Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
West End * West End ** None	51-53 Rupert Street, W1D 7PQ	New Premises Licence	21/07130/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.3

(“The Committee”)

 

Wednesday 24 November 2021

          

Membership:      Councillor Jim Glen (Chairman), Councillor Jacqui Wilkinson and Councillor Maggie Carman

 

Officer Support  Legal Adviser:              Horatio Chance

                           Policy Officer:               Kerry Simpkin

                           Committee Officer:       Georgina Wills

                          Presenting Officer:        Emanuela Meloyan

                  

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of 51-53 Rupert Street

London W1D 7PQ 21/07130/LIPN

 

Suresh Kanapathi of Arka Licensing (Representing Applicant, Mr Abdullah Abdul Dodhiya), Mr Abdullah Abdul Dodhiya (Applicant), Kevin Jackaman (Licensing Authority), James Hayes (City Inspector), Anil Drayan (Environmental Health), Ms J Doyle (The Soho Society) and Mr Richard Brown (Legal Representative of The Soho Society)

 

Premises

 

51-53 Rupert Street London W1D 7PQ

 

Applicant

 

Mr Abdullah Abdul Dodhiya

 

Cumulative Impact Area

 

West End

 

Ward

 

West End

 

Special Consideration Zone

 

None

 

Summary of application

 

The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Premises operates as a small convenience shop in the soho area. The Premises sells chocolates, soft drinks, snacks, tobacco, household goods and hot food in a hot cabinet. This will include the sale of alcohol for consumption Off the Premises to those regular customers who either live or work locally. Similar, to tobacco sales from concealed cabinet, the Premises would like to have alcohol available, in closed cabinets.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that following consultation, the Applicant reduced the hours for the provision of late-night refreshment from 23:00 to 05:00 Monday to Sunday to Westminster core hours. The Premises is located both within the West End Ward and West End Cumulative Impact Zone. The Special Consideration Zone does not apply. There is a resident count of 255.   

 

This application seeks the following licensable activities and operating hours: -

 

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors) 

 

Monday to Thursday 23:00 to 23:30 hours

Friday to Saturday 23:00 to 00:00 hours

Sunday N/A

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (Outdoors)

 

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 22:00 hours

 

Opening Hours of the Premises:

 

Monday to Sunday 00:00 to 23:59 hours

 

There are no seasonal variations

 

The Sub-Committee noted that representations were received from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Environmental Health Service (EHS) the Soho Society and 6 residents. The thrust of those objections cited issues regarding public nuisance and crime and disorder.

 

Representations received

 

•        Environmental Health Service (EHS) (Anil Drayan)

•        Metropolitan Police Service (PC Bryan Lewis) WITHDRAWN

•        Licensing Authority (Kevin Jackaman)

•        The Soho Society

•        7 Local Residents

 

Summary of issues raised by objectors

 

The Environmental Health Service had maintained representation on the grounds of the Prevention of Public Nuisance. The Licensing Authority, The Soho Society and seven local residents had maintained representation on the Prevention of Crime and  Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance, Public Safety and the Protection of Children from Harm. The main issues are summarised as follows:-

 

·       I strongly object to the addition of a licence to sell alcohol from this shop, and any extension of hours for the sale of food. This particular shop is already a problem for residents. It attracts large, noisy groups of people late at night, and seems to have become a meeting point for pedicabs, which sit outside often playing music at obnoxious volume, well past midnight.

·       The main concern I have is regard to noise. Rupert Street has a history of being noisy at night, and is a destination for rowdy behaviour. This business already has groups of people loitering out front, including several pedicabs (often playing music) waiting for fares. This is not the behaviour of a responsible business working with the residents in the area.

·       As someone who manages an Airbnb let on Brewer St, there is already a local shop/off-licence on Rupert street and as this area is one where rickshaws and pimps and dealers already congregate, having another vendor that sells alcohol will make this even more of a hot-spot.

·       This area is of particular concern and well known as a drugs hotspot, where pedicabs congregate and play loud music late into the night. We are in no doubt if this application is granted it will fail to promote the licensing objectives and increase crime and disorder and public nuisance in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.

·       I wish to object to this application on the strongest possible grounds. The applicant wants to remain open until 5am. This particular corner on Rupert Street is notorious for anti-social behaviour. There is drug dealing and the noise due to pedicabs' and minicabs' boom-boxes has been unbearable for those of us in the immediate vicinity - especially over the past year. We have endured enough sleepless nights already and some of us are struggling with mental health as a result. If these premises are granted this licence, the cumulative effect will be horrendous. The Police and the Westminster Noise Team are simply not equipped to deal with the existing problems we have. It will become an even more lawless free-for-all. This is a public health issue.

 

Policy Position

 

Policies HRS1 and SHP1(B) apply under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP).

 

 

SUBMISSIONS  AND REASONS

 

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Mr Abdullah Abdul Dodhiya for a New Premises Licence in respect of 51-53 Rupert Street London W1D 7PQ. The Presenting Officer provided a summary of the Application and advised that representations had been maintained by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Environmental Health Service (EHS) the Soho Society and 6 residents. The Applicant had submitted additional information, and this was circulated to all parties. The Metropolitan Police Service withdrew their representation following the Applicant reducing the hours for late night refreshment. The Premises is situated in the West End Ward and in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone. 

 

Mr Suresh Kanapathi, Agent appearing on behalf of the Applicant addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that due regard had been had to the  policy requirements and the licensing objectives when considering the application.  Mr Kanapathi advised that the Applicant had also liaised with the Metropolitan Police and was aware of the concerns regarding the Premises location. He advised that the application was within core hours.

 

Mr Kanapathi stated that alcohol would not be displayed and would cease to be sold after 22:00 and that this hour was well before revellers would leave the nightclubs which were situated nearby and that alcohol would largely be sold to local customers and that an array of Conditions had been agreed. These include not selling single cans and adopting measures which would ensure that the Premises does not add to the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.

 

Mr Kanapathi advised that the Applicant was aware of the high number of objections regarding the provision of late-night refreshments and commented that the Premises was not a ‘take away business. He advised that food would only be heated up or toasted. He said that the Premises would be refurbished and that the operation for late night refreshments had not fully started. The Applicant had amended the Premises operational hours following representations made by the Responsible Authorities and objectors. He commented that the granting of the Licence would ensure that the Premises is regulated, and that the licensing objectives are promoted.

 

Mr Kanapathi commented that concerns regarding the locality such as individuals congregating in the area and causing anti-social behaviour should not solely be attributed to the Premises. He commented that customers would purchase confectionary from the Premises and congregate outside whilst waiting for clients who attended other venues. The Sub-Committee noted  that the Applicant had placed a sign on the Premises which requested for customers not to congregate near the shop. The Sub-Committee were reminded that this would be difficult to manage as the external area was in any event part of the public highway.

 

Mr Kanapathi advised that the Applicant was apologetic for providing late night refreshment despite not being authorised and licensed under the Act to do so. He advised that employees had not viewed the time when late-night refreshment had taken place. He advised that there was a high demand for late night refreshment, and this was the reason why an application had been made. Mr Kanapathi stated that the Applicant had over a decade experience in working in Premises located in the West End.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Kanapathi advised that alcohol would not be advertised, and customers would be required to request these beverages before purchasing. He advised that these measures would prevent customers  who ‘wished to party’ from purchasing these beverages. He stated that the Applicant would be familiar with the regular customer base. Following further questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Kanapathi advised that the Premises layout would be retained following the refurbishments and that the shop would have a hot food container. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had operated the Premises in this way for a period of two years.

 

Mr Kanapathi advised that alcohol sales would be controlled and not advertised, and sales would cease after 22:00 and this would ensure that the Premises would not add to the West End Cumulative Impact Zone. He commented that alcohol would only be sold to customers who frequented the Premises regularly. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Kanapathi advised that customers would be required to bring food from the shop floor to the counter and this would be heated by staff members and that these items were placed in paper packages. He said that petty cab drivers purchased hot food items and consume these goods in their vehicles. He advised that there would be no food preparation on the Premises and that the Applicant would continue to ensure that the external area is kept clear of litter. Signage would be displayed which would request for litter to be put in bins and these instructions would also be printed on bags which are used to wrap food. Mr Kanapathi commented that the Premises locality was highly monitored and that there would be CCTV in operation.

 

Mr Kanapathi advised that the Premises was opened 24 hours and commented that the locality was frequented by individuals during all hours. He advised that alcohol would be sold between 10:00 to 22:00 and that during these periods local customers would purchase these beverages. Mr Kanapathi commented that the Premises was monitored and that the Applicant had taken additional steps to ensure that the operations were compliant, and these included using paper bags. He advised that the Premises also sold cold food, tobacco and confectionary.  In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Kanapathi confirmed that alcohol would not be accessible to customers and that there was signage on the Premises requesting  customers to not make any noise.    

 

Mr Anil Drayan appearing on behalf of the EHS advised that the Applicant had agreed to Conditions which had been proposed by EHS and this included the sale of alcohol to be within policy and how the alcohol is displayed. He stated  that provision of late-night refreshment had been reduced by the Applicant from 05:00 to 00:00 Friday to Saturday and 23:30 Monday to Thursday.  He advised that the Applicant had proposed for late refreshment for immediate consumption off the Premises and commented that the Sub-Committee should obtain guidance from the Policy Officer on how this provision would comply with the Cumulative Impact Policy. Mr Drayan advised that he was satisfied that concerns regarding public safety and public nuisance had been addressed. The Premises has not generated any complaints regarding its operation. He advised that concerns raised were regarding individuals congregating outside the shop and therefore the provision sought for immediate consumption of food outside the Premises needed to be reviewed.

 

Kevin Jackaman appearing on behalf of the  Licensing Authority advised that the Premises was in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone and needed to be considered under the Cumulative Impact Policy CP1. He advised that the Application had been previously considered under the Fast Food and Off Sale Policy and commented that the Premises is largely a convenience store. Mr Jackaman advised that a revised Licensing Policy had been introduced which reviewed premises which were largely shops and that this Application fell under the new policy SHP1. He advised that the new Policy required the Applications for shops in the cumulative area to be considered on their own merit and were required to meet the requirements of the Policies CD1, PS1 PN and CH1. Mr Jackaman advised that it was welcomed that the hours had been reduced to core hours by the Applicant and said that the Sub-Committee needed to be satisfied that the Premises would not add to the cumulative impact zone. Mr Jackaman advised that there had been concerns raised regarding the Applicant being able to promote the Licensing Objectives.

 

James Hayes, City Inspector, advised that part of his remit was licensing enforcement, noise nuisance and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in the Soho Area. Mr Hayes advised that he worked with the Metropolitan Police in relation to ASB and commented that there had been several concerns raised about the Premises. The Sub-Committee was advised that there had been several incidents regarding the Premises and the first was on 27 September. Mr Hayes advised that the Police had reported a large congregation of pedicabs outside the Premises on 26 October and had linked the incident to the provision of late-night refreshments. He stated that the Police had liaised with the Applicant. He advised that there were concerns regarding customers  congregating in the immediate area and these occurrences could lead to public nuisance. Mr Hayes advised that the late-night refreshment provided by the Premises were often small pieces of food which were normally consumed immediately.

 

Mr Hayes stated that there had been several educational visits to the Premises to help ensure that the Applicant  promoted the licensing objectives and was compliant. The Sub-Committee was advised that during a recent visit to the Premises by the City Inspectorate it was found that the Applicant  was still providing late night refreshment despite not having a Premises Licence in place.  Mr Hayes advised  that the Premises was not regulated and should not currently be providing any late-night refreshment. He advised that there were concerns regarding the Applicants ability to promote the Licensing Objections if the Application was granted.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Hayes advised that there are various steps taken when Premises are found not to be complying with licensing requirements and this included advice and guidance, educational visits and potential prosecution.  He advised that prosecutions were undertaken in cases where there were repeated breaches by an operator. Mr Hayes advised that a Condition which required for alcohol not to be displayed could be included and that there were concerns on whether this condition would be complied with. He commented that vendors could be pressurised by customers  to sell them alcoholic beverages. The Sub-Committee noted that a Condition had been agreed by the Applicant which required for alcohol not to be displayed in the Premises.

 

Richard Brown, appearing on behalf of Ms J Doyle of The Soho Society, advised  that Ms  Doyle sat on the Soho Society Licensing Committee and was the Chair of the Safer Neighbourhood Ward Panel. He advised that Ms Doyle was able to give an accurate record of concerns regarding Rupert Street.  Mr Brown advised that there were concerns regarding the Applicants comments that alcohol and late-night refreshments would only be sold to local residents and workers. He commented that this had not transpired, and this had been evidenced by the Soho Society. Mr Brown advised that other customers other than residents would be attracted to the Premises. He advised that the Premises had become a meeting point for pedicabs to congregate and get refreshments and this had led to public nuisance. Mr Brown advised that the first prompt for a city inspection was due to the high number of petty cab drivers congregating outside the Premises and not for the unauthorised sales of late-night refreshment.

 

Mr Brown advised that the provision of late-night refreshment usually attracted interest to Premises and evidence had been provided which supported this. Mr Brown stated that an inspection had been undertaken during the early hours of the morning and that there were shared concerns on whether the Applicant would be able to comply with the Licensing requirements. He advised that the Applicant had to demonstrate that that they would not add to the cumulative impact and commented that Soho had become a ‘destination point’ since the end of the Covid-19 Pandemic lockdown and therefore an additional premise would exacerbate concerns.  Mr Brown stated  that the Application was within the core hours and commented that Policies required for Premises to be compliant with the licensing objectives and for them not to add to the cumulative impact.

 

Ms Doyle advised that there were three late night premises in the vicinity and that the establishment was one of two 24 hours Units that had recently been opened. Ms Doyle said that the Premises was the only one which had attracted attention. She stated that the locality attracted a high number of ASB. Ms Doyle advised that the Premises was small and had no doorway and that the food cabinet could be immediately viewed when entering the shop. She advised that Soho had become a destination for ‘street drinking’ and this caused public nuisance. Ms Doyle said that it would be difficult to prevent individuals from congregating outside the Premises.

 

In response to questions from the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee , the Applicant Mr Abdullah Abdul Dodhiya,  advised that he was aware of the Licensing Objectives and read out the four objections of the Act namely; The Protection of Public Safety, The Prevention of Public Nuisance, The Protection of Children from Harm and The Prevention of Crime and Disorder. Mr Dodhiya advised that there were two staff members present at the Premises. He said that staff were instructed to ensure that only certain customers be sold alcohol and for individuals to be requested not to congregate outside the Premises. He advised that all Conditions would be complied with.

 

Mr Kanapathi advised that Conditions which required for signage to be displayed which requested for patrons to leave the Premises quietly and for the Manager’s contact number to be provided to residents and business in the vicinity would be agreed and was understood by the Applicant.  

The Policy Officer to the Sub-Committee advised that the Application needed to be considered under the Shop Policy (SHP1). The Application would need to be considered on its own merits and was subject to the Licensing objectives set out under these Policies. The Sub-Committee was advised that they had to determine whether the granting of the application would undermine the licensing objectives and whether the Applicant had demonstrated that the Premises would not add to cumulative impact and had put forward mitigations which would address the concerns raised by the Objectors. The Sub-Committee was advised that the late-night refreshment was an ancillary part of the Premises, and the establishment was not a fast-food premise. The Policy Officer advised that all potential nuisances should be considered under the licensing objectives and Policy criteria. Mr Drayan advised that Model Condition 86 which requires late night refreshment to be ancillary to the Premises being a shop should be included. 

 

Mr Brown stated that Premises which provided late night refreshments attracted customers  to localities and advised that the ‘fast food’ Policy should be taken into consideration. He advised that ‘hot food’ encouraged individuals to congregate in stress areas during the later hours. Mr Brown commented that the Premises locality had a high number of ASB in the vicinity and acknowledged that this could not solely be attributed to the Applicant. However, alcohol and late refreshment would encourage individuals to congregate in the locality. Mr Brown stated the Conditions offered did not adequately address concerns raised by the residents and that the view that granting the licence would ensure that the Premises was regulated would not suffice. 

 

Mr Kanapathi advised  that it was acknowledged that there were concerns regarding Soho and commented that the Premises was contributing to the area via their Business Rates. He advised that the licensing objectives would be promoted, and that the Premises would not add to the cumulative impact zone. He advised that the Premises was not a fast-food premises and food would only be warmed up. Mr Kanapathi commented that there were a large number of petty car drivers in the City and that drivers came to the locality in order to collect clients and would purchase food from the Premises. He advised that all additional Conditions would be accepted included those proposed by EH. Mr Kanapathi advised that the Applicant was aware that he had previously been in breach of licensing requirements and had received support to ensure that all future operations are compliant with all regulations. 

 

Conclusion

 

The Sub-Committee realises that it has a duty to consider each case on its individual merits and did so for the purposes of determining the application. It considered all the committee papers, the proposed conditions and the oral evidence given by the Applicants Agent Mr Kanapathi, Mr Drayan on behalf of the EHS and Mr Brown appearing on behalf of the Soho Society.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises operates as a small convenience shop in the Soho area selling chocolates, soft drinks, snacks, tobacco, household goods and hot food in a hot cabinet. The Sub-Committee understood that the Premises is seeking Off sales of alcohol to be in closed cabinets (like tobacco sales in a concealed cabinet) to those regular customers who either live or work locally but admittedly anyone can frequent the shop and purchase alcohol that does not have a local connection.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that Late Night Refreshment is to be provided in the form of heated food in a paper bag and that following consultation, the Applicant had reduced the hours for Late Night Refreshment from 23:00 to 05:00 Monday to Sunday to Westminster’s Core Hours and this concession was welcomed. The Premises is located both within the West End Ward and West End Cumulative Impact  Zone so there is a policy presumption to refuse the application unless the Applicant can demonstrate that the granting of the application will not add to cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.

 

The Sub-Committee had several issues to contend with before deciding whether the application should be considered “exceptional” in order that the policy presumption to refuse was overcome by the Applicant. It considered that the main issues were threefold in nature. The first issue was whether the Applicant had persuaded the Sub-Committee that the requirements of the Shops Policy (SHP1) under the SLP had been met, secondly whether the Applicant’s general management of the Premises was at the required level that would lead to the promotion of the licensing objectives and compliance with licence conditions and thirdly whether the many concerns raised by local residents and the Soho Society the implications for selling hot food at a later hour in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone had been fully addressed by the Applicant in his operating schedule and submissions.  These matters are dealt with in turn as follows:-

 

Shops Policy SHP1

 

The Sub-Committee had regard to Policy SHP1 under the City Council’s SLP when considering the matter. The Policy goes onto state that Applications for a shop inside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone will be considered on their own merits and subject to: 1. The application meeting the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1. 2. The hours for licensable activities are within the council’s Core Hours Policy HRS1. 3. The operation of any delivery services for alcohol meeting the council’s Ancillary Alcohol and/or Late-night Refreshment Delivery Service Policy DEL1.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that in the final analysis the application did not meet the policy requirements under the terms of the policy. Whilst the hours had been reduced significantly the fact remains the Premise are in Soho which is a very busy and vibrant area within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone which would give rise to problems regarding nuisance. The Sub-Committee had regard to the various considerations contained on page 32 of the SLP under Policy PN1 which include but are not limited to the following matters:-

 

·       Minimising and controlling noise from customers arriving at the premises, or open-air site outside it and departing from it including noise and other nuisance caused by customers’ transportation and how dispersal is managed.

·       Identifying whether people standing or sitting outside premises are likely to cause obstruction or other nuisance.

·       Identifying whether the premises are under or near to residential accommodation.

·       Limiting the hours of the sale of alcohol in open containers or food for consumption outside the premises.

·       Introducing measures to make sure that customers move away from outside premises when such sales cease.

 

The Sub-Committee in its determination of the matter had regard also to the reasons for Policy PN1 on page 33 of the SLP at Paragraph C13 which states:

 

“Westminster has a substantial residential population and the council as the Licensing Authority has a duty to protect it from nuisance. In certain areas, the increased concentration of entertainment uses, and the longer hours of operation have adversely affected local residents. Commercial occupiers of premises also have a legitimate expectation of an environment that is attractive and helps sustain their businesses. The role of the council as Licensing

Authority is to maintain an appropriate balance between the legitimate aspirations of the entertainment industry and the needs of residents and other users of the city including businesses, workers, shoppers and visitors. It will need to satisfy itself that adequate measures to prevent public nuisance are in place and will be maintained. These principles apply also to events in open air sites”

 

The Applicant’s management of the Premises

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had been working in West End businesses in the last 10 years. However, the Sub-Committee was a little surprised that given his experience gained in Westminster this experience did not necessarily translate when the Applicant was questioned about his understanding of the licensing regime and the specifics of the application coupled with his long term commitment to hold a premises licence by demonstrating that he would be a responsible operator that would comply fully with his licence conditions and promote the licensing objectives . It was apparent that the Applicant did not have a proper grasp of the matters in hand and why the application should be considered exceptional to overcome the specific concerns with cumulative impact and thus be granted.

 

The Sub-Committee was concerned that on two separate occasions including one just days before the hearing the Applicant was caught selling hot food well past the permitted hours without the appropriate authorisation in place. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had been given a previous warning from the Council’s City Inspector for Licensing and therefore knew very well what the rules were for selling hot food a significant time after which Late Night Refreshment would be required.

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that it had no confidence that the licensing objectives would be promoted by the Applicant in particular the public nuisance licensing objective given the many concerns raised by residents, the Soho Society and the Licensing Authority who had previously given advice and guidance to the Applicant in respect of best practice and the consequences for selling hot food without a licence.

 

Whilst the Sub-Committee noted that no complaints had been made directly about the Premises it decided that breaching the provisions of the Act was a cause for concern when it came to selling hot food without a Premises Licence in place and the potential for selling Off sales of alcohol in a very busy area with a range of problems regarding public nuisance and crime and disorder was therefore not the conduct expected of a responsible and competent operator that would promote the licensing objectives.

 

Concerns of residents and the Soho Society

 

The Sub-Committee noted the many concerns from residents and the Soho Society who had objected to the application.  It noted that as far as residents were concerned the Premises attracted large noisy groups of people late at night and appears to have become a meeting point for pedicab drivers who sit outside the Premises playing loud music disturbing residents. Whilst the Applicant stated that he would take such steps to prevent this from happening the Sub-Committee was not persuaded that the Applicant and his staff would be proactive enough to tackle this thorny issue from a management perspective.

 

The Sub-Committee fully appreciates that a balance must be struck when considering the needs of business and residents when dealing with applications that are located within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.  However, the Sub-Committee did not have the confidence that the conditions offered by the Applicant would in fact be complied with by the Applicant to mitigate the concerns raised by residents and the Soho Society. Moreover, the issues identified by residents are like those covered also within Policy PN1 and again the Sub-Committee did not have the confidence that the measures outlined in the policy would be adhered to by the Applicant and his staff.

 

The Sub-Committee had no confidence that the proposed licensing conditions would be complied with by the Applicant particularly when it came to public nuisance and safeguarding the public nuisance licensing objective and the likely impact the operation would have on residents from a nuisance perspective particularly late at night notwithstanding the resident count of 255.

 

The Applicant failed to persuade the Sub-Committee that it would be a responsible operator by employing good management practices when selling Off sales of alcohol (even in closed cabinets) to customers until 22:00 hours and Late Night Refreshment particularly on Friday and Saturday until Midnight being those busy days of the week when there are already large crowds of people in the cumulative impact area – the fears of the Sub-Committee were not alleviated in this respect.

 

The Sub-Committee did not take the decision to refuse the application lightly as it must have good cause to refuse an application.  It duly considered when considering the matter all aspects of the April 2018 Revised Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Act. Paragraph 9.43 on page 75 of the Guidance states that “The authority’s determination should be evidence based, justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate to what it is intended to achieve.”

 

The Sub-Committee decided that based on the evidence the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone and therefore refused the application and that its actions are considered appropriate and proportionate.

 

In all the circumstances of the case the matter is Refused.

 

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

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

24 November 2021