he had no issue with that observation. However, if Mr Bromley-Martin wished the Sub Committee to consider the statement, he referred Members to the Paragraphs on pages 67 and 68 under the subheading “Construction of Evidence”, in particular, Paragraph 23 –

[23.   Mr McKeown explained to Mr Millbank at this meeting that he wanted to get evidence of any licence breaches and that Veronica and Dana knew a dancer who worked at Platinum Lace (Ms Julia Tabacaru – Stage Name “Carla”) and between them all, they would create and witness breaches to ensure this was achieved.]

Contrary to Mr Bromley-Martin’s assertion that Mr McKeown was doing the right thing, the Mr Langer’s Witness Statement suggested otherwise.

(d)   Referring to Page 50 and Condition 45, Mr Lavell stated that, even if taxi drivers were paid no more than the fare to transport customers to Sophisticats, the condition was sufficiently widely drawn to prohibit payment by the licence holder to taxi drivers to transport customers to the premises.

(e)   Referring to the nature of the representation made by Mr Nash, and Mr Bromley-Martin’s contention that the Sub Committee had to refer to section 18 of The Licensing Act 2003 in deciding if this was a relevant representation i.e., that the representation was neither frivolous nor vexatious, Mr Lavell made the following submissions –

i.       Evidence in Mr Nash’s representation alleging fraud and exploitation of customers by the promotion of excessive consumption of alcohol by their very nature could not be considered frivolous and had been tested before Camden Council’s Licensing Sub Committee.

ii.     The evidence submitted to the Camden Council Licensing Sub Committee had never been presented to a Westminster City Council Licensing Sub Committee and, therefore, could not be considered vexatious.

iii.    A new witness with an intimate understanding of the business run by Mr McKeown had come forward and their evidence changed the nature and substance of the evidence in Mr Nash’s representation.

Submission

The Sub Committee had to consider the effect the licence would have if granted i.e., it would put in place a permission to sell alcohol which does not presently exist and alcohol would begin being sold by a company with a sole director, Mr McKeown, who was the sole director of a sister premises under the same brand under his management in Camden.

Mr Lavell referred Members to the minutes of the meeting of the London Borough of Camden Licensing Panel D on 30 January 2020 starting on Page 77 of the Additional Information Pack. Specifically, Mr Lavell referred members to the following paragraphs.

(a)  The evidence presented by Mr Robert Cohen, Barrister, representing the Applicant, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), on pages 78 & 79 where he informed Camden Council’s Licensing Panel D that –

i.       “… repeated concerns had been raised about Sophisticats. Within the last 18 months there had been 12 incidents of crime, where the initiation of the offence began in Sophisticats in Brewer Street, Westminster and then continued in the Sophisticats in Eversholt Street, Camden … Thus, providing a link to London Sophisticats venues and leading the Police to believe it was indicative of the management of the premises.”

ii.     “Investigations into those allegations had revealed a pattern of concerning behaviour which, in his view, could not be tolerated at any licensed premises. This included:

·       Selling inappropriate quantities of alcohol (including to already intoxicated customers);

·       Selling large quantities of alcohol shortly before the closing time of the premises (in the expectation, presumably, that the customer would drink a large quantity in a short time) [; and]

·       Pressure selling alcohol

iii.    It was the decision of Camden Council’s Licensing Panel D that the premises licence be revoked.

iv.    Mr Lavell stated that concerns expressed by the MPS in the Camden case related directly to the present case. The way in which the sale of alcohol had taken place at the Camden venue had left people highly vulnerable and exposed to fraud taking place on the premises, thereby undermining the Licensing Objectives, in particular, the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.

(b)  Mr Lavell then referred the Sub Committee to the final paragraph on Page 4 of the minutes (Page 80 of the Additional Information Pack) which read, as follows –

·       “Mr Cohen said that the CCTV footage showed that the complainant was intoxicated to the extent that he did not have full control of his faculties and was struggling to complete normal tasks. He suggested that irresponsible licensee would have taken steps in these types of circumstances to stop serving the customer. The approach, however, taken by Sophisticats was to the opposite effect as they sold him to further 3 litre bottles of champagne. In total the complainant purchased 9 litres of champagne (108 units of alcohol) and 5 Jagerbombs (five units of alcohol) whilst at Sophisticats, totalling 113 units of alcohol. Mr Cohen suggested that this was inconsistent with the usual licensing practice and objectives.”

(c)   Mr Lavell then referred the Sub Committee to Form 691: Application for the Review of a Premises Licence or Club Premises Certificate under the Licensing Act 2003 on Page 91 of the Additional Information Pack. Specifically, he referred Members to the third substantive paragraph on Page 93 which stated –

·       “The informant attended the Club in Brewer Street to establish what had happened.

·       A manager looked at the receipts and stated that most of them were from their other venue near King’s Cross, due to the times shown.

·       This is when the informant Contacted Camden Council Licensing department.

·       It transpires that the victim was transported from Brewer Street to Sophisticats, Eversholt Street by the venue in one of their vehicles. The victim has no memory of this or for the time that he attended Eversholt Street.

·       Having viewed the CCTV footage for the allegation made on 27/02/19 relating to both the Sophisticats in Westminster and in Camden, it is clear that the informant is not fully aware of what is going on around him.

Mr Lavell stated that the Westminster premises were the same premises that was the subject of today’s application which did not currently have a licence to sell alcohol but would be able to do so if today’s licence application was granted. He noted that these were the same premises where a customer was rendered so vulnerable through the aggressive sale of alcohol that he could not protect himself and was transported to the Sophisticats venue in Camden where they were further exploited and lost £50,000.

These matters were subsequently investigated by the Police and put before Camden Council’s Licensing Panel D. Therefore, these matters, which were before the Sub Committee today, were neither frivolous nor vexatious.

Having concluded his submissions, Mr Lavell invited the Sub Committee to hear representations from Mr Nash on changes that had taken place since he last presented evidence to the Sub Committee and, as a former Senior Police Officer, to comment on the findings of fact by Camden Council’s Licensing Panel D.

Mr Bromley-Martin asked the Sub Committee to consider if it was appropriate for Mr Nash, despite his experience as a former Police Officer, to give his opinion as to the facts. That the matter of fact finding was one for the Sub Committee and not for a former police officer.

Mr Lavell stated that what he was proposing was that Mr Nash look to the findings of Camden Council’s Licensing Panel D based on the evidence presented to it in formal statements by the Police and to provide his opinion on this. He noted that Mr Bromley-Martin had invited the Sub Committee to find these submissions frivolous and vexatious. Regarding the rules of evidence and procedure before the Sub Committee, Mr Lavell noted that it was open to the Sub Committee to hear any evidence before it when forming its opinion.

In response to a point raised by Mr Bromley-Martin, Mr Lavell stated that, unless new evidence was being introduced, it was not necessary for Mr Nash, or any other party, to submit a written statement when giving their opinion. Mr Bromley-Martin proposed that, as Mr Nash was a witness, it was not appropriate for him to give his opinion on matters of fact as fact finding was a matter for the Sub Committee.

The Chairman proposed that Mr Lavell might wish to put questions to Mr Nash to elucidate the points that Mr Nash might wish to make. Mr Lavell proposed, and the Chairman agreed, that Mr Nash simply amplify on the evidence he had provided and that the Sub Committee’s Legal Adviser intervene if it was felt that Mr Nash was presenting evidence in an inappropriate manner.

Submissions by Mr Nash

Mr Nash stated that the reason for making the representation was a statement by the Chairman of the Westminster City Council Licensing Sub Committee at its meeting in April of last year when he said that, should anything change, or if there were any criminal actions, the matter should be brought back before the Sub Committee. He stated that, earlier this year he had been contacted by Mr Simon Langer, the former business partner of Mr McKeown, who provided him with a statement and supporting documents that questioned Mr McKeown’s submissions to the Sub Committee in April 2019 regarding the extent of his involvement in covert visits to other SEV’s. Mr McKeown had informed the Sub Committee that he had known about the covert visits but that he had not been actively involved. According to Mr Langer’s statement, Mr McKeown had paid Mr Langer and/or others to carry out the covert visits.

Referring to Paragraph 14 of Mr Langer’s statement, which Mr Bromley-Martin had had referred to in his submission, Mr Nash noted that the paragraph went on to read, as follows –

“… Mr McKeown was ‘cocky’ about his plan and made it quite clear he wanted the clubs closed down so that we could be rid of the opposition.”

Although the view had been expressed by Mr Bromley-Martin that Mr McKeown was doing this for the right reasons, Mr Langer did not share this view.

At the Sub Committee’s hearing in April of last year, it was alleged that there had been no breaches of the licence conditions. However, a Westminster City Council City Inspector had visited the premises and witnessed, in breach of the premises licence conditions, contact between customers and dancers.

Mr Nash then referred to the various Crime Reports detailed in Form 691: Application for the Review of a Premises Licence or Club Premises Certificate under the Licensing Act 2003, beginning on Page 91 of the Additional Information Pack. He noted that all the incidents involve the excessive consumption of alcohol, placing customers in a vulnerable position and thereby undermining the Licensing Objective of Promoting Public Safety. There were allegations of crimes of a similar nature taking place, or having taken place, in all Sophisticats venues, the nexus between these crimes being the transportation of customers from one venue to another in taxis arranged for them by the management of the premises.

Mr Nash confirmed that this concluded his submission.

The Chairman then invited Members and officers to ask any questions they might have. In response to a question by Viviene Walker, Solicitor Advocate, Westminster City Council, Mr Bromley-Martin stated that the Applicant had agreed to the proposed additional conditions set out in the correspondence on Page 25 of the Additional Information Pack, including the following condition –

“There shall be a minimum of two door supervisors to be employed at the entrance of the premises whenever there is regulated entertainment [this condition would replace existing condition 10, using the current premises licence numbering]”.

SUMMING UP

The Chairman then invited the various parties to sum up their presentations.

Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Bureau Licensing Project (On Behalf of the Soho Society)

Mr Brown stated that, as long as it was understood by the Sub Committee why The Soho Society had taken the position it had, and that this was without prejudice to any future representations and/or submissions on future applications, he had no further comments.

Mr Marcus Lavell, Complete Licensing, and Mr Tony Nash

Mr Lavell stated the applicant was an operator with a history of a particular type of alcohol retail and a sole director of a company that has previously had its licence revoked elsewhere. The applicant had demonstrably undermined the Licensing Objectives of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Public Safety by placing persons who had gone out for an evening in Westminster in an element of danger whereby they may be subjected to an excessive amount of alcohol consumption and taken elsewhere where they might be further exploited, as evidenced by the Camden Council Licence Panel D proceedings. Police evidence had demonstrated that this was not an organisation that could be trusted to promote the Licensing Objectives of Protecting Public Safety and Preventing Crime and Disorder.

Mr Nash stated that he was concerned that the Sole Director, Mr McKeown, was not promoting the Licensing Objectives referred to by Mr Lavell, and that he was allowing serious crimes involving significant sums of money to take place on premises under his control.

Referring to the statement by Mr Langer, Mr Nash stated that this indicated that, at the meeting of Westminster City Council’s Licensing Sub Committee in April of last year, Members had been misled by the applicant.

Ms Daisy Gadd On Behalf of the Licensing Authority

Ms Gadd reiterated the Council’s Pubs and Bars policy requiring the Applicant to provide an exceptional circumstance for the grant of the applied-for licence. Regarding the Conditions proposed by the Licensing Authority, Ms Gadd, concurring with Mr Brown and Mr Dryan, stated that it was no longer necessary to give consideration to the Applicant surrendering the existing premises licence.

Mr Dryan On Behalf of Environmental Health Services (EHS)

Mr Dryan stated that potential concerns regarding dispersal, and collections and deliveries to and from the premises, had raised concerns. However, these had been addressed by the Applicant’s agreement to the inclusion of conditions designed with these concerns in mind, as well as a condition relating to queueing outside the premises.

Mr Bromley-Martin on Behalf of the Applicant

Mr Bromley-Martin stated he would respond to the various questions and points raised by Members of the Sub Committee and others during the course of the submissions before summing up his presentation, as follows.

Replies to Questions and Points Raised

(a)    On behalf of Mr McKeown, Mr Bromley-Martin stated that Mr McKeown would give an undertaking to provide the Licensing Authority with a Dispersal Policy or submission within 14 days of today’s date. He stated that consideration had not yet been given to a Dispersal policy because it was not known how many customers would be permitted into the premises, or the opening hours of the premises.

(b)    Mr McKeown would also give an undertaking to provide a Delivery Policy which would cause the least possible disturbance to residents within the next 14 days.

(c)    The layout of the premises would not remain the same. There would be considerably fewer tables and it had yet to be determined how much space would be required to ensure compliance with the rules on social distancing and Coronavirus Regulations. It was anticipated that the number of persons would be restricted to approximately 60.

(d)    Regarding Pedicabs, Mr Bromley-Martin referred to Condition 30 requiring the licence holder to enter into an agreement with a hackney carriage and/or private hire firm to provide transport for customers. He confirmed that such an arrangement was in place.

Summing up

(a)    Referring to the Statement of Licensing Policy and Policy PB2, Mr Bromley-Martin stated that Paragraph 2.5.23 made it clear that the grant of new licences to pubs and bars within Cumulative Impact Areas (CIAs) should be limited to exceptional circumstances. Paragraphs 2.4.2 to 2.4.13 of the Statement of Licensing Policy referred to exceptional circumstances. Specifically, Paragraph 2.4.3 stated –

“it is not possible to give a full list of examples of when the council may treat an application as an exception. However, in considering whether a particular case is exceptional, The Licensing Authority will consider the reasons underlying the Cumulative Impact Area special policies on cumulative impact.”

The principal purpose behind the CIA policy was to ensure, as far as possible, that no further impact was made by the granting of a particular licence. It was the applicant’s case that this application would have no additional impact on the CIA as the conditions were precisely the same.  The only difference being that there would be no striptease on the premises.

Mr Bromley-Martin noted that none of the parties represented at today’s hearing were of the view that granting the licence would add to the cumulative impact in the area. But for the exceptional circumstances engendered by the coronavirus pandemic, and the government’s Coronavirus Regulations, it would not have been necessary to make this application. Therefore, for these two reasons i.e., that the licence, if granted, would not add to the cumulative impact on the area, and the exceptional circumstances created by coronavirus, it was proposed that the application fell squarely within the provisions of exceptional circumstances.

(b)    Regarding the objections by Mr Nash to the granting of this application, these involved a number of wide-ranging allegations of criminal conduct on the part of Mr McKeown, the most serious of which was an allegation of mortgage fraud. This allegation had been raised at the Sub Committee’s meeting in April of last year when it was made clear that the Sub Committee was not assisted by unsubstantiated allegations of crime. Mr Bromley-Martin went on to say that, since that time, there had been no investigation of these allegations, or any proceedings.

The allegations against Mr McKeown had been made by parties currently involved in litigation with Mr McKeown in the civil courts. As such, it was suggested that the allegations against Mr McKeown had nothing to do with licensing matters and everything to do with the civil suits.

(c)    Referring to the decision of Camden Council’s Licensing Panel D to revoke the premises licence for the Sophisticats SEV situated at 34 – 38 Eversholt Street, London NW1 1DA, Mr Bromley-Martin referred the Sub Committee to Page 84 of the Additional Information Pack.

[In response to an objection by Mr Lavell that Mr Bromley-Martin was making a new submission in relation to these documents and that he would not have an opportunity to respond to that submission, the Chairman stated that, as the Sub Committee had heard from Mr Lavell on this matter, he was prepared to allow Mr Bromley-Martin to address the Sub Committee on the Camden Council Licensing Panel D proceedings].

He stated that Sarah Lefevre, Counsel for Mr McKeown, had set out the case for Sophisticats in Eversholt Street. Referring to her assessment of the Police representations at that hearing, Mr Bromley-Martin declared that there was no allegation of any crime having been committed at Sophisticats at Brewer Street; that there had never been an investigation into any alleged crime at the Brewer Street premises; and that there had never been any criminal proceedings relating to crimes committed at Sophisticats. Therefore, it was wholly untrue to suggest that there had ever been any crimes committed at Sophisticats. The complained about payments had been made by credit card and the credit card companies, after investigation, had confirmed the payments and refused to refund the complainants. It was noted that the Camden decision was the subject of appeal proceedings which had been delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

In conclusion, Mr Bromley-Martin noted that none of this evidence had been relied upon by PC Bryan Lewis when making his submission on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service.

Rebuttal by Mr Lavell

Replying to Mr Bromley-Martin’s presentation of Ms Sarah Lefevre’s review of the Police representations during the Camden Council Licensing Panel D proceedings, Mr Lavell reminded the Sub Committee that it was the Police representations at that hearing, and not those of Ms Lefevre, that had been instrumental in the Panel’s decision to impose the ultimate sanction of revoking the premises licence.

Mr Lavelle went on to say that Licensing Police had investigated alleged crimes at these premises and it was the Licensing Police that had made the application to review of the premises licence on the grounds of Crime and Disorder.

By way of reply, Mr Bromley-Martin referred the Sub Committee to the Minutes of the meeting of Camden Council’s Licensing Panel D where it was stated in the first paragraph on Page 89 of the Additional Information Pack that –

“The Panel noted that the licence holder had said that there was no evidence to support the complaints and no offences had been proven by the Police.”

ADJOURNMENT

Having heard the various parties sum up their submissions and representations, the Chairman announced that the Sub Committee would adjourn and that the Members of the Sub Committee would retire to make their decision. He stated that a summary of the Decision would be sent to the parties by the Licensing Service within five working days of today’s hearing.