Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
West End   * West End   ** None	74 Broadwick Street W1F 9QZ	New Premises Licence	23/02674/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 1

(“The Committee”)

 

Thursday 7 September 2023

 

Membership:           Councillor Aziz Toki (Chair) and Councillor Iman Less

 

Officer Support:       Legal Adviser:                    Michael Feeney

                                Policy Officer:                     Kerry Simpkin

                                Committee Officer:             Sarah Craddock

                                 Presenting Officer:             Kevin Jackaman

 

Other Parties: Alun Thomas (Solicitor, Thomas and Thomas Partners), George Hudson (Soho Live Venues Limited), Richard Vivian (Big Sky Acoustic) and Fred Nash (Ronnie Scott’s Jazz Club) on behalf of the Applicant, Jennifer Slade (Shaftesbury Capital PLC), Rupert Power (Soho Business Society), Karyn Abbott and James Hayes (Licensing Authority), Anil Drayan (Environmental Health Service), James Rankin (Counsel, Francis Taylor Building) and PC Steve Muldoon on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, Richard Brown (Solicitor, Licensing Advice Project), Tim Lord, Marina Tempia and Andrew Bancroft on behalf of the Soho Society, Simon Osborne-Smith and Tim Barrett (Interested Parties).

 

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of 74 Broadwick Street London W1F 9QZ 23/02674/LIPN

 

Full Decision

Premises: 

 

74 Broadwick Street

London

W1F 9QZ

 

Applicant

 

Soho Live Venues Limited

 

Ward

 

West End

 

Cumulative Impact Area

 

West End

 

Special Consideration Zone

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

Summary of Application

 

The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a New Premises Licence in respect of the above premises under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Premises intends to operate as a live music jazz venue and as a recording and production studio during the day, alongside occasional educational use. A copy of the Premises Plans can be viewed at Appendix 1 of the agenda report, and a list of the conditions proposed as part of the Application can be viewed at Appendix 4. This is a new premises application and therefore no premises licence history exists.

 

The Applicant has provided supporting documents, including a crime analysis report, a letter of support, an acoustic report, a planning acoustic report, a copy of the Premises’ planning permission, a dispersal policy and plans. These can be found at Appendix 2 of the agenda report. A summary of proposals, a Noise Impact Assessment & Mitigation Strategy and appendices from the crime analysis report are included in the Additional Information Pack.

 

The Premises are situated within the West End Ward and within the West End Cumulative Impact Area. During the hearing, the Applicant amended the application so that the licensable activity of ‘Performance of Dance’ no longer formed part of the Application. On that basis, the Premises falls within the definition of ‘cultural venue’ as given in policy CCS0S1. Policy CIP1 states that applications for cultural venues within the West End Cumulative Impact Area ‘will be subject to other policies within this statement and must demonstrate that they will not add to cumulative impact.’ 

 

During the hearing, the Applicant also confirmed that the application was being amended to reduce the hours sought for sale by retail of alcohol by half an hour each day. During the hearing, the Applicant also proposed additional conditions, as set out in the Submissions section below.

 

The matter has been assessed on its individual merits having regard to the evidence before the Sub-Committee and the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

There is a resident count of 105.

 

The application as amended during the hearing seeks the following:

 

Hours Premises Are Open to the Public

Monday-Tuesday: 09:00 to 00:00

Wednesday-Thursday: 09:00 to 01:00

Friday-Saturday: 09:00 to 02:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours of New Year’s Day.

Sundays before Bank Holidays until 02:00.

 

Plays Indoors

Monday-Tuesday: 09:00 to 00:00

Wednesday-Thursday: 09:00 to 01:00

Friday-Saturday: 09:00 to 02:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours of New Year’s Day.

Sundays before Bank Holidays until 02:00.

 

Live Music Indoors

Monday-Tuesday: 09:00 to 00:00

Wednesday-Thursday: 09:00 to 01:00

Friday-Saturday: 09:00 to 02:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours of New Year’s Day.

Sundays before Bank Holidays until 02:00

 

Recorded Music Indoors

Monday-Tuesday: 09:00 to 00:00

Wednesday-Thursday: 09:00 to 01:00

Friday-Saturday: 09:00 to 02:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours of New Year’s Day.

Sundays before Bank Holidays until 02:00

 

Anything of a Similar Description to That Falling Within Live Music or Recorded Music

Monday-Tuesday: 09:00 to 00:00

Wednesday-Thursday: 09:00 to 01:00

Friday-Saturday: 09:00 to 02:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours of New Year’s Day.

Sundays before Bank Holidays until 02:00

 

Late Night Refreshment

Monday-Tuesday: 23:00 to 00:00

Wednesday-Thursday: 23:00 to 01:00

Friday-Saturday: 23:00 to 02:00

Sunday: N/A

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours of New Year’s Day.

Sundays before Bank Holidays until 02:00

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol On and Off Sales

Monday-Tuesday: 09:00 to 23:30

Wednesday-Thursday: 09am to 00:30

Friday-Saturday: 09:00 to 01:30

Sunday: 09:00to 22:30

Off sales limited to Monday to Saturday 09:00 to 18:00 and 09:00 to 18:00 on Sundays before Bank Holidays.

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours of New Year’s Day.

Sundays before Bank Holidays until 01:30

 

 

Representations Received

 

• The Licensing Authority (Angela Rowe)
• Environmental Health Service (Anil Drayan) (EHS)
• The Metropolitan Police Service (PC Steve Muldoon) (MPS)
• George Hudson 16 Carlisle Street Soho London W1D 3BT (in support) 
• John Hendrickse 4 Patricia Close Slough SL1 5HU (in support)
• Simon Miller Flat 3 106 Berwick Street London (in support)
• Caroline Field 68 Waldron Road London (in support)
• Sonita Thompson Flat 5 Sycamore Court London SE10 8PD (in support)
• Natalie Oliveri 12 Castleview Close London N4 2DJ (in support)
• Arran Kent 37 Sutton Land Adlington Chorley (in support)
• Liam Stevens 27a Fonthill Road London N4 3HY (in support)
• Fred Diacon Flat 56 The Exchange 6 Scarbrook Road Croydon (in support)
• Leo Sicouri Flat 7 74-76 Queens Drive London N4 2HW (in support)
• Harry Evans Flat 48 Gilbert House Mcmillan Street Deptford London (in support)
• Sian Kenyon Flat 6 Scott Court 4 Broome Way London (in support)
• Jordan Steer 15 Beezling Close Eaton Ford St Neots (in support)
• James Browne 77 Asylum Road London SE15 2 RJ (in support)
• Grace Borchers 363A Holloway Road London N7 0RN (in support)
• Arnout Willemsen Flat 1 3 Veronica Road London (in support)
• Nathan Britton 14 Grove Road Mitcham Surrey (in support)
• Serena Betti Flat 3 27 Gosfield Street London (in support)
• Jennifer Yard 108 Garendon Road Morden (in support)
• Steven Tagg-Randall Annex 28 Arundel Drive Harrow (in support)
• Radhika Aggarwal 8 Dickson House Philpot Street London (in support)
• Julie Russo 42 Dartmouth Road London NW2 4EX (in support)
• Ben Treacher 1 Talbot Yard Flat 3 London SE1 1YP (in support)
• Andy Davies Flat 5 Sycamore Court 81 Blackheath Road London (in support)
• Sophie Millar 21 Buckfast Road Morden SM4 5NA (in support)
• Oscar Cooper 48 Saop Road London E17 7HT (in support)
• Stephen Hudson Clear Insurance Management Ltd 1 Great Tower Street London (in support)
• Marguerite Hudson 16 Screen Limited 3^rd Floor 16 Carlisle Street London (in support)
• Fabio Spinetti 61 New Road London N8 8TA (in support)
• Fredrik Korallus Sandiford Graemesdyke Road Berkhamsted (in support)
• Federico Schiocchet 29 Kenneth Crescent London NW24PP (in support)
• Tim Allwright 3 Hexham Road London SE27 9EF (in support)
• Charles Douglas-Osborn 1 Werneth Rise Hyde SL14 5NH (in support)
• Geoffrey Threadgold Flat 2 2 Kimberley Gardens London (in support)
• Carl Gorham 25 Kelling Road Holt NR25 6RT (in support)
• Iain Withers Apartment 31 82-84 Childers Street London (in support)
• Carol Victoria Flat 4 171 Castlenau Barnes London (in support)
• Anthony Thompson 34 Linden Road Gilingham Kent ME7 2PH (in support)
• Angela Fealy 16 Compton Street London W1D 4TL (in support)
• Amanda Payne 136 Gillingham Road Gillingham Kent (in support)
• Sarah Williams 6 Lancaster Road Hitchin SG5 1PE (in support)
• Jonathan Gwanzura 14 Constable Avenue Basildon SS14 3TN (in support)
• Jennie Thompson 34 Linden Road Gillingham Kent ME7 2PH (in support)
• April Lawless Garden Flat A 53A Sutherland Street Pimlico (in support)
• Matthew Lynn Tattlebury House Cranbrook Road Gourdhurst (in support)
• Laura Battisti 26 Wray Crescent London N4 3LP (in support)
• Nicholas Cox 6 The Granary Hoddesdon Road Stanstead Abbotts Ware (in support)
• Will Dickenson 347 Earlsfield Road London SW18 3DG (in support)
• Vicki Johnson 94 Norfolk House Road Streatham SW16 1JH (in support)
• Jake Hatch 67 Malvern Road Leytonstone E11 3DG (in support)
• Carey Southward 32a Charleston Street London (in support)
• David Tompkins 1 Clover Court Debenham IP14 6SG (in support)
• Anne Tucjer 34 Linden Road Gillingham Kent (in support)
• Teresa D’Elia 41 King’s Grove London SE15 2LY (in support)
• Scott Sullivan 10 Springfield Road London E17 8DB (in support)
• Christopher Hyde-Harrison Flat 2 Ashton Heights 51 Horniman Drive London (in support)
• Soho Business Alliance One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9AW (in support)
• Shatfesbury Capital PLC 22 Ganton Street London W1F 7FD (in support)
• Denis Coles 74 Greenshaw Brentwood CM14 4YH (in support)
• Siobhon Watson 7 Oakshott Court Polygon Road London (in support)
• Niall Lordan 48 Tierney Road Streatham SW5 1LN (in support)
• James Jarmack 115 Killester Avenue Gillingham ME7 2PH (in support)
• Lyn Eustance 8 Croft Avenue West Wickham BR4 0QJ (in support)
• Karen Willemsen Flat 1 3 Veronica Road London (in support)
• Sofia Pomeroy 167 Royal College Street London NW1 0SG (in support)
• Michelle Rea 13 Stockfield Road London SW16 2LU (in support)
• Robyn Martin 15 Aberford Gardens London SE18 4NZ (in support)
• Clare Coles 74 Greenshaw Brentwood CM14 4YH (in support)
• Anna Morsy Flat 1 Marshall House 49 Marshall Street London (opposed)
• Tim Barrett Flat 24 Marshall House 49 Marshall Street London (opposed)
• Brigitte Williams Flat 2 49 Marshall Street London (opposed)
• Belinda Denton Flatt 22 Marshall House London (opposed)
• Simon Osborne-Smith Flat 1 Marshall House 49 Marshall Street Soho London (opposed)
• Georgina and Ingrid Plumb 1-6 Dufours Place W1F 6SH (opposed)
• John Hamilton 11 Sandringham Court Dufours Place London W1F 7SL (opposed)
• Kelly Glyptis 49 Marshall Street Flat 15 W1F 9BE (opposed)
• Simon Osborne-Smith Marshall House Marshall Street London (opposed)
• Olidio Neto Flat 8 1-6 Dufours Place W1F 7SQ (opposed)
• Chris To Flat 64 1-6 Dufours Place London W1F 7SH (opposed)
• Alida Baxter Flat 48 1-6 Dufours Place London W1F 7SH (opposed)
• Graham Turnbull Sandringham Court Dufours Place London (opposed)
• The Soho Society (opposed) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Representations

The Licensing Authority stated:-

·       The Premises is located within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone and as such various policy points must be considered, namely CIP1, HRS1 and MD1.

·       The applicant is encouraged to provide a dispersal policy to demonstrate how conditions limiting the access from Ganton Street and the egress from Broadwick Street will operate.

·       The applicant is encouraged to consider reducing their hours back to core hours.

·       Following policy MD1, the applicant will be required to demonstrate how the proposal of the increase in hours will truly be an exception to policy. Exceptional circumstances are needed to depart from policy. The applicant is therefore encouraged to supply submissions on the operation of the live music and the timings that it will be played. Will customers be seated or will vertical drinking occur? Is all live music a ticketed event?

·       The applicant is encouraged to explain how off sales of alcohol will be ancillary to the main function of the Premises as a Live Music entertainment venue. The applicant is encouraged to provide more details on deliveries.

·       The applicant is encouraged to consider model condition 39.

·       With regards to proposed condition 14, the applicant is encouraged to advise what type of private event would take place that requires admittance after midnight and how the bona-fide guests or patrons of the ticketed event will be recorded.

·       The applicant is encouraged to reduce the terminal hours for the sale and supply of alcohol to allow for drink up time.

 

EHS stated:-

 

·       The Regulated Entertainments sought and for the times requested may lead to an increase in Public Nuisance in the area and impact on Public Safety.

·       The provision of Late-Night Refreshment for the times requested may lead to an increase in Public Nuisance in the area.

·       The Supply of Alcohol and for the times requested may lead to an increase in Public Nuisance in the area and impact on Public Safety.

·       The conditions proposed are being considered to see if they are sufficient to allay EHS concerns.

·       The provision of sanitary accommodation must be at least in line with BS6465 for any proposed capacity.

·       The sound insulation properties of the Premises must be at least in line with the standards as set out in Appendix 11 of Westminster’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

·       The Applicant is requested to contact EHS to arrange a site visit and to discuss EHS’s representation.

 

MPS stated:-

 

·       The proposal is likely to undermine the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder.

·       Crime levels in the West End CIZ are astronomically high. Maps and figures showing levels of crime within both the West End and the borough of Westminster for April and May and the yearly figures from 2018-2023 show that crime levels are higher now than they were prior to Covid.

·       PC Muldoon met with the Applicant and was shown the venue and discussed the Application at length. Based on what was said about capacity and the number of shows, it appears there would be approximately 500 people per night brought into the area that would not previously have been here. This would heavily add to the cumulative impact within the West End.

·       The dispersal plans are to disperse customers onto Ganton Street after 10pm. PC Muldoon considers that Ganton Street (a relatively small street) is not suitable for 200 people potentially dispersing out onto it. There are already two late night bars/clubs on Ganton Street that close at 3am. 200 people per show dispersing at or near the same time is likely to have some serious impact no matter what side is used for dispersal.

·       Queues later in the evening are likely to cause some disturbance for local residents.

·       All but one of those supporting the venue are listed at addresses outside of Soho and outside the West End. The one person supporting the application with an address in Soho is the Applicant himself.

 

Interested Parties Opposed to the Application and the Soho Society stated:-

 

·       Ganton Street is much more suited for queues and a smoking area. It is therefore requested as a condition that at all times of alcohol sales the Ganton Street entrance is to be used. Westminster increasing the number of licences in close proximity to our home has led to cumulative impact of increased noise. I would not feel safe on the street with drunk crowds from this venue.

·       This area of Soho is primarily residential and a late night licence will negatively impact on residents’ ability to sleep. There will be rowdy behaviour on leaving the premises and prior to entering the premises.

·       I would like to reiterate my concerns about noise created by the large amount of expected visitors/clients, taxis, pedicabs collecting and various other vehicles. The end of Broadwick Street is narrow and the sound echoes. Smoking would cause distress, as well as drug use. Litter is also a concern.

·       The location of the proposed venue is a residential area. Once intoxicated people have left in the early hours of the morning, they will roam, shout and scream. Taxis will hoot their horns and pedicabs will play loud music. Residents will be seriously affected by increased noise and anti-social behaviour. Westminster is already aware of the problem of cumulative impact.

·       It is imperative that significant licensing conditions are put in place. The Premises will have loud music and customers influenced with alcohol will speak or shout. It is requested that the Premises have a marshal to direct smokers to Carnaby Street away from Marshall House. It is requested as a condition that an additional marshal from 5pm-12:30am monitor and prevent noise issues from taxis and pedicabs and to divert customers to the Ganton Street entrance from midnight. It is requested that signage be put at the exits of the club requesting clients to leave in a quiet manner and not to use pedicabs after 6pm. It is requested that the club provide comprehensive signage reminding customers that this is a residential area and not to be noisy. It is requested that the club provide CCTV monitoring and recording.

·       The times stated in the application are unreasonable. We find it unacceptable to have noise after 11pm, especially during the week. At the moment we experience loud noises from another club. Participants leave drunk and then head towards Regent Street. Taxi bikes play loud music and arguments with partners/vomiting keep residents awake.

·       This corner of Soho is the most densely residential populated. We have cars circling. Please do not lower the quality of life of residents.

·       Marshall Street is one of the few streets in Soho that is quiet and relatively peaceful late at night. The addition of this venue would make the area incredibly noisy and a prime location for disorder and general drunken chaos.

·       It is requested that internal and external noise monitoring and recording display monitors be installed at both entrances and that data be available to progress any complaint. Calibration and checking for tampering to be conducted randomly weekly. It is requested that there be a condition that the licence will be revoked if 30 or more noise complaints from local residents occur within any 30-day period. Smokers to be directed to Carnaby Street. Sale of alcohol permitted only when the customer has substantial food and no alcohol to be consumed external to the Premises.

·       The area is now overcrowded with shoppers and tourists. People coming and going with late night traffic leads to noise. We already had many years of problems with a late-night venue in Ganton Street and this would add to the number of issues.

·       There will be more disruption for all residents if another live music venue is allowed in this part of Soho. We already suffer late night disturbances and anti-social behaviour from the existing bars and clubs around Ganton Street. There will be increased traffic congestion. Men frequently urinate around the entrance on Dufours Place and this will happen even more. There are more intruders in our building dealing drugs and more will be drawn here to prey on the late night revellers from the venue.

·       The location is overlooked by three large blocks of residential flats. Permitting live music to continue into the early hours, the coming and goings of people, the possibility of noisy queues or leaving drunk and noisy in the early hours is completely unacceptable and ignores the wellbeing of people in this particularly residential area.

·       This is a residential area with flats directly in front of it, the times are antisocial, we already have high crime and anti-social behaviour. Has a noise evaluation and a crime and antisocial behaviour evaluation been done? There are no other live music venues in the immediate area. There is already a problem with people using Dufours Place as a WC. If the licence is granted I strongly request that the hours be considered to reflect a residential area where most people are asleep by 10pm.

·       The Soho Society is a recognised amenity group that was formed to make Soho a better place to live, work or visit. The Premises is in the West End CIZ where crime rates are currently higher than at pre-Covid times. This is a high residential area already suffering from noise disturbance. The hours sought are contrary to the Core Hours policy. It is a large capacity of 295 and dispersal late at night will increase noise nuisance. Queuing outside the Premises will impact on residents. The Applicant has not provided information on the operation of the venue. This means that the full impact cannot be assessed. The Application fails the policy tests in Policy CCS01 and falls outside Core Hours. The proposed conditions fail to demonstrate that the Premises will not add to cumulative impact. Condition 9 on queuing does not say the number permitted to queue or where the queue will form. We are against any external queues. There is no designated space for smokers and no dispersal policy has been submitted. There is no mention of SIA support. More licences have been granted in recent years and the Cumulative Impact Assessment 2020 provides evidence against granting such an application. Residents on Marshall Street have already raised noise complaints. The impact will also be felt outside the immediate vicinity. A sleep survey is included at Appendix 1. Soho is not safe at night and patrons leaving the Premises will be at high risk of becoming victims. Policies in relation to the cumulative impact zone are directed at cumulative effects, and this venue will have a negative impact on residents living nearby and also to those living in other parts of Soho. The addition of a 295 capacity venue operating into the night will increase noise disturbance, crime and disorder and cumulative impact.

·       The Additional Information Pack also contains a video recorded on 3 September. This was submitted to give an idea of existing noise problems in the vicinity of the Premises. 

·       Additional representations submitted on 6 September stated that this area of Soho is primarily residential and a late night licence would impact on residents’ ability to sleep. The licence would attract rowdy behaviour, loud pedicabs and Ubers honking their horns. The Geo-Fencing system designed to stop taxis from picking people up does not work. Noisy revellers being decanted onto the street will cause noise.

·       Additional representations submitted on 6 September contained a video from August 2021 showing the noise on Marshall Street caused by customers leaving Le Cirque at 4:10am. The video was taken from Blake House.

 

Interested Parties in support stated:-

 

·       Soho is in need of more cultural late cultural hotspots (sic).

·       The Applicant has made significant contributions to the community by operating multiple jazz clubs. There has been meticulous planning which will ensure smooth ticketed shows with zero queues outside. The team supports over 200 independent musicians weekly, and they have deep respect for Soho’s history and cultural heritage.

·       The venue would have numerous benefits for the community, local economy and nightlife scene. It would provide a safe and controlled environment for people to enjoy themselves in. The venue would be a positive addition and a significant asset.

·       The Applicant’s venue on Berwick Street does not cause any problems with noise when their guests arrive or leave. The Applicant will reliably manage the premises.

·       Initiatives like this are fundamental to achieving equality, diversity and inclusion.

·       Music venues have been disappearing and I support the opening of a new music venue, especially one from the established experts in crafting world class live experience, Soho Live.

·       Soho Live supports musicians and the jazz community in London.

·       Jazz club will bring more people & culture to Soho.

·       Live jazz doesn’t attract loud and obnoxious clientele. Another venue run by the same outfit is one of the best spots in Soho and would be great to see it on a bigger scale.

·       Jazz is a cultural highlight that is under-represented. I support promoting the arts and brining visitors back to London.

·       Keeping alive Soho and the jazz scene is so important and enjoyable too.

·       There are multiple nearby bars already operating even later hours so there is no good reason for the application to be refused. A new venue such as this will provide economic opportunities.

·       There should be more opportunities and venues for live music.

·       Live music is an essential part of Soho and we need more venues offering more variety of live music.

·       A very exciting project which is the perfect fit for the area.

·       The Premises will be an invaluable hub for nurturing emerging talents and showcasing diverse musical genres.

·       Great addition to the nightlife in the area.

·       This new venue is essential for sustaining the cultural identity of London’s live music scene. The Applicant is honouring Soho’s historical significance, fostering creativity, supporting local artists, promoting diversity and inclusivity and contributing to a positive economic impact.

·       I can confirm the quality of their existing venues and think this will be a great addition.

·       Soho cultural landscape needs enhancing before it all turns into boutiques and luxury flats.

·       The Soho Jazz Bar venues are filled with lovely staff, incredible food, strong cocktails and extremely talented artists. I cannot wait for their new venue to open.

·       The Carnaby would be a great cultural and social addition to the area. The Applicant has a successful track record of producing great jazz nights and managing prestigious jazz venues to great effect.

·       It is so important that the arts remain supported, particularly as so many venues are closing.

·       The Soho Live Music Club ventures are such wonderful places and it would be great to have another one on Carnaby Street.

·       Soho Live have created some amazing spaces in London for the live music and jazz, their contribution to this music scene is evident.

·       With over 10 years of managing licensed premises in the Soho area, the management for Soho Live Venues will have the knowledge and experience to continue to manage responsibly and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

·       As a local business I fully support the opening of a new live jazz music venue. We need a smart new attraction as many of our famous names are disappearing or seriously struggling to survive. The operator will be a well-known and respected Soho resident.

·       There is always a need for more live music venues. The Applicant already runs 2 great venues and the music offer is second to none in London.

·       The application is accretive to the vibrancy of the community and supports the development of the area as one of the best social and entertainment areas of London.

·       Soho Live are invigorating the music scene in Soho and across London.

·       Have been a big fan of what this organisation has done on Carlisle Street- they’ve helped bring together amazing musicians and supporting the arts.

·       Soho is always in need of exciting new businesses and music venues. A late licence for any venue will encourage people to Soho and enjoy what’s on offer.

·       The people behind the application are doing great things in supporting jazz in central London. It is vital for the soul of Soho that this kind of creative venture is given the chance to flourish.

·       The Applicant runs several other successful venues in Soho already responsibly and is a great asset to the area both culturally and economically. Opening a late license venue would help maintain Soho as a nightlife destination.

·       As a neighbour, they are a valued member of the community, they are inclusive and are also passionate about artists and their music.

·       It is important to have venues like this in a city that is in dire need of a growing night life.

·       A fantastic addition by a respected resident and business owner of Soho.

·       London needs more jazz venues to support its musicians.

·       A venue like this adds to the community like nothing else and helps revitalise the suffering live music scene. Especially the longer hours are a unique incentive that would drive trade and community, as it allows for the interaction of people who might not usually meet. It also enables Soho’s community, much of which works evenings and nights until around 11pm to gather in a peaceful, sophisticated place of exchange and innovation.

·       There are many hundreds of restaurants in Soho but relatively few live music venues. I would like to see more live music venues in Soho.

·       I’d much rather the area had a classy jazz bar rather than a nightclub or a loud pub.

·       We need more live music venues, places for Londoners and visitors to our city to come together and celebrate.

·       The Carnaby will be a massive contribution to musicians and hospitality workers. It is set to bring together jazz lovers from all over the worlds, creating a unique and vibrant music scene.

·       I support live music and anywhere that caters to this should be supported.

·       Although I live a long way out, I love coming in to London to see live jazz. The team behind the Carnaby have done a fabulous job at their other venues in the area. There is a clearly a desire for live music. As well as providing entertainment for many, it provides jobs.

·       Music venues are critically important to the improvement of our city.

·       The staff is so kind and friendly, the musicians are very professional and the interior design is great. I love to go there every week.

·       Essential for the area to continue the prosperity and cultural significance of Soho.

·       The Soho Live Team have displayed immense passion, well-thought out management and ethical payment practices. They are one of the companies I most look forward to working with.

·       A key focus of the Soho Business Alliance is the protection of Soho’s reputation as a centre for world beating hospitality and night-time industries that contribute so much to the fabric of Westminster’s culture and economy. This is recognised in Westminster’s Statement of Licensing Policy. Live music venues are under threat and Soho needs more live music venues. This application is an archetype of what should constitute exceptional circumstances. Venues like this will draw people to Soho who have an interest in the arts, which will stimulate demand for complementary businesses. The nature of the proposed use and comprehensive schedule of conditions means that the licensing objectives will be promoted. The premises are located below ground and the operator has experience in Soho.

·       Shaftesbury Capital PLC is a Real Estate Investment Trust which invests in London’s West End. The Application has been submitted by our proposed tenant. We carefully vetted the Applicant and entered into a lease because of the Applicant’s professionalism and track record operating in Soho. It is a privilege to help facilitate the opening of a new live music venue when so many are closing in London and further afield. The Premises will provide an alternative evening that is not centred around alcohol. A customer evening focused on shopping, dining and cultural music entertainment cannot properly be linked to cumulative impact. The configuration, building qualities and location provide natural sound attenuation and there are arrival/dispersal options. This, together with fitted out premises and robust operational management controls, will ensure the promotion of all four licensing objectives.

 

 

Policy Considerations

 

Policies CIP1, HRS1 and CCSOS1 apply under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (‘SLP’).

 

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 Zone will be subject to other policies within this statement and must demonstrate that they will not add to cumulative impact.

 

Policy HRS1

 

A. Applications within the core hours set out below in this policy will generally be granted for the relevant premises uses, subject to not being contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy.

B. 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 following:

1. 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.

2. If the application is located within a Special Consideration Zone they have demonstrated that they have taken account of the issues identified in that area and provided adequate mitigation.

3. Whether there is residential accommodation in the proximity of the premises that would likely be adversely affected by premises being open or carrying out operations at the hours proposed.

4. The proposed hours of the licensable activities and when customers will be permitted to remain on the premises.

5. The proposed hours when any music, including incidental music, will be played.

6. The hours when customers will be allowed to take food or drink outside the premises or be within open areas which form part of the premises.

7. The existing hours of licensable activities and the past operation of the premises (if any) and hours of licensable premises in the vicinity.

8. Whether customers and staff have adequate access to public transport when arriving at and leaving the premises, especially at night.

9. The capacity of the premises.

10. The type of use, recognising that some venues are more likely to impact the licensing objectives than others; for example, pubs and bars are higher risk than theatres, cinemas and other cultural and sporting venues due to the nature of the operation.

11. The Licensing Authority will take into account the active measures proposed for a ‘winding down’ period including arrangements for people to be collected from the premises to travel home safely.

12. Conditions on hours may be attached that require that the supply of

alcohol for consumption on the premises ceases a suitable period of time before customers are required to leave the premises.

13. The council, acting as the Licensing Authority, may reduce hours if, after review, it is necessary to impose conditions specifying shorter hours in order to promote the licensing objectives.

14. Specific days for non-standard hours should be identified and justified as part of the application to allow responsible authorities and interested parties to evaluate the impact that these licensable activities may have, and to plan accordingly. The consideration of applications for later hours for Bank Holiday Mondays will take into

account that later hours are generally granted for preceding Sundays and that the next day is a working day. Non-specific days are expected to be covered by Temporary Event Notices or variation applications.

C. For the purpose of Clauses A and B above, the Core Hours for applications for each premises use type as defined within this policy are:

 

Pubs and bars, Fast Food and Music and Dance venues

Monday to Thursday: 10am to 11.30pm.

Friday and Saturday: 10am to Midnight.

Sunday: Middday to 10.30pm.

Sundays immediately prior to a bank holiday: Midday to midnight

 

Cinemas, Cultural Venues and Live Sporting Premises

Monday to Sunday 9am to Midnight

 

D. Core hours are when customers are permitted to be on the premises and therefore the maximum opening hours permitted will be to the same start and terminal hours for each of the days where licensable activity is permitted.

E. For the purposes of this policy, ‘premises uses’ are defined within the relevant premises use policies within this statement.

Note: The core hours are for all licensable activities but if an application includes late night refreshment, then the starting time for that licensable activity will be 11pm.

 

Policy CCSOS1

 

B. Applications inside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone will generally be granted 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 and/or late-night refreshment meeting the council’s Ancillary Delivery of Alcohol and/or Late-Night Refreshment Policy DEL1.

4.The applicant has demonstrated that they will not add to cumulative impact within the Cumulative Impact Zone.

5.The applicant has clearly demonstrated that the sale by retail of alcohol and late-night refreshment will be ancillary to the venue’s primary function as a cinema, cultural venue, live sporting premises or outdoor space.

6.The sale by retail of alcohol and/or late night refreshment after 11pm is limited to customers, patrons or members of the audience who will or have made use of the primary function of the venue as a cinema, cultural venue, live sporting premises or outdoor space. 

C. For the purposes of this policy a cultural venue is defined as:

b. Performance venues: for a live performance in front of an audience which may include concert halls, comedy clubs or similar performance venues.

 

Submissions by the Parties

 

1.     Mr Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the application to the Sub-Committee, including the activities and hours applied for. Mr Jackaman referred to the representations received from Responsible Authorities and 82 interested parties both in support of and opposed to the Application. Mr Jackaman stated that the Premises is within the West End Cumulative Impact Area.

 

2.     Mr Thomas on behalf of the Applicant introduced Fred Nash of Ronnie Scott’s. Mr Thomas stated that Ronnie Scott’s was a competitor, that the late show was important and that Soho needed live music. Mr Nash said he was there to support the Application and that he was very familiar with what the Applicant wanted to do.

 

3.     Mr Nash stated that the Application was the right thing for London, and it is good for Soho and the arts for general. Jazz clubs support musicians, sound engineers and the late-night economy. In relation to the late shows, these are important because they are a place for younger musicians to cut their teeth. They also allow jazz clubs to be accessible to all audiences at a price point that is affordable. The Application reminded Mr Nash of the people who opened Ronnie Scott’s in the 1950s, and Mr Nash saw Mr Hudson as doing what they did and commended him for this.

 

4.     Mr Thomas submitted that the Council’s SLP is riddled with references to cultural venues and that the Council does not want only pubs and restaurants. The Council wants diversity, but the Applicant needs a small leap of faith from the Committee to grant slightly beyond core hours for cultural venues. The main reason the Applicant was applying after core hours was because of the late show, the programming for which is in the dispersal policy. Mr Thomas referred to and quoted paragraph E9 on page 65 of the SLP. Mr Thomas submitted that paragraph E9 says that if you are a cultural venue the Committee will look at the application more sympathetically.

 

5.     Mr Thomas advised that the environment of the Premises would be art-led and not drink-led. The entrance is at ground level, but the activity would be at basement where noise cannot escape. Mr Hudson has a stellar reputation for running jazz venues, and the Leveche Report shows that he has a faultless reputation. At Mr Hudson’s other venues there have been no calls to police or evidence of nuisance. The Applicant received pre-application advice from Mr Drayan (EHS).

 

6.     Mr Thomas advised that the Licensing Authority had asked for winding-up time and that the Applicant was prepared to agree to this. The Application was therefore amended to take off thirty minutes every day for sale of alcohol. On Monday to Tuesday 23:30 would be less than core hours for cultural venues. Mr Thomas explained that the music continues beyond the final time for the sale of alcohol because you do not want people to rush out, but the bar closes earlier to give people time to disperse safely and quietly.

 

7.     Mr Thomas explained that there would be two live music shows every day and three on Wednesday-Saturday which is why the extra time is needed. The last show would start at 23:00 on Saturday.

 

8.     Mr Thomas argued that Marshall Street will not be impacted as much as residents fear because all access will be via Ganton Street (rear entrance) after 23:00, and Ganton Street is on the opposite side of the building to where interested parties live. There is therefore no risk of people being affected after 23:00.

 

9.     Mr Thomas added that dispersal also has to take place via Ganton Street from midnight. After midnight there will therefore be nobody coming or going by Broadwick Street or Marshall House. Mr Thomas noted that after the core hours for bars/restaurants, the maximum capacity would reduce to 150 because the late show is smaller. There would be fewer people leaving, and they would not be leaving via Broadwick Street.

 

10. Mr Thomas referred to the plans submitted, saying that for the small hatched area around the bar, alcohol would be provided only by table service. Mr Thomas referred to layout plans included in the agenda report, saying that the hatched area has 42 covers.

 

11. Mr Thomas advised that the hatched area is not going to be vertical drinking because patrons could be served by waiter/waitress service in the hatched area, and customers would have to be served by waiter/waitress service outside the hatched area. With regards to dispersal, there would be at least 2 SIA security on duty after 22:00. Dispersal would only be via Ganton Street, and the Applicant would marshal and supervise customers from the point of exit towards Regent Street, where the cabs are. Mr Thomas said that the departure would take place before customers left Cirque Le Soir on Ganton Street, which closes at 03:00 onwards.

 

12.Mr Thomas asked for additional time to make his representations (approximately 10-15 minutes extra), and he appreciated that the other parties would have additional time as well. On this basis he was granted additional time.

 

13. Mr Thomas pointed out that planning permission had been granted. Mr Thomas argued that someone would be going to use the Premises as a live music venue, and the hope was that it would be George Hudson. With reference to Court of Appeal authority, Mr Thomas argued that significant weight should be placed on fact that planning permission had been granted.

 

14. Mr Thomas explained that the Premises would also provide Chinese food, which promotes the cultural use of Chinatown. Mr Thomas referred to the fact that the papers submitted demonstrated the loss of grassroots venues in the area. Mr Thomas submitted that the Hope and Glory case says the Sub-Committee must take a balance of benefits and downsides, and he asked the Sub-Committee to consider the weighting of competing considerations.

 

15.Mr Thomas argued that the reason this was a suitable venue is that Carnaby is not impacted by cumulative impact the same way as other parts of the West End. Shaftesbury PLC manage tenants, and they have CCTV and 24 hour security. When one looks at the reasons underlying the Cumulative Impact Policy, those factors are not present in Carnaby. There is high access to public transport, so customers are not retained within the West End. They go home, and there is no evidence that the Application would add to cumulative impact. The SLP makes it clear that cultural venues are considered differently, and customers will behave differently from customers at premises such as Cirque Le Soir.

 

16. Mr Hudson on behalf of the Applicant explained that he had been a resident of Soho for 12 years and that he employed residents of Soho and self-employed musicians. Mr Hudson said it was very important for him to work together with the local community. It was unfortunate that some residents had not enjoyed his hospitality, but the majority of them and everyone that he met was incredibly positive because the Applicant ran a grassroots venue. Mr Hudson explained that the late show is critically important for bringing up young talent and makes the operation financially viable.

 

17. Mr Hudson said that he had been running the late show in his other venue without any issues, and the late show is designed as a cabaret performance. This means there is no big finale or encore end. The late show finishes a good half hour before the end time anyway, and the breaks between sets get longer to encourage dispersal.

 

18.Mr Thomas submitted that the police crime figures were for the whole of the West End, but the heat maps in the police evidence are not around Carnaby. This shows that there is less cumulative impact in Carnaby. In any event, the Leveche Report observed people going straight home.

 

19.Mr Thomas also argued that there was less cumulative impact because Shaftesbury curated the area. Mr Thomas added that the Premises was a cultural venue with Policy CCSOS1 and that applications will generally be granted provided that they will not add to cumulative impact (which the Applicant had demonstrated). Mr Thomas also said that Policy CCSOS1 does not mean that the Sub-Committee cannot grant an application outside core hours.

 

20.The Applicant did not need to demonstrate that the Application was an exception; the Applicant only needed to demonstrate that the Premises would not add to cumulative impact. Policy HRS1 recognises that some venues are more likely to impact the licensing objectives than others and that bars/restaurants are more likely to impact the licensing objectives than cultural venues. 

 

21.Mr Thomas pointed out that there were no representations from Ganton Street, which would be the entrance after 23:00 and the exit after midnight. All the objections came from Marshall House, which would not be impacted. Even the representations that have been made recognised that Ganton Street would be a much better entrance.

 

22.Mr Thomas then asked Mr Vivian to answer some questions. Mr Vivian said that he did not agree with PC Muldoon that 200 people leaving would cause problems in Ganton Street because dispersal would be managed and gradual. People do not leave in one mass of 200, and they would disperse gradually in small groups. Mr Vivian added that the noise impact is smaller as people move down street, and the noise would be rapidly attenuated by distance. Mr Vivian confirmed that he did not think that there would be an increase in average noise level in the area such that the residents in Marshall Street/Broadwick Street would not be impacted.

 

23.In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Thomas explained that there were offices above the Premises. Mr Thomas said Ganton Street was pretty wide and pedestrianised as well; 295 people would not be coming out at one time. Mr Hudson added that in the walkway from Ganton Street you could fit 80 people coming from the exit of the Premises. The Applicant manages leaving time, and people leave in very little groups, generally couples. People generally leave over the course of 30-45 minutes and then there is an additional hour before the next show starts. The late show is designed not to have big end. Mr Thomas added that there would only be 150 people after bars/restaurants core hours and they would leave in dribs and drabs.

 

24.In response to further questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Hudson explained that the early show and main show would run as 2 sets and usually people would stay for both acts, while the late show is more cabaret, hotel-style music. The late show also has bigger and bigger breaks between the sets. Very rarely would someone stay for the entirety of the late show. People could stay for the whole time, but they generally do not. For the late show it is a rolling showcase of talent. Mr Thomas added that there was a cut off for entry. With regards to ticketing, Mr Hudson explained that all ticketing is mobile and even a member would have to register to ticket/registration beforehand, so there is a clear indication of how many people are in the building at any one time. 

 

25.In relation to off-sales of alcohol, Mr Hudson explained that off-sales were being applied for because the Applicant had a large membership who love buying vinyls and alcohol to send as gifts at Christmas. Mr Thomas added that off-sales would be sold via the internet and sent out in the post, not via delivery bikes. Mr Thomas said the Applicant would be happy to accept a condition to that effect.

 

26.In response to further questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Hudson explained that the holding area has 90 covers, so it can hold most of the audience. Unlike Ronnie’s, which does sometimes have a queue, the Premises was designed from the beginning to make sure that everybody that arrives is within the front door within a minute. No tickets are purchased on the door, and patrons are sent down to the ‘holding pen’ where they can rest while others are leaving. On capacity, Mr Hudson said the main show would be at 50-80% capacity the majority of the time, and at Boulevard it would be 100% capacity on Fridays and Saturdays. There is a large appetite for this music at this prince point.

 

27. In response to further questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Hudson said that for the late show, branding and signage would be on the back of the Ganton Street entrance and that the marketing of the late show is connected to that entrance. At all times there would be people stationed on both sides, directing people round. Mobile ticketing is geo-located, and there would be a clear map on the ticket which points out which entrance is open when. Mr Hudson said that his other venue was next to a nightclub, and that a different type of customer went to nightclubs. This meant there had been no impact in the last 11 months.

 

28. After a discussion on ticketing and entry times, Mr Thomas suggested reflecting and coming back to the Sub-Committee with suggested conditions on ticketing and entry times. In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Thomas also added that the Applicant would be happy to accept a condition for the hatched area to have a minimum of 40 seats so that it did not become a drinking area. 

 

29. Ms Slade on behalf of Shaftesbury Capital PLC made the following representations: Shaftesbury owns and manages buildings across the West End. Shaftesbury started investing in the area around Carnaby Street 25 years ago. Shaftesbury seeks out and chooses occupiers that reflect our values and can contribute to the area’s heritage and community. There has been live music in Carnaby for over 100 years, and Shaftesbury is excited to work with someone like George Hudson.

 

30. The evening economy is about providing high quality food, beverage and entertainment, and Shaftesbury works hard with operators so that they understand that they must work alongside local residents. Shaftesbury provides a comprehensive estate management service, which takes into consideration the needs of surrounding residents around the estate. There is 24 hours CCTV and on site security.

 

31. There are very low levels of crime on the estate. The security team has considerable impact in deterring crime and dealing with anti-social behaviour when required. The security team works closely with licensed premises security teams. Any pedicabs are moved on and are reported to the Council. Shaftesbury is considering increasing on-site guarding and also provides managed waste facilities.

 

32. The feedback from local residents shows that there are two main concerns. First, the potential disruption due to dispersal. The Applicant has looked to address this by using geo-fencing so taxis are unable to pick up people at the Broadwick Street/Marshall Street junction. This has now moved slightly, and Shaftesbury intends to raise this with taxi operators.

 

33. The residents’ concern is also addressed through an Operational Management Plan. After 23:00 the entrance will be from Ganton Street and after midnight the exit will be via Ganton Street. Customers will therefore be dispersed away from residents. Shaftesbury received a letter of support for the planning application from a resident on Ganton Street.

 

34.The second concern of residents is around servicing and timings. A servicing management plan requires deliveries between 8am to23:00, and these regulations form part of Shaftesbury’s standard lease agreement. Shaftesbury tracks deliveries around the estate, and they follow up with the occupier if there is a delivery outside the allowed times. If the delivery is not to an occupier then it is referred to the Council. If an occupier does not comply with regulations on deliveries, then they are in breach of their lease agreement and Shaftesbury follows this up. The highway signage at Marshall Street junction could be made clearer because it does not say that it is dead end. In selecting the Applicant, Shaftesbury is staying true to its aim to give opportunities to local entrepreneurs who will work hard for the local area.

 

35.Mr Thomas added that in one of the videos submitted by local residents there was a rubbish truck. Ms Slade’s evidence was that such trucks and deliveries will get reported to the Council. Mr Thomas also said that if there are cabs outside Marshall Street, then when geo-fencing comes back that will deter that. There would be no servicing to the Premises before 08:00due to licence conditions and the lease.

 

36.Mr Power made the following representations on behalf of the Soho Business Society: Mr Hudson is in the business community’s opinion one of the leading impresarios of the new generation. George is engaged with the Soho Community, which is pretty special when comes to operators. In terms of pedigree as an operator Mr Hudson’s reputation is second to none. The Soho Business Society feels that George should be embraced.

 

37.Mr Drayan made the following representations on behalf of EHS: The Applicant did seek pre-application advice from EHS. Most of the conditions on the licence are the outcome of proposed conditions. At pre-application EHS did give an indication that anything that was asked for beyond core hours was going to be very difficult to be granted unless the Applicant could demonstrate that the Premises would not add to cumulative impact. That is a matter for the Sub-Committee to decide.

 

38.Mr Drayan suggested that the Broadwick Street entrance could be stopped from being used after a certain time, and midnight is the cut-off point. EHS was involved in discussions for the planning application as well. EHS also gave advice about noise breakout from the Premises and those measures have been put on planning conditions. EHS is satisfied that sufficient measures are in place to prevent noise breakout from within the Premises.

 

39.Mr Drayan explained that the main issue is dispersal late at night. There is an exit tunnel which is about 18-20m long. The dispersal plan suggests that this is all stewarded and comes out at Ganton Street at the Carnaby Street end. It is suggested in the dispersal plan that there should be SIA security staff to encourage people not to go towards Marshall Street or Broadwick Street but to go along Carnaby Street to Regent Street. That is where people are less likely to have an impact. It is for the Sub-Committee to decide whether the Applicant is sufficiently able to control dispersal such that people would not be going to get pedicabs in Marshall Street or Broadwick Street or taxis from those areas. That is the crux of the matter from a public nuisance point of view.

 

40. Mr Drayan added that one of the Applicant’s advantages is the type of clientele that they have, which is not the Cirque Le Soir type. When customers come out they shout after consuming alcohol in premises, and from some of the videos Mr Drayan has seen that is what has been causing a lot of issues in the area. It is up to the Applicant to show that this is not the type of clientele they have and not the issues they will cause; the question is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that dispersal can be done in a reasonable manner so that the Premises does not add to issues that residents suffer in the area. That was the advice provided to the Premises.

 

41.  Mr Drayan also talked with Shaftesbury who say they have patrols, and that needs to be integrated a bit more. That is something that can be worked on to hopefully provide further mitigation, especially from existing premises, which is where the focus needs to be redoubled in addressing issues that residents suffer from. It is for the Applicant to demonstrate that they can control their customers and that they are different from the Premises that are causing the problems.

 

42.In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Drayan said that the walkway onto Ganton Street was about 3m wide. Mr Hudson said there was an SIA officer on the Ganton Street door and also a steward on the other side and CCTV. Ms Slade added that Shaftesbury’s security team would support the Applicant’s.

 

43.Mr Drayan added that James Hayes, a City Inspector Manager, was present and could advise on current work that the Council is trying to implement to address some of the issues caused by existing premises as well as how the Marshall Street/Broadwick Street issues are being reduced.

 

44.Mr Hayes explained that the Council does a lot of work to try to address nuisance and that the new venue could well have an impact on public nuisance experienced in the area. The main issues are not directly related to licensed premises but are caused by licenses premises being there. Minicabs/private cars are there, and one of the big problems is pedicabs because the area is mostly pedestrianised. The Council has done a huge amount of enforcement activity but still has not resolved it. Mr Hayes believed an entertainment venue would attract pedicabs which would wait to collect people, and if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the Sub-Committee needed to be conscious that the hours and conditions needed to address those problems.

 

45.In response to a question from the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee Mr Feeney, Mr Thomas confirmed that the Applicant would put forward a specific condition on SIA. Mr Drayan added that condition 23 on late entry was very open-ended and needed to be tightened up.

 

46.Ms Abbott on behalf of the Licensing Authority made the following representations: She advised that the Premises is a live music venue and falls under the music and dance policy, where the Applicant must demonstrate an exception to policy. Even with a reduction in hours, the Application is still outside core hours. The concerns are a number of people coming into the CIA at different times with closing times being midnight, 01:00 and 02:00, which is a big concern with that amount of people. The Sub-Committee must be satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances and will not add to cumulative impact.

 

47.Mr Rankin on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service made the following representations: He advised that it does not matter whether you are wearing a suit, whether you are mature or whether you like jazz; you are still as capable of behaving badly as anyone else. The MPS objection was straightforward. The Council has a policy, and it is at the Applicant’s own peril if he selects a Premises in the CIA which offends policy. The MPS accepted that the Applicant loves jazz and Soho, but PC Muldoon’s interests are different - he has the business of policing this area. At 1am-3am it is a very different place to 1959 and Ronnie Scott’s, and the principal reason for that is the number of licences the Council has granted. We have got to the stage where Soho is full up.

 

48. The MPS recognised the benefits of giving young musicians the platform to ply their trade, but there are other considerations. This area has the highest crime rate in the kingdom for public order offences. The MPS do not want to see a licence granted in this area which runs the risk of increasing crime figures.

 

49. Mr Rankin submitted that it did not matter that there was a report from a retired police officer who visited the area twice and did not see anything. Historically, looking at hours when offences are taking place on page 99 of the agenda report, those danger hours have not changed or altered. Crime happens between 22:00 to 04:00  that is unchanged. Offences take place within those hours and within this area.

 

50.Mr Rankin submitted that even if Mr Thomas says the policy says the Applicant does not need to prove exception, whether it is an exception or departure from policy, the onus is still on the Applicant. He advised that the Applicant has to show the Sub-Committee that the policy has to be departed from. Mr Rankin asked the Sub-Committee not to depart from the policy because the MPS  know what the results will be. With regards to Mr Vivian’s report, Mr Rankin asked Mr Vivian to confirm that he did not visit the area but relied on historical data. Mr Vivian said he was familiar with the area but had not visited the area for the purposes of this report. Mr Rankin argued that there was a complicated mathematical formula which proves that the Premises will not be disturbing residents, but we all know what reality is.

 

51. Mr Rankin argued that the inescapable result, as under pressure as the area was, is that the Premises would inevitably result in increased negative impact in an area that is currently experiencing negative impact. It is impossible to say that 750 people who love jazz will not cause a disturbance because you cannot condition the behaviour of people when they leave licensed premises. PC Muldoon and his team have to pick up the pieces.

 

52. Mr Rankin said the MPS has sympathies with Mr Hudson and applauded his drive and enthusiasm, but he has selected the wrong location. The Premises is in a part of the City  that is under stress and should not be given the benefit of extended hours.

 

53. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Rankin confirmed that the MPS preference was not to grant the Application at all. Mr Rankin added that patrons might be victims of crime. The Premises would be a destination venue, with 750 new people coming into the area. Usually, the argument given by Applicants is that this is not going to be an increase of numbers, just existing patrons that are already in the area.

 

54. Mr Rankin submitted that this on the other hand was a destination venue on the Applicant’s own evidence. With 750 people coming to the area, it would place stress on the area and people would become the victims of crime. PC Muldoon explained that there was normal theft and violent robbery. For violent robbery, criminals go to where victims come out with something worth robbing, such as an expensive watch.

 

55.Mr Osborne-Smith said he had been a resident in Soho for many years. He explained that Soho had changed character over the years because of the noise. He said he had worked with the licensing authority, police and Shaftesbury for two years but none of the measures that have taken place have improved anything. Mr Osborne-Smith argued that geo-fencing is circumnavigated by people using different taxi companies or using buildings rather than roads. Similarly, marshals do not work because they do not have the power to stop someone walking down the road. They tried blocking the road with tarpaulins, but this did not stop people from walking to Marshall Street. Every measure has failed.

 

56. Mr Osborne-Smith said that as a family they are destroyed. His son is ill but cannot be tested for ADHD because the symptoms are the same as symptoms of disrupted sleep. His son is severely ill and has been excluded from school. Mr Osborne-Smith said no-one had the resources to deal with the noise, and he had to leave as a result of development in this area.

 

57. Mr Osborne-Smith argued that licences have turned the area into an uninhabitable area. He said he had gone to extreme lengths to soundproof his flat, including boarding up windows and acoustic glazing, but it is not enough to stop car horns, deliveries and all things that are carried on. Shaftesbury says it is well-managed, but it is a nightmare area.

 

58. Mr Osborne-Smith said he wanted to get out but could not; his property is unsaleable and he is on the point of suicide. It is obvious that the Premises would add to cumulative impact, and this venue should not go ahead opposite the main residential zone of Soho. Mr Osborne-Smith said there is going to be delay, and there are going to be people waiting outside when his son is in bed trying to sleep. There is no provision for a smoking area, and people are going to be using raised voices.

 

59. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Osborne-Smith confirmed the location of his flat in Marshall House within sight of the Premises. He added that the dispersal policy does not matter because customers go to the nearest place they can get a taxi, which is Marshall Street and marshals cannot lawfully prevent that. At the junction there are vehicles reversing and a convergence of reversing vehicles which causes chaos. Then there are all the deliveries.

 

60. Mr Osborne-Smith said it is not possible to sleep in the building anymore. He has tried and failed, and he has tried to be reasonable and discuss, but all these negotiations have not amounted to anything and this is the final line of defence. No-one has resources to enforce. Cirque Le Soir has rules, but in the video the marshals are just standing there. They do not talk to people, and they do not have any right to tell people where to go.

 

61. Mr Osborne-Smith said he was impacted more than others because he lived on the first floor, but he used to be in another building on the 15^th floor and the theory that noise does not go up is completely wrong. It has been a real nightmare. It started off pleasant as one of the lowest-noise streets in the 2009 survey carried out by the Council, but since then it has turned into a nightmare. There is no-one with the resources to resolve this, and the Sub-Committee is the last line of defence.

 

62. Mr Brown on behalf of the Soho Society made the following representations: He stated that what is important is to hear about the impact of licensed premises in this area. The Application is about what is appropriate to promote the licensing objectives in this particular location. Mr Brown submitted that this is what the case law (Hope and Glory) says, and only half of the relevant paragraph had been quoted in the Applicant’s case. Toulson LJ goes on to say that the evaluation is what is reasonably acceptable in that particular location.

 

63. Mr Brown echoed what Mr Rankin said. From a residents’ perspective the question is will it promote the licensing objectives to have an entirely new licence for 295 people times two and 150 people in the middle of the CIZ where crime rates are high and in the middle of three large residential blocks in close proximity. The residents of residential blocks already suffer from noise late at night which stakeholders have not managed to resolve.

 

64. Mr Brown said there was no criticism of the Applicant, and he accepted the Applicant’s standing in community. However, the Sub-Committee was licensing the building and not the operator. The licence could be transferred to a different operator. That was not the intention, but you never know what will happen down the line. Mr Brown added that the Application was not about the loss of live music venues, which had been on Charing Cross Road and not in the middle of three residential blocks.

 

65. Mr Brown said that fundamentally the residents are asking whether it is fair that they bear the brunt of additional noise. Mr Brown also submitted that the Application is not about planning permission; he did not accept that the Court of Appeal authority referred to by the Applicant says the Sub-Committee should place significant weight on planning permission. It is right that the Sub-Committee knows what the planning permission says, but the licence application is a different legal process with more evidence (including from police and local residents).

 

66. Mr Brown said the Soho Society refuted entirely the evidence of the Applicant’s experts. The Leveche Report says no additional impact, and the rationale is that because the Premises would close before Cirque Le Soir the two dispersals would not interact.

 

67. Mr Brown argued that there would be additional impact; there would be impact when the Premises closes and then when Cirque closes. People would also be leaving Cirque throughout the night. Mr Brown argued that contrary to what Mr Vivian says, it is because of the Premises’ location that it will cause impact.

 

68. Mr Lord on behalf of the Soho Society made the following representations: Mr Lord stated that he lives on Broadwick Street and knows the area really well having been a local resident for some three decades. He said that the Soho Society has supported live music venues subject to it being consistent with residential amenity. What is striking about this Application is that for two years he had been dragged into the misery that people had gone through because of the dispersal of venues around Carnaby Street and also because of the vast problems with deliveries.

 

69. Mr Lord said there had been engagement from the Council to try to resolve it, but those discussions  had hit a brick wall. Mr Lord said he had asked for a camera to monitor what is going on but this specific request  had not been granted. He had also asked for loading restrictions because Shaftesbury’s system does not work but that was impossible. There had been a large amount of time spent on reducing existing cumulative impact largely to no avail.

 

70. Mr Lord said the Sub-Committee would have seen the video from 3 September 2023. Looking at the map, all the traffic comes down Broadwick Street. In the video there is chaos; cars have to reverse and there could not be a worse place to put a venue with a significant audience. The Applicant says they can condition it and use marshals who will control the behaviour of customers after they have left the Premises.

 

71. Mr Lord said that would not work because Cirque Le Soir already has similar conditions. Marshals do not work because they have no authority to tell people to do anything. Mr Lord said it is a narrow pedestrian route that leads to Regent Street; customers see the traffic and cars on Marshall Street and they end up on Marshall Street as can be seen in the videos sent to the Sub-Committee. It is chaos.

 

72. Mr Lord referred to the video taken in August 2021 from Blake House, which is social housing. Mr Thomas pointed out that the video was taken in 2021. Mr Lord pointed out that the marshals required by Cirque’s licence were not doing anything; Mr Lord said he was not blaming them because there is nothing they can do, they have no legal authority to do anything about it. In response to a question from Mr Brown, Mr Lord confirmed that the video was taken at 04:00 but this was the situation throughout early hours.

 

73. Mr Lord said it routinely happens, that there have been attempts to address the problem and they might get somewhere with Uber but then customers get another service. Mr Lord said the latest video shows that the measures are still not working.

 

74. Mr Lord accepted the value of what the Applicant wanted to do but argued that he could not put it in the main residential area of Soho with a history of failed interventions. He said the reality is that people cannot sleep, and they are ill.

 

75. Mr Lord advised that people from Marshall House confirmed it is not just Mr Osborne-Smith; people report that noise nuisance is impacting their work, making them ill and affecting their personal relationships. People were arguing more with their partners because they could not sleep at night, and this was a really serious public health issue.

 

76. Mr Lord argued that the idea that the Applicant could add in 250, 500 and more people all who might seek to be picked up by taxi, Uber is off the scale in terms of not being informed by reality on the ground. Multiple residents say the same thing as Mr Osborne-Smith, and in the Soho Society’s survey people say they are suicidal. Mr Lord said one resident has tried to rent their flat but tenants last 3 days and move out.

 

77. Mr Lord agreed with everything the police had said. Mr Lord said it is not the punters committing crime, but organised crime has worked out that Soho is where they can go at 01:00 to find thousands of slightly vulnerable people they can rob from. It is so difficult to police, and it is endemic and out of control. Various people are trying to sort it out, but it is a really serious problem. Incidents of GBH and violence against the person showed that robbery and theft involve real violence because some people do not hand over their possessions but fight. The police do the best they can, but since two officers leave every time there is an arrest by 01:00 there can be no-one left on the beat.

 

78. Mr Lord said the situation is so bad that the Territorial Support Group is sometimes allocated because they deal with violent riots. In summary, Mr Lord said the location was unsuitable because it is a cul de sac, there is serious public nuisance and it has the highest crime rate in the country.

 

79.In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Hudson said one of his staff had been mugged and he had been propositioned. He said a main issue for him is coming up with ways of addressing safety, and communication is the main thing from artists to staff. Mr Hudson said his employees (Soho residents) know about these things. Mr Thomas added that the benefit of a new licence is that it has conditions, including a condition on WAVE training. Ms Slade explained that Shaftesbury’s 24 hours security team works with door staff of licensed premises and that Shaftesbury’s security will come to premises to provide support if there is an issue. Mr Hudson said that he had chosen a site with two entrances and exits.

 

80. Mr Bancroft as a witness for the Soho Society said the following: Mr Bancroft’s bed is twenty feet away from the building, and there will be lots of people outside. The Premises used to be an office building, and it has changed. When Mr Bancroft bought his flat, the office had a closing time of 19:00 and it was a quiet area. It has all changed with venues.

 

81. Mr Bancroft’s problem is the sleep deprivation it has caused him, and it has caused him considerable illness. His illness has deteriorated over the last two years, and he is unable to work and cannot think straight. Mr Bancroft said he did not object to the actual venue but to the noise problems it would cause. He said he was one of 200 residents who were all struggling. He said he had contemplated suicide and had phoned Samaritans. He said he would like to see an improvement, and he felt that not being able to sleep in the night, being woken up 2-3 times a night, is not the right way to live. He said his flat is blighted by everything that is going on outside.

 

82. Mr Bancroft added that he had put secondary glazing on, but it does not get rid of noise and means there is no ventilation in lovely weather. He has contacted the noise team, but the reality is that it does not work, and he has to wait a long time. Shaftesbury has security, but they are never there in the evening, and there is a limit as to what they can do.

 

83. Mr Bancroft said there are often deliveries throughout the night and that a lot of conditions do not work. Mr Bancroft said the Sub-Committee has to look at what is causing the problem, namely so many venues and licences. Mr Bancroft said that to drop hundreds of people outside his flat would be the end and his flat is now worthless.

 

84. Mr Barrett made the following representations: He was the director of Marshall House Management, which managed Marshall House, and he was representing two others (Brigitte Williams and Belinda Denton) who had made representations and who could not be at the hearing because they are on holiday.

 

85. Mr Barrett said he was inside so the impact of noise is not as bad; Brigitte Williams and Belinda Denton are directly over the noise and they have said it is horrendous. They had made strong representations against the application. Mr Barrett said Marshall House people are not transient, and they are long-term residents. The Application is a nice concept, and they are obviously nice people, but it is in the wrong place. The Premises would decant hundreds of people onto the streets in the evening.

 

86. Mr Barrett had spoken to someone who said it was very noisy when leaving the Applicant’s other venue. Just because somebody is middle-class and middle-aged it does not make them quiet. The Applicant says that people will disperse onto Regent Street, but the reality is that they walk down Broadwick Street, and the collection point for Uber, Bolt and pedicabs is the junction of Broadwick/Marshall Street. Mr Barrett disagreed with Mr Vivian’s report, which said that people in groups do not all talk at once.

 

87. Mr Barrett also said he was concerned that including recorded music meant the Premises could become a disco. Mr Barrett argued that it might not be a crime spot at the moment, but if you add a number of moderately well-heeled it most certainly will become one.

 

88. Mr Kerry Simpkin the policy Advisor to the Sub-Committee advised the Applicant that as the Application was requesting dancing, and there is nothing to restrict that purpose, the Premises could quite easily become a nightclub. Mr Simpkin said that at the moment his approach was that the Premises would fall under Policy MD1 and there would be a presumption to refuse.

 

89. Mr Thomas confirmed that dancing could be removed from the Application, and on that basis, Mr Simpkin confirmed that the Premises would fall neatly under policy CCS0S1. Mr Simpkin added that it would still be for the Applicant to demonstrate no cumulative impact in the West End CIZ.

 

90. Mr Simpkin then asked for clarification on the operation of proposed condition 39. In response to a question from Mr Simpkin, Mr Drayan said the main problem would not be noise escaping out onto the street because of the way the venue is designed.

 

91. Mr Drayan said there was potential for noise to travel up the building, especially if there is base music and such in play. However, the Applicant had covered that in the planning conditions.

 

92. Mr Drayan added that if there was queueing outside on Broadwick Street and 295 people during the day queuing and talking then noise would travel, it would bounce off either side between two narrow and tall buildings because those buildings are not designed to absorb noise. The noise would bounce backwards and forwards and there is potential for nuisance to be caused if there is queuing in Broadwick Street. However, that street during the day (during the first two performances) has a high background level anyway because of general activities, so the question is whether you would be able to discern 295 queuing in that area as being additional to what is there already. The type of queuing that occurs would be important.

 

93. In response to questions from Mr Feeney, Mr Thomas said the smoking area was in the dispersal plan. The dispersal policy was a dynamic document, and he would be reviewing and adding further things. Mr Thomas confirmed he was happy to delete ‘anything of a similar description’ for dance, and to add 9am-6pm on Sundays before Bank Holidays for Off-Sales, as well as a condition about postal service for off-sales.

 

94. Mr Thomas explained that the intention is not to have any queues and any queue would be in the walkway on Ganton Street. Mr Hudson said the Premises was not like a nightclub encouraging a queue, and the design of the venue and the ticketing was to get people in as fast as possible. Finally, Mr Thomas said he was happy to make the hatched area smaller if members were worried about vertical drinking.

 

95.In summing-up, Mr Rankin submitted that the fact that a planning decision has been made is not binding as there are different considerations in licensing. Mr Rankin argued that this was not a surrender case, that this was a destination venue attracting people to the Premises. This caused very real concerns for the Police.

 

96. Mr Brown said the Sub-Committee had heard very powerful testimony from residents. Soho has always had a strong and cohesive residential community, and the Soho Society want that to remain. There is a lot of pressure on Soho at the moment. The Residents’ testimony is not about annoyance, it is about fundamental health and wellbeing issues. That is not the Applicant’s fault, but that is the reality on the ground.

 

97. Mr Brown said he had not engaged in any discussion on conditions because conditions were insufficient. Although Mr Brown accepted the Premises probably fell within policy CCSOS1, the Applicant still had to demonstrate no addition to cumulative impact.

 

98. In summing-up Mr Thomas proposed three conditions to replace condition 23 as follows:

1)    There shall be no new admittance to the premises after midnight Wednesday-Thursday or after 01:00 Friday-Saturday.

2)    No ticket sales shall take place for a period of one hour before a performance when that performance starts at 22:00 or later.

3)    There shall be a minimum of 2 SIA Wednesday-Saturday in high vis from 22:00 to 30 minutes after close.

 

99. Mr Thomas continued that the evidence from the Leveche Report is that a retired police officer did not witness anything as shown in the videos when he was there for two nights; Mr Thomas was not saying it does not happen but not when he was there. Neither did the author of the Leveche Report see anti-social behaviour from customers leaving the Applicant’s other venue.

 

100.                 Mr Thomas said the police heat map is nowhere near Carnaby because the area is curated by Shaftesbury, and as a result there is less cumulative impact in Carnaby. Mr Thomas argued that the police evidence was not granular, and it was about the West End generally. Mr Thomas said there was no evidence of robberies in the area.

 

101.    Mr Thomas argued that Policy HRS1 recognises that some types of venues are more likely to add to cumulative impact. Policy D9 and D26 supports a qualitative rather than quantitative approach. SLP pretty much says that live music venues do not add to cumulative impact. That is what SLP suggests. The Premises have a detailed dispersal plan which the Applicant believes will work and Shaftesbury will help. SLP encourages the type of venue and operator we are talking about, and the merits of the Application are huge.

 

102.    Mr Thomas said the Applicant did not need to prove an exception to policy. Even if the Application did to a minor degree add to cumulative impact, there is still a balance to be weighed up as to what a live music venue brings to Soho. Policy says that should foster and encourage live music venues. Even if there is a risk that the Premises might add to cumulative impact, the Sub-Committee still has discretion (under Hope and Glory) to grant the application because it is a good thing and will water down cumulative impact issues. The Application was putting a good thing into a bad area, and there would be more supervision and marshals at site. Mr Rankin says that Soho is full; Soho is full of bars and restaurants but not full of live music venues.

 

103.    Mr Thomas said he did not mean to influence the Sub-Committee unduly, but Mr Hudson has signed an agreement conditional on a licence later than core hours. If it is not him, because the Premises has got planning permission it will be somebody else.

 

104.    Mr Thomas argued that Mr Hudson is the person best suited to running the venue, as he has proven himself a doyen of Soho. Mr Hudson was chomping at the bit to provide Westminster with a live music venue that Westminster could be proud of. This was a huge opportunity for Westminster and Soho; Mr Thomas understood the concerns, but the Applicant deserved and needed the benefit of the doubt. This was a borderline application where the Premises do not add to cumulative impact and even if the Premises did to minor degree, the Committee still has a discretion to grant.

 

Reasons and Conclusion

 

105.    The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a grant of a New Premises Licence under the  Act . The Sub-Committee realises that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so when determining this application. The Sub-Committee had regard not only to the written and oral evidence but also to the Act, the Guidance issued under section 182 of the Act and the City Council’s SLP, in particular policies CIP1, HRS1 and CCSOS1.

 

106.    The Sub-Committee considers that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the measures it proposes (as secured by conditions) would promote the four licensing objectives within the West End CIZ. The Application was therefore contrary to policies CIP1, HRS1 and CCSOS1. 

 

107.    There was a substantial amount of evidence before the Sub-Committee demonstrating that there is already a significant amount of crime and public nuisance within the West End CIZ. The Sub-Committee placed great weight on the representations made by the MPS with regards to the prevention of crime and disorder, and the Sub-Committee also noted that Mr Drayan and Mr Hayes on behalf of EHS referred to significant noise nuisance in the vicinity of the Premises caused by current licensed premises. This noise nuisance is particularly associated with customers leaving licensed premises late at night and looking for taxis at the Marshall Street/Broadwick Street junction; Mr Hayes also referred to the particular problems caused by pedicabs in this area.

 

108.    The Sub-Committee also placed great weight on the testimony given by local residents who live in close proximity to the Premises and who are directly affected by public nuisance to a serious degree. The testimony given by Mr Osborne-Smith, Mr Lord, Mr Bancroft and Mr Barrett was compelling and moving. There are three residential blocks in close proximity to the Premises, and this is one of the most residential areas of Soho with a resident count of 105. The evidence of local residents demonstrates that their mental health, their work and their personal relationship are being significantly adversely affected by public nuisance caused by current licensed premises. The two videos produced by the interested parties also provide evidence of substantial noise and nuisance being caused in the vicinity of the Premises. Although one of these videos was not recent (dating back to August 2021), the other video was taken on 3 September 2023.

 

109.    The Sub-Committee acknowledges and agrees that none of this is the Applicant’s fault, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would be anything other than a responsible operator. The Sub-Committee also notes the evidence of EHS that there would be no noise breakout from the Premises. However, the Sub-Committee considers based on the evidence it has heard that the area around the Premises (within the West End CIZ) is already under severe stress and to grant this application would only compound matters in the West End CIZ further.

 

110.    The Sub-Committee agrees with the MPS that the Premises would be a ‘destination venue’ and would attract hundreds of new people into the area. The dispersal of these people would cause public nuisance and add to cumulative impact because (as submitted by the MPS) it is not possible to control the behaviour of people once they have left the Premises by condition. The Sub-Committee also considers it likely that once new people have been attracted to the West End by the Premises, they would frequent other licensed premises, thereby adding to cumulative impact. For example, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the patrons who attend one of the two main shows would stay within the West End CIZ  to attend other licensed premises. 

 

111.    The Sub-Committee also agrees with the MPS and local residents that patrons of a jazz club would likely become targets of crime, thereby increasing crime within the West End CIZ which already has the highest crime rate in the country for public order offences as confirmed by the MPS during the hearing. 

 

112.    The Sub-Committee is grateful to the Applicant for suggesting a dispersal policy utilising Ganton Street and for proposing further conditions during the hearing restricting ticket sales at the premises and setting firm deadlines for entry times. However, the Sub-Committee does not consider that these conditions would be capable of preventing customers and patrons from making noise once they are outside the Premises and would not prevent patrons from looking for taxis, Ubers and pedicabs near the junction of Broadwick Street and Marshall Street, which all cause a significant amount of public nuisance as demonstrated in the two videos submitted by interested parties.

 

113.    The evidence of the Soho Society and local residents is that efforts so far to address noise issues in the vicinity of the Premises (such as geo-fencing, dispersal policies, SIA security staff and co-operation with Shaftesbury’s security team) have been ineffective, and the Sub-Committee does not consider that the Premises would be able to prevent its patrons from moving towards Marshall Street or adding to public nuisance in the area. Furthermore, the reduced capacity after bars/restaurants Core Hours as proposed by the Applicant would reduce capacity but would still mean that up to 150 persons would be brought into the area late at night beyond core hours.

 

114.    The Sub-Committee considered whether its objections would be capable of being addressed by condition but concluded that the introduction of a large capacity jazz club in close proximity to three residential blocks would add to cumulative impact and undermine the licensing objectives for the reasons given above.

 

115.    The Sub-Committee also considered whether its objections would be removed if the licence was granted for Core Hours. However, the Sub-Committee concluded that even if the licence were granted for Core Hours, the Premises as a large capacity jazz club attracting new people to the area would still add to cumulative impact and undermine the licensing objectives.

 

116.    The Sub-Committee agrees with the Applicant that the SLP in places supports the provision of cultural venues, but the Sub-Committee must have regard to countervailing considerations, most notably and importantly the licensing objectives.

 

117.    The Sub-Committee wishes the Applicant success in its endeavours but considers that the Premises is the wrong location for a new jazz club, as it would add to cumulative impact and undermine the licensing objectives in an area that is already under severe stress.

 

118.    Having carefully considered all the committee papers, additional papers, submissions made by the Applicant and the oral evidence given by all parties during the hearing in its determination of the matter the Sub-Committee therefore decided, after taking into account all the individual circumstances of this application and the promotion of the four licensing objectives to refuse the application.

 

In all the circumstances of the case the approach taken by the Sub-Committee is considered appropriate and proportionate. The application is Refused.

 

 

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

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

7 September 2023