Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
West End West End N/A	56 Wardour St London W1D 4JG	New Premises Licence	21/01576/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

This will be a virtual meeting. Members of the Public can view the live broadcast using the media links on the Council’s website.

 

 

FULL DECISION

LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE NO. 2

Thursday, 3 June 2021

Members Present:   Councillors Tim Mitchell (Chairman); and Jacqui Wilkinson

Officer Support:      Legal Officer:                                  Horatio Chance

                                  Policy Officer:                                  Kerry Simpkin

                                  Committee Officer:                                   Cameron MacLean

                                  Presenting Officer:                                  Michelle Steward

Present:                   Luke Elford, Solicitor, Woodswhur (representing the applicant); Connor Thomson-More (applicant); Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Project (on behalf of the Soho Society); and David Gleeson (Resident & Member of The Soho Society)

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE: 21/01576/LIPN

FULL DECISION

Premises

Ruby’s

56 Wardour St
London
W1D 4JG

Applicant

Wardour Street Trading Ltd

Ward

West End

Cumulative Impact Area (CIA)/Special Considerations Zone (SCZ)

CIA:   West End

SCZ:  Not Applicable

Summary of Application

The applicant was seeking a New Premises Licence to operate the Premises as a restaurant and bar. The application was for a 2-year time-limited licence.

Representations Received

Representations had been received from –

Responsible Authorities

The Environmental Health Service (EHS); the Licensing Authority; and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Other Persons

Soho Estates Ltd; and The Soho Society.

 

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT

Mr Luke Elford, Solicitor, Woods Whur On Behalf of The Applicant

Mr Elford presented the application on behalf of the applicant. In so doing, he noted that there was an error in the report before the Sub-Committee with regard to Live Music, Recorded Music and Late-Night Refreshment on Saturdays viz the application was to permit these licensable activities until 02:30 hours, and not 03:30 hours, as stated in the report.

Referring to the various representations, Mr Elford noted that these were policy-based and that, should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant the application it was the applicant’s contention that so doing would not undermine the Licensing Objectives given the comprehensive suite of proposed conditions set out on Page 39 of the Additional Information Pack, many of which were Westminster City Council Model Conditions.

Mr Elford stated that the reason for proposing a two-year, time-limited Premises Licence was because the applicant would not be in a position to use the licence immediately. In addition, the applicant would have to close the Premises to allow changes to be made to the layout of the Premises and it was anticipated that this work would take about three months. Furthermore, it was unlikely that the applicant would close the Premises any time soon to carry out this work.

Mr Elford also noted that the Premises Licence, if granted, would be specific to the applicant and could not be used by anyone else or any other operation. Regarding the objection that the application would be setting a precedent, Mr Elford noted that it was a requirement that each application for a Premises Licence be considered on its merits and, therefore, the present application would not be setting a precedent.

Referring to the Plans that were in the documents before the Sub-Committee, Mr Elford described the layout of the Premises and the proposed changes to the layout of the Premises. He stated that the applicant was not seeking any meaningful change to the way in which the Premises operated, but was seeking greater flexibility in the way the Premises operated and because the present Premises Licence conditions, including Model Condition (MC) 66, meant that the applicant had to turn away a significant amount of business.

Mr Elford referred to the clientele the Premises attracted and the letters of support for the Premises that had been submitted with the application. In so doing, he stated it was the applicant’s intention to increase the profits of the business, but not at the expense of the Licensing Objectives. Mr Elford then referred to the proposed conditions intended to assist in dispersal from the Premises, and the type of regulated entertainment it was proposed to stage at the Premises, which would be confined to the basement area of the Premises after 11 PM or midnight.

Mr Elford then addressed the Sub-Committee on the Council’s policy in relation to cumulative impact and the effect that the Coronavirus Regulations had had on the hospitality industry. He stated he did not wish the Sub-Committee to consider the application only on the basis of a Covid-19 exception to the CIA policy. It was Mr Elford’s contention that, when considered as a whole, the application could overcome the hurdle of the Council’s CIA policy.

In conclusion, Mr Elford stated that, if the Sub-Committee was not minded to grant the application as it stood, the applicant would be willing to engage in sensible conversation about specific aspects of the application that could be changed.

In response to questions by the Sub-Committee, Mr Elford provided the following information.

1.     He described the operation of the premises, stating that, for customers who did not wish to eat, there was a small seated area on the ground floor where customers could have a drink.

2.     The planned refurbishment of the Premises included expanding this seated area for customers who do not wish to order a meal.

3.     Referring to the Plans that were before the Sub-Committee, Mr Elford described the proposed refurbishment work in the basement area.

4.      If the Sub-Committee was to say it was prepared to grant the extended hours but had concerns about allowing customers to order drinks without a meal after a certain time, the applicant would prefer that the Sub-Committee granted the extended hours rather than the out-and-out bar facility subject to the applicant retaining permission for the current licensable activities.

PRESENTATIONS BY RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES

Mr Maxwell Koduah, Environmental Health Service (EHS)

Mr Koduah summarised the EHS representations. In so doing, he referred to the existing Premises Licence and conditions and the implications of the current time-limited application and proposed refurbishment works vis-à-vis the current Premises Licence conditions.

Mr Koduah noted that there was no history of complaints associated with the Premises, which he attributed to the current Premises Licence conditions. However, he was concerned that an extension of the hours could add to the cumulative impact in the area as customers dispersed from the Premises during the extended hours. Mr Koduah was also concerned about the practical implications for enforcing the Premises Licence conditions if there were two Premises Licences with different conditions.

In conclusion, Mr Koduah noted that, because he had advised the applicant that he would maintain his representation because the application was beyond the Council’s core hours, the applicant had not agreed the Premises Licence conditions proposed by the EHS.

PC Cheryl Booth, Westminster Police Licensing Unit

PC Booth stated that the Police had maintained its representations out of concern that the application, if granted, could undermine the Licensing Objective Of The Prevention Of Crime And Disorder, and because the Premises was located within the West End cumulative impact area.

PC Booth described the location of the Premises, noting that, pre-Covid-19, this part of Soho had been an alcohol-related crime hotspot which had placed a high demand on Police resources. Should the application be granted, this would allow a further two-and-a-half hours of drinking time giving rise to a possible increase in alcohol-related crime. It was noted that the applicant had proposed a number of conditions to address Police concerns. However, there remained concerns about the two bar areas, and it was the Police proposal that, after 23:00 hours, restaurant conditions (MC66) should apply with the sale of alcohol ancillary to a table meal.

PC Booth then detailed the conditions proposed by the Police as set out in the papers before the Sub-Committee and the reasons for proposing these conditions viz. to mitigate the possibility of Crime and Disorder, notably the possibility of customers leaving the Premises becoming the victims of crime. PC Booth confirmed that the applicant had agreed to some, but not all, of the conditions proposed by the Police.

In conclusion, PC Booth summarised the crime statistics for the Premises prior to the lockdown, noting that the Premises was not responsible for the crimes reported to Police and that the operation of the Premises under its present Premises Licence was not considered problematic by the Police.

Michelle Steward, Senior Licensing Officer, On Behalf Of the Licensing Authority

Ms Steward summarised the representation by the Licensing Authority which was set out on Pages 168-170 of the Agenda. In so doing, Ms Steward noted that the Premises was located within the West End cumulative impact area and, therefore, it was for the Sub-Committee to consider the application in accordance with the following policies set out in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy –

1.     Part D: Spatial Policies –

·       Cumulative Impact Zone (Policy CIP1)

2.     Part F: Premises Uses Policies –

·       Restaurants Policy (Policy RTN1); and

·       Public Houses and Bars Policy (Policy PB1)

Ms Steward noted that the Premises intended to trade predominantly as a restaurant and had proposed Westminster’s model restaurant condition. However, it was also noted that there was a separate area where the consumption of alcohol would not be ancillary to a table meal, thereby necessitating consideration of the application in accordance with the Public Houses and Bars Policy (PB1).

In addition, in accordance with Policy CIP1, it was for the applicant to demonstrate to the Sub-Committee’s satisfaction that granting the application would not add to the cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.

PRESENTATIONS BY PARTIES OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION

Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Project, On Behalf Of The Soho Society

Mr Brown stated that The Soho Society’s objections to the application were primarily policy-based, as set out in his submission at Pages 107-112 of the Additional Information Pack that was before Members of the Sub-Committee.

Mr Brown referred to the comparisons made by Mr Koduah of the Environmental Health Service between the existing Premises Licences and the application, noting that it was not clear from the application whether it was proposed to increase the capacity of the Premises.

Mr Brown then referred to the submission by the Soho Society on Pages 113-120 of the Additional Information Pack which set out The Soho Society’s view that granting the application would add to cumulative impact in accordance with the document produced by The Soho Society: West End Community Network – Position Regarding Licensing Act 2003 Applications for Later Hours for Covid Recovery.

Mr Brown reminded the Sub-Committee that it was for the applicant to demonstrate that the application would not add to the cumulative impact in the area; would promote the Licensing Objectives; and, therefore, could be granted as an exception to the Council’s Policy On Cumulative Impact Areas, as set out in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. He noted that it was not for the Police, Environmental Health Services (EHS), or objectors to establish that granting the application would add to cumulative impact in the area.

Referring to the Reasons for Policy CIP1 [Cumulative Impact Policy]: Paragraphs D1 and D4, as set out in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy [approved in January 2021], Mr Brown noted that there was nothing in the Policy to say that Covid-19 constituted an exception to the policy.

Regarding the proposed bar area, it was Mr Brown’s contention that it was for the applicant to demonstrate that this was a genuine exception to the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy; and, with regard to the restaurant area, that it was for the applicant to demonstrate that the additional operating hours would not add to cumulative impact in the area.

Mr Brown then referred to Paragraph F117 of the Council’s Restaurants Policy RTM1, which was reproduced in his submission at Page 111 of the Additional Information Pack. Specifically, he referred to the following provision with regard to the proposed extension of the operating hours until 2:30 AM, Thursday to Saturday -

“When considering applications for the sale of alcohol after 12 AM where representations are made on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder or public nuisance, the council will take into account the increased likelihood of crime and disorder and the greater disturbance from activities late at night”.

Mr Gleeson On Behalf of the Soho Society

Mr Gleeson stated that the general view of The Soho Society was set out in its submission West End Community Network: Position Regarding Licensing Act 2003 Applications for Later Hours for COVID Recovery (supra). He stated that The Soho Society was sympathetic to businesses who had to recoup their losses. However, it was The Soho Society’s view that extending operating hours was not an appropriate way to address the issue as this would harm residential amenity and undermine the Licensing Objectives.

Mr Gleeson then referred to specific sections in The Soho Society’s submission. He stated that The Soho Society’s main objection to the application was the location of the Premises in one of the most densely populated residential and commercial areas in Soho. He stated that the location of the Premises and its bright appearance and fold-out frontage, made this a honeypot venue which, as well as attracting customers, attracted cars, minicabs, pedicabs and pedestrians.

Mr Gleeson went on to note that, in recent years, the Premises had changed its name several times and that, on occasion, the front of the Premises had been open to the public while loud Drag Queen Acts had been performing.

Mr Gleeson then referred to observations by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that the area around Ruby’s was saturated with venues with late night Premises Licences, referred to in the representation by The Soho Society.

In conclusion, Mr Gleeson referred to concerns about crime and violence as set out in the representations by the Soho Society on pages 174 & 175 of the main agenda. These included the Council’s Policy on the Prevention of Crime and Disorder (CD1) and Crime Statistics for the area.

Questions by Members

In response to questions by Councillor Wilkinson regarding Mr Brown’s submissions on behalf of The Soho Society, the Chairman invited Mr Elford to reply on behalf of the applicant. Mr Elford then provided responses to Councillor Wilkinson’s questions regarding the requirement that the applicant show that the application, if granted, would not add to cumulative impact in the area; and the reasons why the application should be granted, as set out in the applicant’s supporting documents set out in the Additional Information Pack.

Mr Elford confirmed that the present capacity of the Premises was 180 persons. However, realistically, the capacity of the ground floor was approximately 100 and 40 to 50 in the basement area. He stated the reason the application did not refer to the capacity of the Premises was because it was proposed that, should the Premises Licence be granted, it would be for the applicant to carry out the plan refurbishment of the Premises and, once that work had been completed, it would be for the Council’s Environmental Health Officers to determine the capacity of the Premises during the “sign off” visit.

QUESTIONS BY OFFICERS

Horatio Chance, Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee

In response to a number of questions by the Sub-Committee’s Legal Adviser, Mr Elford described the proposed layout of the Premises and referred to the updated Premises Licence Conditions set out on Pages 39 to 45 of the Additional Information Pack, noting that agreement had been reached with the Police and the EHS about the provision of additional SIA licensed door staff on a risk assessed basis; on last entry conditions; and the closure of all windows and external doors after 22:00 hours or any time when regulated entertainment was taking place.

Mr Elford then identified those conditions proposed by the Police and the Environmental Health Service (EHS) that had not been agreed by the applicant, as set out in the applicant’s supporting documents in the Additional Information Pack.

Mr Elford noted that, if the application was not granted in its entirety, the applicant would have to consider whether it would be viable to proceed with the proposed refurbishment. He confirmed that the applicant would prefer that the Council’s Model Condition (MC) 66[1] did not apply after 23:00 hours.

SUMMING UP

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

Adjournment

Having heard those parties who wished to sum up their presentations, the Chairman closed the live part of the meeting to allow the Members of the Sub-Committee to adjourn to consider their decision.

DECISION

It was the Sub-Committee’s decision to REFUSE the application as set out in the Full Reasoned Decision drafted by the Licensing Sub-Committee’s Legal Adviser, which is attached as an Appendix to these Notes of the Meeting.

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 those parties objecting to the application; and, having heard presentations and representations by, and/or on behalf of, those parties present at the proceedings, as well as the responses by those parties to questions put to them by Members of the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that, in accordance with the Home Office Guidance,[2] and on the evidence before it, it was reasonable, appropriate and proportionate, in all the circumstances, to REFUSE the application.

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

1.     The lack of certainty on the part of the applicant regarding the proposed refurbishment works and the possibility that the applicant may wish to seek variations to the Premises Licence, should the application be granted, as the work progressed.

2.     Should the application be granted, there would be an additional drain on Police resources as identified by PC Boon in her representations and her presentation to the Sub-Committee viz. Customers leaving the Premise slate at night may well become the victims of crime.

3.     The Police representations were supported by the crime statistics provided by The Soho Society in their representations to the Sub-Committee.

4.     The representations opposing the application had, as their rationale, the wider cumulative impact should the application be granted.

5.     The applicant had failed to provide sufficient reasons as to why the application was an exception to the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy, as set out in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.