Agenda item

App No	Ward / Cumulative Impact Area	Site Name and Address	App Type	Licensing Ref No.
1.	West End Ward / West End Cumulative Impact Area	12 Old Compton Street London W1D 4TQ	New Premises Licence	20/07331/LIPN

 

LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE No. 4
Wednesday, 28 October 2020

Membership:               Councillors Karen Scarborough (Chairman), Jim Glenn and Aicha Less.

Officer Support:          Legal Officer:                                      Viviene Walker

                                      Policy Officer:                                      Kerry Simpkin

                                      Committee Officer:                                       Cameron MacLean

                                      Presenting Officer:                                      Michelle Steward

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE 28/07331/LIPN

Present:                        Marcus Lavell, Keystone Law (Counsel for the Applicant); Edmund Weil (Applicant); PC Bryan Lewis, Metropolitan Police Service; Karyn Abbott, Licensing Authority; Ian Watson, Environmental Health Services; Richard Brown, CAB Licensing Project (on behalf of The Soho Society); and Jane Doyle, The Soho Society.

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:                     Swift One Holdings Ltd

Ward:                            West End

CIA[1]:                              West End

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence allowing the premises to operate as a lounge bar.

Proposed Licensable Activities and Hours

Live Music (Indoors)

Monday to Saturday:  10:00 hours to 01:30 hours

Sunday:                                   12:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings –

·       Sunday before Bank Holidays from 12:00 hours to 01:30 hours

·       All licensable activities shall be extended 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 to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summer Time commences.

Recorded Music (Indoors)

Monday to Saturday:  10:00 hours to 01:30 hours

Sunday:                                   12:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings –

·       Sunday before Bank Holidays from 12:00 hours to 01:30 hours

·       All licensable activities shall be extended 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 to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summer Time commences.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors)

Monday to Saturday:  10:00 hours to 01:30 hours

Sunday:                                   12:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings –

·       Sunday before Bank Holidays from 12:00 hours to 01:30 hours

·       All licensable activities shall be extended 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 to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summer Time commences.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On- and Off-Sales)

Monday to Saturday:  10:00 hours to 01:30 hours

Sunday:                                   12:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings –

·       Sunday before Bank Holidays from 12:00 hours to 01:30 hours

·       All licensable activities shall be extended 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 to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summer Time commences.

Hours Premises Are Open to the Public

Monday to Saturday:  10:00 hours to 01:30 hours

Sunday:                                   12:00 hours to 00:00 hours

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings –

·       Sunday before Bank Holidays from 12:00 hours to 02:00 hours

·       Opening hours shall be extended 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 to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summer Time commences.

 

INTRODUCTION

Ms Michelle Steward, Senior Licensing Officer, stated this was an application by Swift One Holdings Ltd for a new premises licence and that the premises owner and operator, Mr Edmund Weil, would be represented at today’s proceedings by Marcus Lavell, Counsel, Keystone Law.

Ms Stewart summarised the application; listed the representations and objections received; informed the Sub Committee which parties making representations and/or objections were present; and noted that late submissions had been received from the Applicant and interested parties and that these had been included in the Additional Information Pack sent to Members.

In conclusion, Ms Stewart noted that the premises were in the West End Ward and were within the West End Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

 

SUBMISSIONS

The following submissions were made on behalf of the various parties.

 

Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant

On behalf of the Applicant, Mr Marcus Lavell, Counsel (Keystone Law), made the following submissions.

(a)  The Applicants had invested their time, money and efforts into converting what had been a high-volume vertical drinking establishment into an award-winning establishment that had reduced the impact the premises had within the CIA.

(b)  The Applicant’s submissions on Page 19 of the Additional Information Pack stated that fewer customers would be accommodated on the premises; the proposed Conditions were more robust than the current conditions; and the effect of fewer customers and robust conditions would make for more effective dispersal during the key hours of 12.00 midnight and 2 AM.

[Mr Lavell then summarised the proposed conditions set out on Page 20 of the Additional Information Pack].

(c)   The application stood on its merits and was an exception to the stress area policy as it reduced impact within the stress area. Because of the curfew on licensed premises’ opening hours, the application would not have any immediate effect on the CIA. However, when the curfew was lifted, the effect of social distancing on limiting the number of customers possible would reduce the impact the premises had on the CIA.

In response to several questions by the Chairman, and Members of the Sub Committee, Mr Lavell provided the following information.

(a)  The Premises was not a restaurant and the sale of alcohol was not ancillary to a substantial meal; the Premises was currently operating under an existing premises licence.

(b)  Compared with the existing licence, which allowed 193 people to drink alcohol until midnight, the new premises licence, if granted, would reduce the number of customers to 120. In the basement area it was proposed that there be a condition requiring customers to be seated and that service be restricted to waiter/waitress service.[2]

(c)   Under the current licence, when the premises closed at midnight, 193 high volume vertical drinkers would leave the premises and enter the stress area. Under the current proposals, when the doors closed at midnight, customers could remain on the premises until such time as they wished to leave and would do so under greater management control both inside and outside the premises.

(d)  Substantial food would be available and it was proposed that there be a condition that substantial food be available when the premises was operating.

(e)  The current operator, Swift One Holdings Ltd, took over the premises about four years ago and were now running the premises in the manner shown in the Applicant’s [illustrated] submission.

(f)    It was a condition of the current licence that substantial food be available throughout the premises opening hours. However, the sale of alcohol was not ancillary to the sale of a substantial meal.

(g)  Customers entering the basement area would automatically be seated. Customers on the ground floor would be allocated an area when they entered the premises and where they would be waited upon by staff. There would be no customer service at the bar.

(h)  Customers waiting to enter the premises at peak times currently queued outside the premises. Under the proposals, customers would still queue outside the premises, but the doors would close at midnight.

(i)    The provision of seated areas necessarily restricted the number of customers that the premises could currently accommodate (60 persons on the ground floor and 60 in the basement area). However, should the operator wish to remove a lot of the seating, the premises could still accommodate 193 customers.

Representations on Behalf of the Licensing Authority

On behalf of the Licensing Authority, Ms Angela Seaward made the following submissions.

(a)  The application came within Council’s Pubs & Bars policy as the premises was within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA); the application was to extend the operating hours; and, because the proposed sale of alcohol would not be ancillary to ordering a substantial meal.

(b)  Accordingly, it was the Council policy to refuse such applications unless the applicant could demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

(c)   It was also Council policy that, when applying for a new premises licence, any existing premises licence should be surrendered in accordance with the Council’s Model Condition 62.[3] On this occasion, the Applicant had stated that they were not willing to surrender the existing licence.

(d)  The Licensing Authority were of the view that it was for the Licensing Subcommittee to determine whether the Applicant had demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would allow the Council to depart from its policy in relation to CIA’s.

In response to a question as to why his client did not wish to surrender the existing premises licence, Mr Lavell stated his client was concerned that, should a time-limited premises licence be granted and the existing licence surrendered, when the new licence expired, there would be no premises licence in place. He suggested that consideration could be given to a new premises licence which was time-limited with the opening hours and conditions reverting to the existing licence on the expiration of the new licence.

Mr Kerry Simpkin, Policy Officer, confirmed that, although the present application was not for a time-limited premises licence, the Sub Committee could consider such a proposal as an exception to the Council’s policy on CIA’s. However, he noted that it had been proposed that the reduction in customer numbers provided an exception to the Council’s Pubs & Bars policy.

 

Representations on Behalf of the Environmental Health Service

On behalf of the Environmental Health Service, Mr Ian Watson made the following submissions.

(a)  Given previous concerns regarding public nuisance affecting Greek Court it was proposed that consideration be given to including the following conditions as part of the licence, should the application be granted –

·       Customers shall not enter or leave the premises from Greek Court except in the event of an emergency; and

·       After 21:00 hours Greek Court shall not be used for storage, deliveries or refuse, and the exit door to Greek Court shall not be used except in an emergency

(b)  It was a concern that, notwithstanding the seating arrangements restricting the number of customers, the premises could accommodate, the capacity for customer numbers remained the same.

(c)   In the time the Applicant had been operating the premises, there had been no significant complaints by residents, including a number of TENs (Temporary Event Notices) when the premises had operated until the early hours of the morning.

(d)  Officers had concerns regarding arrangements for smoking and dispersal at late hours. There was a proposed condition that up to 10 persons at any one time be allowed outside the premises to smoke. It was proposed that the Sub Committee might wish to consider reducing this number to 6, in keeping with Council guidelines. It was noted that the application now contained a proposed condition that there be a door supervisor and that the last entry time of midnight would prevent the premises from becoming a late-night destination venue.

(e)  Regarding the proposal to exclude certain conditions from the existing licence in any new licence conditions, it was noted that some of these conditions were now redundant and that others were difficult to enforce.

In response to a question by the Chairman regarding queueing outside the premises, Mr Watson stated that, because there was no entry after midnight, there would be no late-night queues and operators would be expected to manage queues in accordance with social distancing requirements. He noted that there were also queueing applications used by operators to inform customers when they could enter the premises thereby avoiding customers having to queue outside the premises.

 

Representations on Behalf of the Metropolitan Police

PC Bryan Lewis stated that the main concern of the Police was the dispersal of up to 120 persons at 2 AM and that the premises were within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). He noted that all the Licence Conditions proposed by the Police had been agreed by the Applicant.

In response to a question, PC Lewis stated that the Police were concerned that customers could be leaving the premises at a time when there was a greater incidence of intoxicated persons on the street making them more vulnerable because of their intoxication and because of the reduced numbers of persons on the street at that time of night.

 

Representations by Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Licensing Advice Project, Representing Local Residents and The Soho Society

Regarding the representations made by the Applicant concerning the reduction in numbers, Mr Brown proposed that, by extending the existing opening hours, the cumulative impact was up to 120 persons entering the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) later than the premises current closing time of midnight.

Mr Brown referred to the representation set out at Page 5 in the Additional Information Pack, noting that it had not been part of his representations that the application may be time-limited as this proposal did not form part of the application. Specifically, he referred to the following points

(a)  The premises was in a highly residential area with many of the residences on the upper floors of premises in Old Compton Street. Residents were pragmatic about the levels of noise associated with licensed premises in the area but only to the extent of the current hours which were already beyond the Council’s Core Hours.

(b)  A notable effect of extending the hours would be the operation of the ventilation system in Greek Court affecting those flats with windows looking on to Greek Court.

(c)   Referring to policy considerations and the representation set out on Page 9 of the Additional Information Pack, it was noted that an application would not be considered exceptional unless it addressed the underlying reasons for the policy. Without more, extending the opening hours until 2 AM did not meet the exceptional circumstances criteria of the policy.

(d)  The impact of extending the opening hours, contrary to Policy PB2 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, would be to allow up to 120 persons to enter the stress (CIA) area when the premises closed at 2 AM.

(e)  Referring to Mr Lavell’s submissions on behalf of the Applicant, it was submitted that –

·       The proposed reduction in the capacity of the premises could constitute an exception to the Council’s special policy on cumulative impact in CIA’s (Policy CIP1), the potential for the premises to accommodate up to 193 customers and the extended opening hours meant that there would be an increase in the number of persons entering the CIA when the premises closed; and

·       That the proposed condition that customers in the basement area be seated and service restricted to waiter or waitress service referred to the Council’s policy on appropriate conditions up until 8 PM.

(f)    Regarding Covid-19, The Soho Society had concerns about overcrowding during the alfresco dining period.

(g)  The premises may become a destination venue as it would be possible to enter the premises just before midnight and order alcohol, unlike the present situation where it was not possible to order alcohol after midnight.

Representations by Ms Jane Doyle, The Soho Society

Ms Doyle made the following submissions.

(a)  This was a high crime area where drug dealing took place. It was also a highly residential area with a house of multiple occupation two doors down from the premises, and there was a hotel in the immediate vicinity.

(b)  Other premises in the area were not licensed beyond 11.00 pm or midnight.

(c)   If the licence was granted, it should include a condition discouraging pedicabs.

(d)  That the number of smokers outside the premises be restricted to 3 as to allow more would encroach upon the premises on either side.

The Chairman then invited the parties to sum up their representations.

Summary on Behalf of the Licensing Authority

If the Sub Committee was minded to grant a time-limited premises licence, the Licensing Authority would not then request that the Applicant surrender the existing licence.

Summary on Behalf of the Environmental Health Service

Mr Watson reiterated his concerns about the number of people that might be allowed to smoke outside the premises and the location of the smoking area.

Summary on Behalf of the Metropolitan Police

PC Bryan Lewis noted, should the application be granted, that Condition 33 in the current premises licence relating to CCTV be updated as it made an anachronistic reference to “tapes”.

Summary by Richard Brown on Behalf of the Soho Society & Residents

Mr Brown said that, in considering the application, he would ask the Sub Committee to consider whether the measures proposed provided support for an exception to the Council’s Pubs & Bars policy. In his submission, the application did not meet the strict requirements allowing for an exception to the policy.

Summary by Mr Lavell on Behalf of the Applicant

Mr Lavell noted that the current licence permitted the provision of regulated entertainment for a 24-hour period and the sale of alcohol until midnight. He stated that the proposed application offered a reduction in both the number of persons in the premises and the number of persons entering the CIA between midnight and 2 AM i.e., presently, persons left the premises at midnight but remained within the CIA as they continued their evening’s entertainment.

Under the current proposals, customers would leave the premises at any time up until 2 AM and were more likely to end the evening at the premises before going home rather than remaining within the CIA.

Regarding criminal activity in the CIA late at night, which was not linked to the premises as the activity occurred after the premises had closed, the presence of a registered SIA door supervisor would assist in reducing crime and alerting the police to criminal activity, thereby assisting in the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Mr Lavell had noted that the police had recognised that the premises were well-run and that this would be a further ground for providing an exception to the Council’s Pubs & Bars policy.

Regarding queueing, the current licence allowed people to queue outside the premises. However, the applicant would be willing to take measures, including the possible use of a queueing app, to manage queueing at the premises as might be conditioned by the premises licence.

Concerns about the premises’ ventilation had been discussed with residents and it was thought that the matter had been resolved. However, the Applicant would be willing to have further discussions with residents to resolve any issues.

If the proposed number of smokers was deemed to be too high, it would be open to the Sub Committee to specify the number of smokers permitted in the smoking area in the licence conditions.

Regarding time-limited licences, the Sub Committee had, on occasion, granted an application for a premises licence but for a limited period only, reflecting the reality of Covid-19.

Mr Edmund Weil: Owner & Operator

On behalf of the owners and operators of the premises, Mr Weil stated that it was important to the owners to be part of the local community and that their premises be a legacy and sustainable venue that worked with residents. He stated that, as owners and operators of premises in Shoreditch, the applicants had developed excellent relationships with the local community. It was the company’s intention to operate high quality, low-impact lounge venues offering an exceptional experience to its guests.

Mr Weil stated that, as owners and operators of the premises, they would be willing to set up a WhatsApp group which residents could join and use to raise general and/or specific concerns regarding the operation of the premises. Regarding dispersal, he noted that customers tended to leave before closing time and, at the end of the evening, there was usually only a handful of customers remaining on the premises.

Referring to Covid-19, Mr Weil stated that the regulations governing social distancing, “Rule-of-6”, curfew & Tier 2, he stated that it had been “death by a thousand cuts” for the industry. He stated that the proposed changes to the licence would sustain the business in the long term, and that the lifting of the curfew would allow the business to get nearer to breaking even. The substantial losses sustained by the business had meant that some staff redundancies had been necessary, but it was hoped to keep this at a minimum. In conclusion, Mr Weil stated that the proposed extension to the licence would provide a lifeline given the significantly reduced number of customers.

 

ADJOURNMENT

The Chairman announced that, at this stage of the proceedings, the Sub Committee would retire to consider its decision and that a summary of the Sub Committee’s decision would be available within five working days.

 

DECISION

Having considered the report of the Director of Public Protection and Licensing; the papers in the Additional Information Pack; and, having heard the representations from the various parties, it was the Sub Committee’s decision to REFUSE the application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Sub Committee’s reasons for refusing the application are set out in the Summary Decision attached as an appendix to this minute.