Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
St James’ West End N/A	Blame Gloria 20 Bedford St London WC2E 9HP	New Premises Licence	21/01538/LIPAN
*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.

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3 (“The Committee”)

 

Thursday 12 August 2021

 

Membership:       Councillor Jim Glen (Chairman) Councillor Susie Burbridge and

                           Councillor Aziz Toki

 

Officer Support:       Legal Advisor:         Viviene Walker

                                Policy Officer:          Kerry Simpkin

                                Committee Officer:  Georgina Wills

                                Presenting Officer:  Emanuela Meloyan

 

Application for a Time Limited New Premises Licence in respect of Blame Gloria 20 Bedford Street London WC2E 9HP 21/01538/LIPN

 

FULL DECISION

 

Premises

 

Blame Gloria, 20 Bedford Street, London WC2E 9HP

 

Applicant

 

+Venture Battersea Limited

 

Cumulative Impact Area?

 

West End

 

Special Consideration Zone

 

N/A

 

Ward

 

St James’s Ward

 

Summary of Application

 

This is an application for a New Time Limited Premises Licence from 1^st October 2021 to 31^st December 2022 under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”).  The Premises operate as a bar.  The Premises have the benefit of a time limited Premises Licence (Licence number 20/04576/LIPN) which expires on 30^th September 2021. The Premises are located in the St. James’s Ward within the West End Cumulative Impact Area but not in a Special Consideration Zone.

 

Activities and Hours applied for

 

Recorded Music (Indoors)

 

Monday to Wednesday: 10:00 hours to 23:30 hours
Thursday to Saturday: 10:00 hours to 01:00 hours

Sunday: 10:00 hours to 22:30 hours

 

Seasonal variations/Non-standard timings:

 

·       Sundays before Bank Holidays 10:00 hours to 00:00 hours

 

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

 

Monday to Wednesday: 23:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Thursday to Saturday: 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours

 

Seasonal variations/Non-standard timings:

 

·       Sundays before Bank Holidays 23:00 hours to 00:00 hours

 

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and Off Sales)

 

Monday to Wednesday: 10:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Thursday to Saturday: 10:00 hours to 01:00 hours

Sunday: 10:00 hours to 22:30 hours

 

Seasonal variations/Non-standard timings:

 

·       Sundays before Bank Holidays 10:00 hours to 00:00 hours

 

Hours premises are open to the public

 

Monday to Wednesday: 10:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Thursday to Saturday: 10:00 hours to 01:00 hours

Sunday: 10:00 hours to 22:30 hours

 

Seasonal variations/Non-standard timings:

 

·       Sundays before Bank Holidays 10:00 hours to 00:00 hours

 

Representations Received

 

• Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) (Adam Deweltz) (withdrawn)
• Licensing Authority (LA) (Michelle Steward)
• Covent Garden Community Association (‘CGCA’)
• 3 local residents

 

Summary of issues raised by objectors

 

·       LA sought further submission regarding the increase of capacity by 25 people in the cumulative impact area, how the supply of alcohol will be controlled and monitored, and noted that the applicant will need to satisfy the concerns of the Licensing Authority by demonstrating that the application will not add to cumulative impact if granted. It will be for Licensing Sub-Committee Members to determine this application, given its location within the West End Cumulative Impact area and the proposed hours of operation.

·       CGCA objected on the basis that the later operation of the premises is very likely to increase the level of nuisance when it closes at 01:00 there will be harm to the Licensing Objectives.

 

Policy Position

 

Under Policy HRS1, applications for hours outside the core hours set out in Clause C

will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies, and with particular regard to the matters set out in Policy HRS1.

 

Under Policy CIP1: A. It is the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone for: pubs and bars, fast food premises, and music and dancing and similar entertainment, other than applications to:  1. Vary the hours within Core Hours under Policy HRS1, and/or 2. Vary the licence to reduce the overall capacity of the premises.  B. Applications for other premises types within the West End Cumulative Impact Zones will be subject to other policies within this statement and must demonstrate that they will not add to cumulative impact.  C. For the purposes of this policy the premises types referred to in Clause A are defined within the relevant premises use policies within this statement.

 

Under Policy PB1(B) it is the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone other than:  1. Applications to vary the existing licence hours within the council’s Core Hours Policy HRS1.  2. Applications that seek to vary the existing licence so as to reduce the overall capacity of the premises, subject to the matters set out in the policy.

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

Ms Emanuela Meloyan, Senior Licensing Officer, presented the report that was before the Sub-Committee. She noted that representations had been received from the Licensing Authority. Representations had been received from the Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA). The Premises are located in St James’s Ward and are within the West End Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

 

Mr James Anderson, solicitor acting on behalf of the applicant, began by noting, in response to submissions received from CGCA and evidence submitted by them, that the applicant does not have to demonstrate that there will be no harm to the licensing objectives. He submitted that the test is the balance of probabilities taking into account all the circumstances (1) can exceptional circumstances be found to rebut the policy; and (2) if there are exceptional circumstances, does the application as applied for promote the licensing objectives.

 

Mr Richard Brown, speaking on behalf of Covent Garden Community Association, stated the point made by Mr Anderson was semantic.  He agreed the test is balance of probabilities but, in his submission, the Sub-Committee needs to be convinced it is an exception to policy. In relation to harm to the licensing objectives and Hope & Glory, Mr Brown noted s.4 LA 2003 said the licensing authority are under a positive duty to promote the licensing objectives. 

 

Mr Anderson began by accepting this is not a re-hearing but some of the arguments that will be put forwards are the same as previously. He also conceded that late hours to financially bolster a business is not on its own a good reason to grant the application. He stated the applicant does not seek to rely on that although it is certainly relevant – the business is now trading, and trading well, but not as well as it used to in the evening.

 

Mr Anderson stated he would address two specific issues – the first was later trading. These are the same hours as previously applied for, however they have not been able to use this licence. He stated the applicant would not be seeking a second time limited licence had they been able to use it as the Committee intended. He explained that 2 days after it was granted, lockdown came in meaning the previous temporary licence was only used for a limited time. He stated this application was being made because the applicant had not been able to take advantage of the previous.

 

In relation to later hours, Mr Anderson stated the applicant does not accept the premise that just because people are outside later that will cause a nuisance. He submitted this cannot be right in either law or fact. If this were correct then there would be no later hours in the West End – it is a question of fact. He submitted there was overwhelming evidence there would be no nuisance if the application was granted. He pointed to no nuisance arising from TENs that had been granted, no objection from EHO, that the applicant had been trading until 01:00 hours on Thursday to Saturday and had no complaint. Mr Anderson submitted the representations made and objections received were evidence free and were instead opinion pieces that rely on policy. He noted that MPS had withdrawn their representation.

 

The second point was the policy point. Mr Anderson stated there were exceptional circumstances, as per his written submissions. He stated the applicant did not accept things were back to normal since July – it is not the same as August 2019. He said footfall is still low and, whilst the Premises are busy in the day numbers are low in the evening, noting low tourist numbers, low use of office space, low customer confidence and different customer behaviour. The Premises occupancy is down and the applicant does not think this is likely to recover until late Summer to Winter of 2022. As such, Mr Anderson explained that the applicant relied on the ground that the West End is different from prior to the pandemic. He submitted the policy does not reflect the West End as it is at present.

 

Mr Anderson noted that some premises are still closed, so it is not the noisy disturbing stress area. He noted the application is temporary and is not a permanent change to the stress area. The application is not capable of transfer. The applicant has not been able to use any outdoor area.

 

Mr Anderson further explained that the Premises have not been able to fully take advantage of the previous temporary licence. Effectively the applicant has had one hand tied behind their back and that is the reason why this application is being made – he submitted this was an exceptional circumstance.

 

In response to a number of questions by Members, Mr Anderson and Mr Jackson provided the following information:

 

(a)  The Premises started trading during the day in order to counter impacts of lower evening footfall resulting from the pandemic. Mr Jackson estimated that footfall was down by roughly 1/3^rd. The applicant expected all areas of the West End to be compromised for the duration of the temporary licence sought;

(b)  The Premises used to open between 16:00 – 17:00 hours 7 days a week but now opens at 11:30 hours on Saturday and 12:00 hours on Sunday.

 

Ms Michelle Steward, of the Licensing Authority, explained the application was considered under Policies PB1, HRS1 and CIP1. She noted the policy considerations were outlined in the Licensing Authority’s representation. She noted the application was outside of core hours and falls within PB1(B). She explained the Licensing Authority’s policy.

 

Ms Steward explained that further information requested in relation to vertical drinking had not been received. The Licensing Authority had maintained its representation in order to allow members to determine the application and be satisfied that if granted the application will not impact the area in accordance with CIP1.

 

In response to questions by Members of the Sub-Committee,

 

(a)  Ms Steward confirmed that CIP1 and PB1 apply within the CIA because of the cumulative impact area itself. 

 

Mr Richard Brown, speaking on behalf of Covent Garden Community Association, explained CGCA are the amenity society for the area.

 

Mr Brown noted the exception found in 2020 was an exception found in that time. He suggested that it may have had some bearing on that decision that the CGCA did not object – which was a deliberate and considered decision. The CGCA agreed at that time that footfall was low, that the Premises couldn’t make use of al fresco, and had sympathy for the applicant. However, the CGCA have objected this time because in their view with their knowledge of the area the situation has changed.

 

Mr Brown clarified that footfall has increased since the premises have been able to open in May and July of 2021. He explained that the CGCA’s view is that footfall is going to continue to increase and the West End is likely to keep going towards the situation in 2019 when the CIA was researched and produced. He submitted this was supported by the fact that the CGCA had started receiving complaints about premises in the area, albeit not the Premises. Mr Brown further noted that there are resident representations to this application whilst there had not been previously.

 

Mr Brown noted it was common ground that an exception was needed – noting that there was no definition of what exceptional circumstances are but some examples are given of what is not exceptional, referencing premises being well-run and applications being time-limited are not exceptional. Mr Brown submitted that Covid-19 is not a reason for an exception.

 

Mr Brown submitted it was a crucial point that the policy had been renewed since the previous application. He further noted that the cumulative impact assessment indicated further restrictions in the West End which were not implemented because of Covid. He stated the Council were fully aware of Covid when making the policy but no reference is made to it. He stated that Covid was an unprecedented occurrence but it is not an exception to policy because it impacts everybody whereas an exception to policy has to be almost unique to that application.

Mr Brown refuted Mr Anderson’s suggestion that later hours could not definitionally be harmful by reference to the law recognising that cumulative impact policies could be appropriate when there is evidence to support them. He stated it is not necessarily about individual premises but rather the global and cumulative effects.

 

Mr Brown posed the question of whether a bar opening until 01:00 hours addresses the underlying reason for imposing the cumulative impact policy – he submitted that in 2021 it does not.

 

Mr David Cain, of the CGCA, explained the CGCA did not object in 2020 because at the time of the application the CGCA took the view that they wanted to support licensed premises in the area as the situation was very quiet. The CGCA felt it would be reasonable whilst restrictions existed to allow people to trade in a different way. He said the situation now is very different – the number of people on the street late at night has increased significantly. Streets in Covent Garden have become so busy and noisy that residents who have lived there for 30 years are saying they will have to move. He stated allowing a 01:00 hours licence in this area will result in more people on the streets late at night and more noise.

 

He stated that the fact there haven’t been complaints doesn’t mean there haven’t been issues – he himself has observed noisy behaviour. He concluded by explaining that in their view it was probable that a 01:00 hours licence will increase nuisance in the area.

 

In response to questions by Members of the Sub-Committee,

 

(a)  Mr Brown stated the following were not exceptional circumstances – Covid, the Premises being well run, the fact that the application is time-limited.

 

 

Conclusion

The Sub-Committee noted that representations were received from the Metropolitan Police Service, the Licensing Authority, the Covent Garden Community Association and three local residents, who cited public nuisance as the key issue.

It was noted that the Metropolitan Police Service withdrew their representations.

 

It was noted that the Licensing Authority and the Covent Garden Community Association maintained their representations because the Premises are within the Cumulative Impact Area.

 

The Sub-Committee has a duty to consider the application on its individual merits and took into account all of the committee papers, submissions made by the Applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by those parties in attendance during the hearing in its determination of the matter. 

 

The Sub-Committee was advised by the Applicant that the Premises have not been able to take advantage of the time limited licence granted in September 2020, due to the imposition of further lockdowns, curfews and restrictions which were not anticipated when that temporary licence was granted.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises have been able to operate since 17 May 2021, with restrictions, and since 19 July 2021 without restrictions.  The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises can currently operate within the extended hours granted by the previous temporary licence until 30 September 2021, and thereafter during core hours in accordance with their existing licence.

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives and therefore refused the application for the New Time Limited Premises Licence.

 

The Sub-Committee had considered the evidence before it and whether the four licensing objectives would be promoted.  The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the parties and in light of considering that evidence refused the application for the reasons outlined below:

 

The Premises are situated within the West End Cumulative Impact Area and so the policy presumption is to refuse the application unless exceptional circumstances can be proven under the City Councils Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP).  The Sub-Committee was of the view that exceptional reasons had not been provided.

 

It was noted that the Premises have a high volume of vertical drinking because there is no ancillary nature as to the way in which alcohol is served at the Premises.

 

In terms of the policy considerations, the Sub-Committee had regard to Policy HRS1 which states: “Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in this policy will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy” (SLP).

 

The Sub-Committee appreciated it has discretion when considering the merits of the application but took the view that granting the application would be contrary to other policies.  The Sub-Committee had regard to all relevant policies under the SLP in particular Policy PN1: The Prevention of Public Nuisance.

 

Policy PN1 states: “To prevent public nuisance the Licensing Authority will apply the following criteria and take into account the following considerations, where relevant, in determining applications and reviews”.

 

The Sub-Committee sympathised wholly with the Applicant that businesses are struggling in the current climate, but exceptionality must first and foremost be proven in accordance with the policy aims and objectives.  Regrettable on this occasion it had not been demonstrated as to why the Sub-Committee should depart from the policy requirements.

 

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub Committee which takes effect forthwith.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

12 August 2021