Agenda item
Tropica, 1 Lower Grosvenor Place, SW1W 0EJ
Minutes:
WCC LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 2
(“The Committee”)
Thursday 29 September 2022 – Item 1
Membership: Councillor Angela Piddock (Chairman) Councillor Judith Southern and Councillor Caroline Sargent
Officer Support: Legal Adviser: Steve Burnett
Policy Officer: Aaron Hardy
Committee Officer: Sarah Craddock
Presenting Officer: Jessica Donovan
Other Parties: Mr Adriano Dulgher (Applicant),
PC Tom Steward (Metropolitan Police),
Maxwell Koduah (Environmental Health Service),
Richard Brown (Solicitor, Westminster’s Citizens Advice representing Dame Judith Mayhew-Jones, Charles Mander and Mark Delacour (local residents).
Application for a Variation of Premises Licence in respect of Tropica, 1 Lower Grosvenor Place, London SW1W 0EJ - 22/06523/LIPV
Full Decision
Premises
Tropica,
1 Lower Grosvenor Place,
London SW1W 0EJ
Applicant
Mr Adriano Dulgher
Ward
Knightsbridge and Belgravia
Cumulative Impact Area
N/A
Special Consideration Zone
Victoria Special Consideration Zone (VSCZ)
Activities and Hours applied for
Late Night Refreshment
Sunday to Wednesday 23.00 to 23:45
Thursday to Saturday 23.00 to 01:45
Sale of Alcohol (Both)
Sunday to Wednesday 10.00 to 23:45
Thursday to Saturday 10.00 to 01:45
The Opening Hours of the Premises:
Sunday to Wednesday 10.00 to 00.00
Thursday to Saturday 10.00 to 02.00
Summary of Application
This is an application for a variation of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Premises operates as a bar and is seeking to extend the hours for Late Night Refreshment and Sale of Alcohol for Sunday to Wednesday to 23.45 and Thursday to Saturday until 1.45 am, closing Sunday to Wednesday at 00.00, Thursdays to Saturdays at 02.00. The applicant also seeks trade on new year’s eve from the end of permitted hours to 05.00 the following day.
The current Premises Licence is at Appendix 2 of the agenda report and Licence History is at Appendix 3 of the agenda report. The Decision Notice from the Licensing Committee held on the16 June 2022 is at page 30.
The Premises is located in the Knightsbridge and Belgravia Ward and is in the Victoria Special Consideration Zone.
There is a resident court of 362.
Representations received
The Metropolitan Police Service (PC Tom Steward)
Environmental Health Service (Maxwell Koduah)
Fourteen Residents (objecting against the application)
Summary of issues raised by the objectors
The thrust of those objections cites public nuisance and crime and disorder.
MPS stated:
The proposed extension of licensable activities is likely to undermine the following licensing objectives:
• The Prevention of Crime and Disorder
The hours requested are beyond the core hours for a premises of this type and the conditions offered within the operating schedule are insufficient to promote the licensing objectives.
EHS stated:
As presented, the application would have the likely effect of causing an increase in Public Nuisance and may affect Public Safety within the area.
The Residents stated:
· Noise will escape and cause a nuisance.
· Area is vulnerable to rowdy customers, drug dealing and anti-social problems.
· It is in a residential area which is unsuitable for a late-night operation.
· The premises currently breached their conditions and also breached them when operating under the TEN.
· It will cause an increase in traffic
· Regular bad behaviour in the square after 03.00
· High music volumes cause a nuisance.
Policy Position
HRS1
· Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in Westminster’s Statement of Licensing Policy will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies, and with particular regard to Core Hours Policy HRS1 B 1-14
The demonstration of compliance in the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1 associated with the likelihood of the effect of the grant of a licence for later or earlier hours on crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
PB1
· Applications outside the West End Cumulative Zone will generally be granted subject to the application meeting the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.The hours for licensable activities being within the council’s Core Hours Policy HRS1.The applicant has taken account of the Special Consideration Zones policy SCZ1 if the premises are located within a designated zone. The application and operation of the venue meet the definition of a Public House or Bar in Clause D.
SZC1
· In addition to meeting the other policies within this statement,
applications within a designated Special Consideration Zone should
demonstrate that they have taken account of the issues particular to
the Zone, in question as identified within the 2020 Cumulative Impact Assessment, and should set out any proposed mitigation
measures in relation to those issues within their operating schedule.
For the purpose of Clause A, the designated Special Consideration Zone is Victoria.
SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS
1. Ms Jessica Donovan outlined the application to the Committee. She advised that representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service, the Metropolitan Police and local residents. She further advised the Committee that the Premises was located within the Knightsbridge and Belgravia Ward and in the Victoria Special Consideration Zone.
2. She confirmed that additional submissions from the Interested Parties had been circulated to the Committee.
3. Mr Adriano Dulgher addressed the Committee. He advised that the bar was a family run business and that there were very few independent restaurants left in the area. He outlined that he had operated a successful restaurant at 23 Grosvenor Gardens for 14 years and that there had never been any trouble because he actively promoted the licensing objectives. Mr Dulgher explained that his customers had mainly been locals who worked in the hospitality industry and who had arrived at his bar after their shift at work between 22:00 hours and 01:30 as he wished to continue accommodating these customers, he had applied for a variation to his Premises Licence at 1 Lower Grosvenor Place.
4. He emphasised that he had built up a very strong client base over the years The Nova Complex had taken away his day trade as all the competing units there had Premises Licences which allowed all-day trading.
5. He advised that he wanted the Committee to only consider the variation to the Premises Licence for Late Night Refreshment and the Sale by Retail of Alcohol on Thursday, Friday and Saturday until 1.45am and that the rest of the week he would continue to operate within the hours outlined in the Council’s Core Hours Policy.
6. Mr Dulgher advised that for four weeks he had traded until 3:00am under Temporary Event Notices (TENs) and there had been no noise complaints. He confirmed that the Premises did not have access to the courtyard at the back of the Premises. He advised that when customers left the Premises, they turned right towards Victoria Station so there would be no impact on the residents in Victoria Square. He also informed the Committee that his SIA who always worked on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday had been working for him for over 10 years and knew the customers. He confirmed that he had never received any noise complaints whilst operating at 23 Grosvenor Gardens.
7. Mr Dulgher stated that he actively engaged with the residents and that they all had his direct telephone number. He explained that the Premises was a small bar where local people could come for a drink after work. He outlined how he operated and that he only allowed people he knew into the Premises after 23:00 hours. He confirmed that everyone would be seated in the venue and that there would be no vertical drinking. He advised that there would be background music playing at 30 decibels, in comparison to the traffic in Buckingham Palace Road which generated 78 decibels of noise. Therefore, music could not be heard over the traffic.
8. He confirmed that he complied with every condition attached to his Premise Licence as it was not his intention to cause harm or distress to the residents.
9. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Dulgher advised that if he was granted the variation to the Premises Licence for Thursday, Friday and Saturday until 1.45am his business would survive because the employees in the local hospitality industry would visit his bar. He confirmed that the Nova Complex had taken away all his day-time trading because he could not complete with the large chain restaurants. He outlined his style of operation and management approach to customers. He emphasised that he knew most of his customers because he had been working in the area for the past 15 years and that around 100-150 regulars at visited his previous Premises.
10.Mr Dulgher then discussed with the Committee how he could introduce a membership scheme for customers visiting the Premises after 23:00 hours. Mr Dulgher advised that the was happy to have a condition attached to the Premises Licence where everyone after 23:00 hours needed to register their contact details so they could be contactable if any issues occurred.
11.The Committee were informed that the noise nuisance and crime and disorder that occurred in the Victoria Special Consideration Zone was mainly based around Victoria Station. The Applicant stated that his Premises was hidden away and that it was unlikely that passers-by would recognise it has a bar. This was why he relied on the trade from the employees of the local hospitality establishments. He advised that no music was played during the day, that the front door always remained closed and that he had no access to the outside area at the back of the Premises. He confirmed that the capacity for the upstairs area was 25-30 persons and the capacity for downstairs was around 20 persons. He advised that people were always seated which helped with controlling the environment. He confirmed that the flats located above the Premises were used for commercial purposes only.
12. PC Tom Steward representing the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), confirmed that the MPS had maintained their representation on the basis that if the application was granted, it would undermine the licensing objectives, namely the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.
13.PC Steward emphasised that nothing had really changed since the Applicant had their application for a New Premises Licence granted in June 2022 (less than 3 months ago) for 1 Lower Grosvenor Place. He advised the Committee that the area was very busy during the evenings and there was twice the number of crimes committed in this area, compared to other places in the borough, particularly around Victoria underground and the national rail stations which were situated only 200 metres from this Premises. He added that because of the close proximity, the bar could become a destination point for people when other Premises closed for the evening. PC Morgan emphasised that the Police would like the hours to remain in line with the Council’s Core Hours Policy.
14.Mr Maxwell Koduah, representing the Environmental Health Service (EH), advised that EH had maintained their representation as the hours requested for late night refreshment and the supply of alcohol may have the likely effect of causing an increase in Public Nuisance and may affect Public Safety within the area.
15.The EHO added that the Premises had only be operating since the 9 August and therefore it was too early for the Applicant to be applying for a variation to their new Premises Licence, especially for such an extension of hours beyond the Council’s Core Hours Policy, as the operators had not shown a history of trouble-free trade. He confirmed that EHs position noted in the Licensing Committee’s Decision Notice of the 16 June 2022 had not changed and that the Applicant needed to have regard to the close proximity of residential amenities in relation to this Premises.
16. Mr Richard Brown from Westminster’s Citizens Advice and representing local residents, confirmed that nothing has (or indeed, could have) changed since the previous application was determined which could reasonably lead to the Committee reaching a different conclusion in respect of the issues which were expressed at the hearing on the 16 June 2022 and which had been reiterated in representations in respect of this application found in the Agenda.
17.Mr Brown confirmed that there had been thirteen residential objections to this application and that all the reasons for this Premises to remain operating within the Council’s Core Hours Policy were set out in the Decision Notice dated 16 June 2022. He highlighted that all customers would have to pass by or though Victoria Gardens to reach the train/tube stations and that any noise was magnified because of the surrounding tall buildings. He explained that this area was becoming increasingly residential. He outlined that people would be attracted to the Premises if it were allowed to be open to 2am whether they were allowed in or not by the Applicant, therefore increasing the number of people in the already very busy Victoria Special Consideration Zone.
18.Mr Richard Brown urged the Committee to not place much emphasis on the historical operation of the Temporary Event Notices as these events did not reflect the operation of a permanent late night Premises Licence. He concluded that the Premises was located within the Victoria SCZ and therefore the Premises should remain operating in line with the Council’s Core Hours Policy.
19.Dame Judith Mayhew-Jonas, local resident, advised that residents were in favour of mixed neighbourhoods and that a vibrant area needed a mixture of residential, commercial, retail and licensed Premises, however it had to be proportionate. She explained that the area was becoming more residential with the building of new flats. The residents firmly supported the Victoria Special Consideration Zone because it gave a good balance with residential living as there are families living in Victoria Square.
20.It was highlighted to the Committee that the Applicant had breached the conditions attached to his Premises Licence by placing tables and chairs outside his Premises and by leaving the window and doors open during the summer months. She further considered that if this application was granted all the Premises in the area would also apply for variations to their Premises Licence. She concluded by asking the Committee to agree with the Licensing Committee’s Decision Notice dated 16 June 2022 that the Premises remain operating in line with the Council’s Core Hours Policy because the Premises is located in the Victoria Special Consideration Zone and so that Victoria remained a good mix of residential properties and businesses.
21.Mr Charles Mander, local resident, endorsed the comments made by Dame Judith Mayhew-Jonas. He advised that local residents were already disturbed at night by people having loud conversations and worse still antisocial behaviour and this would only worsen if the extended hours were granted. He stated that it would inevitably result in the dispersal of customers late at night into Victoria Square.
22.He highlighted to the Committee the noise issues he had faced with drunken customers congregating in the Square over the past four weeks which had resulted in him having to ask them to leave the area. He concluded by advising that it was an inappropriate location for a late-night bar due to the high number of residents living in the immediate area.
23.Mr Mark Delacour, local resident, echoed Dame Judith Mayhew-Jonas and Mr Charles Mander’s submissions and advised that it was important to maintain a balance of residential, retail and commercial properties in the area. He advised that it was tolerable for the Premises to remain open until 23:00 but not until 02:00 hours.
24. Mr Delacour referred the Committee to the photograph of the Premises and indicated that you could clearly see inside through the window of the Premises, that there were tables and chairs located outside and the front door was wide open which was a breach of one of the conditions attached to the Premises Licence. He added that there was also a A4 board on the pavement advising two for one cocktail drinks and he questioned why the Applicant needed the Board when he had stated that his main customer base was local people working in the hospitality industry. He stated that it was unfortunate that the Applicant’s business model relied on other Premises being closed. He advised that the noise from intoxicated people, chatting, smoking and drinking would wake residents in the early hours of the morning.
25. Mr Delcaour advised that the TENS had caused disturbance and complaints had been logged with the Environmental Health Service who could not find a copy of the new Premises Licence in their system. He emphasised that he did not wish the Premises to operate beyond the Council’s Core Hours Policy.
26.In response to questions from the Committee, the interested parties advised that they were now, since the premises opened, experiencing noise coming from the back of their houses. They also highlighted how small Victoria Square was, so even people’s conversation could be easily heard as the houses were old and had no sound insulation.
27.In response to a question from Mr Steve Burnett, Legal Advisor to the Committee, the Applicant advised that he was happy to have a condition attached to the Premises Licence regarding implementing a Membership Scheme after 23:00 hours at the Premises, if the Committee were minded to grant all or part of the application.
28.During the summing up from the Interested Parties, Mr Brown advised that having a membership condition attached to the Premises Licence did not get the local residents any further in terms of practicalities regarding noise nuisance in the area late at night. He advised that when customers left the Premises some would certainly go near Victoria Square and therefore some would inevitably end up in the Square.
29.Mr Brown urged the Committee to pay particular attention to the decision made at the Licensing Committee on the 16 June 2022 when considering this application.
30.Mr Mark Delacour advised that he considered it in inappropriate to have this Premises operating until 02:00 hours because it increased the likelihood of anti-social behaviour in the area. He urged the Committee to confirm that the Premises should operate to operate in line with the Council’s Core Hours Policy.
31.During the summing up from the Responsible Authorities, Mr Koduah advised that they had no records of complaints regarding the Premises. However, the numerous detailed representations from local residents were enough for EH to maintain their representation against the application.
32.PC Tom Steward stated that the area was very busy during the evenings and there was twice the number of crimes committed in this area, compared to other places in the borough.
33.During the summing up from the Applicant, Mr Dulgher advised that this was a family-owned business. He emphasised that he would make his telephone number available to residents and wished to have a good relationship with them. He stated that he was attempting to create some day trade by using the A Board located on the pavement outside the Premises to keep his business viable. He confirmed that he was happy to operate a membership scheme after 23:00 hours and that any noise nuisance was not being created by his Premises nor he did not allow people to stand and drink outside his Premises. He emphasised that he had been operating licensed Premises in the aera for 15 years and he considered that customers dispersed towards Victoria Station and not towards Victoria Square.
Decision
34.The Committee has determined an application for a variation to a Premises Licence under the Act which operates as a bar.The Committee realises that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so when determining the matter. As a result, whilst the Applicant may have operated his 23 Grosvenor Gardens free from complaint for some 15 years and in accordance with the licensing objectives, this is an expectation of all premises licensed under the Act and 23 Grosvenor Gardens is a different premises to the Premises subject of this application, a different operation and located in a different location.
35.There is no policy presumption to refuse this application, however this is subject to the licensing objectives not being undermined and the Applicant demonstrating as part of its operating schedule or by other evidence that consideration has been given to the Victoria SCZ under Policy SCZ1 and appropriate risk mitigation measures put in place.
36.The Committee when considering the Victoria SCZ had regard to policy SCZ1 on pages 53-54 of Westminster’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP) and the specific matters contained at paragraphs D54-D56 on page 59 of the SLP which an Applicant is to address as part of their application.
37.Paragraph D56 states:-
“The local issues that need to be considered by applicants are:
· Serious violent at night.
· Anti-social behaviour at all times of the day (street drinking and begging).
· Incidents relating to ambulance call outs to the licensed premises for intoxication, injury related to intoxication and/or assault.
· Theft and noise at night.
38.The Committee concluded that the Applicant’s documents and his oral submissions, did not go far enough in tackling the issues in the local area during the proposed extended hours. The Committee was not persuaded that the Applicant had considered Policy SCZ1.
39.The Committee had regard to the Applicant’s withdrawal of his application to vary the hours of trade on Sunday to Wednesday and his suggestion that the premises would operate a pseudo membership operation.
40.The Committee also noted that the venue had not shown a history of trouble-free operation since the new premises licence was granted on the 16 June 2022. Indeed, residents had made complaints of nuisance and breach of existing conditions during trade and importantly, when the Applicant also traded later hours under Temporary Event Notices.
41.The Committee noted the concerns of the MPS and the fact that a later terminal hour would cause policing problems in the area and the possibility of the Premises becoming a destination venue for customers already in the area after other licensed premises had closed.
42.It was the Committee’s view that a membership style operation would not in itself prevent nuisance or dispersal issues during trade outside Westminster’s Core Hours. The residents had given evidence that the effect of nuisance and complaints would be exacerbated if the application was granted to allow the premises to trade until 02.00.
43.The Committee heard further compelling evidence from local residents regarding problems experienced in the area when it came to issues of public nuisance and crime and disorder.
44.The Committee were not persuaded by the Applicant that the hours applied for would promote the licensing objectives, nor had the Applicant provided additional information or conditions which gave them confidence that Policy SZC1 (Victoria) had been sufficiently considered. The Committee therefore concluded that granting the variation to the Premises Licence beyond core hours, until 02:00 was likely to add to public nuisance and crime and disorder in the area and would not promote the licensing objectives.
45.Based on the evidence before it, the Committee considered the right balance had already been struck by the Licensing Committee on the 16 June 2022 when granting the application to core hours under policy HRS1 on all days seven of the week and that there was no new evidence from the Applicant relating to the promotion of the licensing objectives that would justify interfering with that decision.
46.Having carefully considered the committee papers, additional papers and the submissions made by all the parties orally, the Committee has decided, after taking into account all the individual circumstances of this case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives to REFUSE the application:
This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee.
The Licensing Sub-Committee
29 September 2022
Supporting documents:
-
1 Lower Grosvenor Report_Redacted, item 1.
PDF 2 MB - Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 1./2 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 1./3 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 1./4 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 1./5 is restricted