Agenda item

Ward CIA*	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
Little Venice	Puppet Theatre Barge, Blomfield Road, London W9 2PF	Premises Licence Variation	20/09771/LIPV
*Cumulative Impact Area

 

Present:                       Stan Middleton, General Manager, Puppet Theatre Barge & Rob Humphreys, Secretary of the Board of Trustees for Art of the Puppet Ltd (for the applicant); Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster (representing residents); and Sonia Shah, Lucy Evans & Harriet Sergeant (residents)

Representations:        Representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service (EHS); the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS);[1] and residents.

Applicant:                    Art of the Puppet Ltd

Ward:                           Little Venice

CIA[2]:                             Not applicable

Summary of Application

The application was for a variation of a premises licence.

INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the Members of the Sub Committee and the Council Officers who would be supporting the Sub Committee. He stated that Cllr Arzymanow, as a local resident, had declared an interest in this item and had recused herself from hearing the application. The Chairman then explained the procedure that would be followed at the meeting before inviting the Presenting Officer, Ms Jessica Donovan, to present the report.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Ms Jessica Donovan, Senior Licensing Officer

Ms Donovan summarised the application as set out in the report before the Sub Committee. She stated that the applicant would be represented by Mr Rob Middleton, General Manager, Puppet Theatre Barge, and Rob Humphreys, Secretary of the Board of Trustees for Art of the Puppet Ltd. She noted that, during the consultation period, the applicant had amended the application for the sale of alcohol on Sundays from 10:00 hours to 12:00 hours.

Ms Donovan reported that representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service (EHS) and local residents. Mr Richard Brown of Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Project, would be representing the Paddington Waterways & Maida Vale Society (PWMVS) and the Southeast Bayswater Residents’ Association (SEBRA).

A further submission had been received from Mr Richard Brown and other interested parties and these are been included in the Additional Information Pack circulated to the various parties.

In conclusion, as Donovan noted that the premises was located within the Little Venice Ward and was not within a cumulative impact area.

Mr Stan Middleton, General Manager, Puppet Theatre Barge

Mr Middleton stated that he would start his presentation by providing some background information on the Theatre and what the Theatre hoped to achieve.

He stated that the Puppet Theatre Barge was a family run business which started in 1982 and operated from a converted Thames lighter (barge), which had been converted into a double-bridge string marionette theatre. The Theatre’s Patron was Sir Michael Palin, KCMG CBE FRGS. Originally, the theatre was moored at Camden Lock but had relocated to Little Venice in 1988 where it was moored for most of the year apart from a few months in the summer when it visited Richmond-upon-Thames.

The Theatre specialised in long string of marionettes i.e., string puppets that had a tradition stretching back to the 17^th-century; there being just one other theatre in the country which regularly presented performances using this art form. The Theatre had managed to keep going in the current economic climate after receiving a grant from central government’s Cultural Recovery Fund. The purpose in applying for a variation to the premises licence was to safeguard the future of the theatre and its artistic work by increasing its revenue.

Mr Middleton stated that almost all the shows were for children and families and the theatre was open every weekend and every day during the school holidays. It was not proposed that there be any changes to the frequency of performances as a result of the present application. The Theatre also had a repertoire of plays for adults, including Shakespeare, Lorca and Coleridge, which were performed in the evening. In January of last year, the Theatre had put on three weeks of evening performances as part of the London International Mime Festival. At these events, the Theatre had operated a “bring-your-own” policy regarding alcohol and there had been no complaints about noise or any other complaint about these events.

The company was invested in the peace and tranquillity of the area and had contributed to its ambience by being a friendly, charming and cultural asset at the heart of the community. The company cared for its neighbours and did not want to upset anyone because, without the local community, the theatre would not exist.

Rather than inviting audiences to bring their own alcohol, the company wanted to be able to offer alcohol for sale in line with most other theatres. Mr Middleton noted that the barge was not within a cumulative impact area and that the application was for the sale of alcohol within core hours. As well as the sale of alcohol, the application included “Showing of Films” to add diversity to the theatre’s repertoire; attract new audiences, and increase revenue. The intention was to show work by international puppeteers, that is, niche Puppetry and Art films by Independent filmmakers. The Theatre would not be showing commercial films which would not be viable because of the screening fees.

Licensing Objective: Protecting Children from Harm

1.     Restrictions on the Sale of Alcohol: Regarding residents’ concerns about the application, Mr Middleton stated that the applicant was no different from other theatre in that it put on performances for both adults and children. As was customary with other theatres, the applicant wished to offer alcohol for sale. He noted that a condition had been included in the application stating that the sale of alcohol would not be available for performances primarily intended for children under the age of 12.

Licensing Objective: Prevention of Public Nuisance

2.     Noise Nuisance: Regarding concerns about noise and the possibility of people drinking and smoking on the towpath, suitably worded conditions had been included in the application prohibiting anyone from taking any drinks with them when leaving the barge to have a cigarette. The doors to the Theatre opened 30 minutes before a performance started. Therefore, there was no time for excessive drinking that could cause a nuisance. It was noted that people who visited the theatre were there for one reason i.e., to see a show or screening. Accordingly, the sale of alcohol would be restricted to persons attending a pre-booked/ticketed performance on the day of the performance.

3.     Smoking & Litter: Regarding smoking, it had been the applicant’s experience that smokers were generally responsible about disposing of their cigarette stubs. An ashtray was provided on the deck of the barge and that was where smokers stood when smoking. He stated that this had never raised any nuisance issues. Also, very little noise emanated from the premises and there had been no complaints about noise.

4.     Setting a Precedent for the Sale of Alcohol: Regarding the application setting a precedent, Mr Middleton stated that it was not the applicant’s intention to operate as a bar. As each application had to be considered on its merits with regard to promoting the licensing objectives, the applicant made no reliance on the existence of the nearby Bridge House Pub in support of the application.

Licensing Objective: Prevention of Crime and Disorder

5.     Antisocial Behaviour: Regarding concerns that the dimly lit towpath may give rise to antisocial behaviour, Mr Middleton noted that the Theatre’s audiences comprised theatre lovers and puppetry enthusiasts so that, when the Theatre put on evening performances, the presence of the audience made the dimly lit towpath safer and less intimidating and was a deterrent to antisocial behaviour. In addition, the Theatre’s CCTV and security lighting contributed to the invention of crime and disorder.

6.     Criminal Behaviour: Regarding concerns about public urination, the Theatre had a toilet which met the needs of the Theatre’s audiences which generally comprised elderly persons or people on a family outing. Therefore, there was no comparison with people leaving a pub or bar after a night of drinking who might be tempted to urinate on the towpath or cause a nuisance in other ways.

Licensing Objective: Prevention of Public Nuisance [see above]

7.     Waste Collection: The Theatre was a very small business. Deliveries were made to the applicant’s East London Offices and stock was brought to the barge by the applicant. Similarly, staff disposed of the small amount of waste that was generated using the bins provided outside the Bridge House Pub. It was not proposed that there be any change to the present arrangement which would be operated in accordance with proposed Condition 12, as set out in the application.

8.     Restrictions on Evening Performances: the premises was a purpose-built marionette theatre which did not have the flexibility to be reconfigured for different types of events. Previously, the Theatre had hosted approximately 20 to 30 evening performances each year for adults who were allowed to bring their own alcohol, and this had never given cause for concern. Consequently, the applicant would not want to limit the number or time of evening performances as this may restrict the applicant’s ability to participate in festivals where it may wish to put on more than one performance in a day.

The Chairman thanked Mr Middleton for his presentation. In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Middleton stated that the audience numbers for film showings would be the same as that for puppet shows. The premises licence allowed an audience of up to 55 persons. However, when putting on adult performances, the applicant restricted the audience number to 40 for the comfort of the audience members.

Mr David Nevitt, Environmental Health Service (EHS)

The present application was for licensable activities to supplement the applicant’s principal activity of putting on puppet performances. He stated that a number of conditions had been agreed with the applicant and the key condition was No. 14, which stated –

“The sale or supply of alcohol shall at all times only be to persons attending a pre-booked ticketed film screening or performance of a play on that day.”

He stated that this condition was in accordance with a condition applied to many Westminster theatres and cinemas. In addition, as Members could see from the Plans of the premises, the layout was such that most of the space was given over to the stage and the bench seating for the audience. Therefore, there was very little space that could be used as a place to gather for a prolonged drinking.

Mr Nevitt proposed that the conditions that had been agreed with the applicant met any concerns that he might have had, as well as addressing most of the concerns expressed by residents. He stated that, given the number of representations made by residents, the Environmental Health Service (EHS) had maintained its representation so that it may assist in addressing the concerns of residents.

In response to questions by the Chairman, Mr Nevitt stated that –

1.     The on-board toilet would not be sufficient if the premises were a pub or bar where people were engaged in sustained drinking. However, given the limited capacity of the premises and the nature of the licensable activities, he was satisfied that the single toilet, given its size and location, was sufficient; and

2.     The capacity of the premises, excluding staff, should not exceed 55 persons, and that number would be added to proposed condition No. 16[3].

Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster (on behalf of PWMVS and SEBRA)

Mr Brown stated that the residents who had made representations all lived very nearby in what was a residential area and had he summarised their representations in his submission at Paragraph 3.2, on pages 45 & 46 of the Additional Information Pack. He stated that there was a lot of goodwill towards the Theatre by Westminster City Council, as well as residents and Ward Councillors.

Mr Brown stated that, of particular relevance to this application, was the distinction between how the premises intended to operate and what might be permitted by the license if it was granted on the proposed terms.

Referring to his summary of residents’ objections, Mr Brown singled out the following matters which were of particular concern to residents.

The Toilet Provision on the Barge Was Not Sufficient

Without the proposed condition restricting the capacity of the Barge to 55, and the condition proposed by residents that would limit the number of performances for adult audiences, residents were concerned that one toilet would not be sufficient.

Therefore, if the Sub Committee was minded to grant the application, residents would request that these two conditions be added to the licence conditions. Mr Brown proposed that to impose these conditions would be reasonable and proportionate as they were in accordance with the information provided by the applicant to residents in the Applicant’s letter at Page 75 of the Agenda Pack viz:

“For more than 30 years we have hosted evening performances for adult audiences in Little Venice… We have always had a “bring your own alcohol” policy for these performances aimed at adults… Difference now would be that drinking will be controlled by the conditions and commitments of the licence.

We host an average of around 20 to 30 performances aimed at adults per year and we would like to assure you that this number would not change as it is difficult to attract an audience of adults to watch a puppet show, so regular events for adults are not financially viable (even with the addition of alcohol).”

Proposed Restriction on the Hours That Alcohol Could Be Consumed

Referring to Paragraph 3.8 of his submission (under the subheading “Conditions” on page 47 of the Additional Information Pack), which said:

“The applicant has also stated that the Barge does not open until 30 minutes prior to a performance. It would therefore seem to make sense to restrict the events to a more discreet portion of the day e.g., that the events take place between, say, 6 PM and 10 PM rather than all day.”

Mr Brown stated that this was in accordance with the applicant’s day-to-day operation. He acknowledged that this would exclude the sale of alcohol during special events such as festivals, but that there was always the availability of Temporary Event Notices (TENs) for such occasions.

Waste Collections

The application proposed that waste collections should not take place after 10 PM. If the Sub Committee was minded to grant the application, this would increase the amount of glass waste on the premises, the disposal of which would be noisy. Therefore, residents asked that waste disposal/collections should not be allowed to take place as late as 10 PM.

Sonia Shah, Resident

Ms Shah stated that she was extra grateful for the additional information provided by The Puppet Barge Theatre which residents supported as a valuable part of the community.

She stated that her main concern was to see the ways in which the applicant intended to operate the premises codified in the premises licence as this would allay many of the concerns of residents and give some reassurance should the business ever be sold and a new operator take over the running of the premises.

Ms Shah said that her other concern was noise associated with deliveries and waste disposal. She said that the noise of waste disposal and collections, particularly of glass bottles, was loud and carried across the water. Therefore, she proposed that 10 PM was too late for these activities and it would address residents’ concerns if waste disposal could be carried out during the day.

Regarding showing of films, Ms Shah asked of this might require soundproofing measures which might not otherwise be necessary for puppet performances.

Lucy Evans, Resident

Ms Evans stated that residents were very supportive of the Puppet Theatre Barge as it had been part of the lives of residents and their children for many years. She would like to see a limit imposed on the sale of alcohol before and after performances rather than granting a licence to sell alcohol from 10 AM to 10 PM.

Ms Evans went on to say that she believed that the applicant was anxious not to do anything that would disturb the environment but she was concerned that allowing the sale of alcohol during these hours could undermine wildlife and the peaceful environment. Therefore, she asked that the licence conditions be sufficiently prescriptive as to the number of performances allowed and the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol.

Harriet Sergeant, Resident

Ms Sargent stated that she lived opposite the nearest exit from the canal from the Puppet Theatre Barge and that she was concerned about people leaving the Theatre at night as her bedroom window overlooked the canal. She was also concerned about the possibly of the business being sold and asked if it would be possible to exercise some control in that event.

Ms Sargent stated that, like the other residents, she fully supported the Puppet Theatre Barge and she did not want to do anything to stop the business. However, she would like to be reassured that there would be some means of reviewing the operation of the premises if, say, in a year’s time, residents were having a terrible time. Ms Sargent went on to say that she very much hoped that this would not be the case and that, should the variation to the licence be granted, the operation of the premises would continue without concern.

The Chairman stated that, reading the papers and the representations, he was heartened to see that there was unanimous support on the part of residents for the Puppet Theatre Barge. He stated that the applicant was to be congratulated on getting on so well with their neighbours over the last 30 years in a very sensitive area.

By way of reassuring Ms Sargent, the Chairman stated that any concerns about the operation of the premises could be raised, in the first instance, with the Licensing Authority and the Environmental Health Service. If matters could not be resolved at that level, residents could seek a Review of the premises licence by the Council’s Licensing Committee which had the power to revoke the premises licence, if necessary.

The Chairman asked if the applicant might address the points raised by residents. In particular, he would like the applicant to respond to the proposal that there should be a limit on the number of events permitted each a year, as that may give residents some reassurance that there would not be several events each week.

He also asked that the applicant address the issue of restricting the hours for the sale of alcohol. He noted that it may be possible to find a form of words for a condition which would restrict the sale of alcohol according to the scheduled times for performances and events e.g., half an hour before and after each performance or event.

In response, Mr Middleton stated that –

1.     Limiting the Number of Evening Performances: the number of evening performances for adults had been limited to about 25 a year as that was as many performances that could be staged while remaining financially viable. To allow the business to grow and prosper without affecting residents, a limit of 50 performances a year would allow the applicant to put on one such performance each week.

2.     Waste Collection/Disposal: there was very little waste produced by the premises. Consequently, the applicant would have no objection to any restrictions that the Sub Committee may wish to put on the collection and/or disposal of waste.

In response to a proposal by the Chairman, Mr Middleton stated that he would was willing to agree to a condition restricting waste collection/disposal from 10 AM to 8 PM.

3.     Restrictions on the Hours for the Sale of Alcohol: the applicant would be willing to accept a condition restricting the sale of alcohol to half an hour before a performance, and no later than half an hour after a performance.

4.     Soundproofing for Showing Films: the sound levels for film showings would be the same as those for puppet performances and, therefore, there was no requirement for additional soundproofing measures.

The Chairman stated that, he would ask Mr Brown, in his summing up, to address the issue of limiting the number of evening performances for adult audiences.

SUMMING UP

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

Mr Nevitt, Environmental Health Service (EHS)

By way of summing up, Mr Nevitt provided the following information.

1.    He did not believe that it was necessary for there to be any additional soundproofing measures in relation to showing films. Should noise nuisance become an issue for residents, there were enforcement powers that could address this concern.

2.    The proposed conditions agreed with the applicant addressed the concerns raised by the Environmental Health Service (EHS), as well as many of the concerns raised by residents.

3.    Any restriction on the number of performances should refer to evening performances as it was more likely that any concerns about noise and/or nuisance would arise as a result of evening performances.

4.    If the applicant found that he wanted to put on more evening performances than were allowed by the terms of the licence, it was always open to the applicant to apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN).

The Chairman noted that the advantage of applying for a TEN was that it could cover 10 consecutive days which would allow the applicant to participate in week-long events such as festivals

Mr Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster (on behalf of residents)

Mr Brown made the following points.

1.    It was his understanding that, imposing a restriction on the number of performances was a restriction on the number of performances at which alcohol could be sold.

2.    He was not certain that restricting the number of evening performances would address residents’ concerns about maintaining the character of the Puppet Theatre Barge, particularly if an unlimited number of daytime events was permitted.

3.    If the Sub Committee was minded to allow, say, up to 50 performances a year, and there was a condition restricting the sale of alcohol to a period of time before and after performances, that would address residents’ concerns about alcohol being consumed over long periods of time.

4.    The additional Condition 29[4] proposed by the Environmental Health Service and agreed by the applicant, set out on page 87 of the Agenda Pack: Appendix 5, could provide the basis for a suitable wording restricting the times when alcohol could be sold.

[Mr Brown then proposed a form of words for the Sub Committee to consider when it adjourned a to make its decision].

Sonia Shah, Resident

Ms Shah stated that she would be satisfied if the number of performances for an adult audience was restricted to 50 a year, including both daytime and evening performances.

Given the possibility that the business could be sold and that a new operator takes over the running of the premises, it was important that any restrictions on the operation of the premises were be clear in the conditions attached to the licence.

Lucy Evans, Resident

Ms Evan stated that she concurred with everything proposed by Mr Brown. In particular, she would want to see a condition that restricted the time that alcohol could be sold before and after a performance. She proposed that the imposition of such a condition would limit the potential for any disorder while assisting Mr Middleton with his business.

Harriet Sergeant, Resident

Ms Sargent stated that she was in agreement with the points made and that she was happy with what had been said.

Mr Middleton on Behalf of the Applicant

Mr Middleton stated that it had been a good discussion and it was good to hear the opinions of residents. He wished to reiterate the point that the company had been operating for many years and had retained a good relationship with the community.

Regarding the possibility that the business might be handed on to another operator, he stated that he did not think that the business would be viable unless it was a family business, noting that all three generations of the family poured a lot into the operation of the premises. He was satisfied that the proposed conditions would restrict any future owner/operator to managing the premises on the same terms as the applicant.

Regarding the proposed conditions restricting the number of performances and the times which alcohol could be sold, Mr Middleton said that the applicant would be willing to agree to conditions to that effect.

In conclusion, the Chairman stated that he wished to express his personal, as well as the Council’s support for Arts organisations at this very difficult time, and that performances would, once again, be staged as soon as this was possible.

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow Members to retire to consider their decision. He stated that the Sub Committee would not announce its decision today but that a summary of the decision would be sent to the various parties within five working days.

The Chairman then closed the live part of the virtual meeting.

DECISION

It was the Sub Committee’s decision to Approve the application, as set out in the Summary Decision attached to these minutes as an appendix.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having read the report by the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before it; the written submissions of the applicant, and residents objecting to the application; and, having heard a presentation on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s responses to several questions, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to Approve the application.

In reaching its decision, the Sub Committee took the following matters into consideration.

1.     The applicant already operated a “bring-your-own-bottle” policy in relation to the supply of alcohol for performances staged primarily for adult audiences, and had done so without incident. In addition, the applicant would not be offering alcohol for sale before or after performances aimed primarily at children under the age of 12;

2.     The doors to the Theatre opened 30 minutes before each performance and the applicant had agreed to a condition that the sale of alcohol would not exceed 30 minutes before the start of a performance, or more than 30 minutes after the end of a performance, and that sales of alcohol would be restricted to persons who had bought a ticket or tickets for that performance.

3.     It had been the applicant’s experience that very few people attending a performance wished to smoke. However, for those smokers who did want to smoke, an ashtray was provided on the deck of the barge. Therefore, there was no need for smokers to go on to the towpath for a cigarette. In addition, there was a prohibition on anyone wishing to exit and re-enter the theatre from taking any drinks or glass containers with them thereby removing the temptation for smokers to linger while having a cigarette.

4.     The Environmental Health Service (EHS) had confirmed that the toilet facilities were sufficient for the capacity of the premises and that the proposed conditions agreed with the applicant addressed the concerns the EHS had raised with the applicant as well as addressing the concerns of residents.

5.     The applicant had, during the course of the presentation by Mr Middleton, demonstrated an understanding and knowledge of the licensing objectives and what was required of the applicant.

In conclusion, the Sub Committee was satisfied that the applied-for licensable activities would be ancillary to the main business of the applicant and the applicant’s willingness to agree to proposed conditions was sufficient to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives.