Agenda item - Shadow Licence, 84-86 Wardour Street, W1F 0TQ

Shadow Licence, 84-86 Wardour Street, W1F 0TQ

Meeting of Licensing Sub-Committee (1), Thursday 9th November, 2023 10.00 am (Item 2.)

Ward
CIA*
SCZ**

Site Name & Address

Application
Type

Licensing Reference No.

West End

* West End

** None

Shadow Licence

84-86 Wardour Street

W1F 0TQ

Shadow Licence

23/04677/LIPSL

*Cumulative Impact Area
** Special Consideration Zone

Minutes:

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 1

9 NOVEMBER 2023

Membership:Councillor Aziz Toki (Chair) Councillor MD Shamsed Chowdhury and Councillor Jim Glen

Officer Support Legal Adviser: Michael Feeney

Policy Officer: Kerry Simpkin

Committee Officer: Jack Robinson-Young

Presenting Officer: Roxsana Haq

Application for a Shadow Premises Licence in respect of 84 – 86 Wardour Street London W1F 0TQ 23/04677/LIPSL

Other parties present: Stephen Elliot and Alun Thomas of Thomas & Thomas LLP on behalf of the Applicant, two local residents and Mr Brown (Westminster Citizens Advice) on behalf of one of the local residents

Full Decision

Premises

84 – 86 Wardour Street London W1F 0TQ

Applicant

Legal and General Assurance (Pensions Management) Ltd

Cumulative Impact Area

West End

Ward

West End

Special Consideration Zone

N/A

Summary of Application

The Sub-Committee has determined a shadow licence application under the same terms, plans and conditions as the granted licence 21/14512/LIPN.

There is a resident count of 173.

Representations received

• Licensing Authority (WITHDRAWN)

• 1 Local resident

Summary of issues raised by objectors

The local resident believed that the grant of the shadow licence would have an adverse effect on the protection of children from harm, the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The local resident believed that the grant of the shadow licence would increase late-night, loud and inebriated activity. The local resident asked for activities to cease at 11pm.

Policy Position

Policies CIP1, HRS1 and RNT1(B) apply under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy apply (SLP).

SUBMISSIONS

With the agreement of all parties, the Sub-Committee considered the application alongside the application for a shadow licence in respect of Basement, 84-86 Wardour Street, London, W1F 0TQ. Ms Roxsana Haq outlined both applications at the beginning of the hearing. Each application has been determined on its own merits.

Mr Alun Thomas addressed the Sub-Committee explaining there was a licence for a venue called Vapiano and there was a low-profile licence, which is the basement only. Mr Thomas said these were both present at the same venue, but that one could not be used so long as the other was in effect. Mr Thomas said there was litigation ongoing, hence why the licences could not be transferred. Mr Thomas said that eventually there would only be one licence in effect. Mr Thomas said although these would technically be two new licences, they are not for new uses. As they are not new uses, Mr Thomas said this meant they did not add to cumulative impact on the area. Mr Thomas said it was recognised in the licensing policy of Westminster City Council that shadow licences would be granted.

Mr Thomas added that a line of communication between the Applicant and the local residents had now been opened, which could be used in future.

The Sub-Committee asked if Mr Thomas would be agreeable to MC97 regarding resurrection and Mr Thomas did not agree to this because it would not assist the Applicant if the tenant allowed a licence to lapse.

Mr Richard Brown on behalf of a local resident addressed the Sub-Committee and said that when the Vapiano licence was applied for it was confirmed that the low-profile licence would be surrendered. There was then a minor variation in 2014 for the low profile licence which stated that it (the low profile licence) would not have effect while the Vapiano licence was in force. The difficulty with that condition is that it refers to the reference number for the Vapiano licence and did not have standard wording referring to subsequent licences. This meant that when the Vapiano licence lapsed, the condition became otiose. To be a true shadow licence, the low-profile licence should include a condition that it has no effect whilst the other licence has effect.

Mr Brown indicated that of the two licences residents would prefer the restaurant licence to be used and not the basement, nightclub licence. Mr Brown submitted that applications for shadow licences had to be assessed on their merits the same as any other application. Mr Brown said that as the Premises has not been used as a nightclub for some time, if this was to be a nightclub again then it would have to be viewed as a new premises licence application. Mr Brown said that Vapiano operated to a reasonable hour and was run properly, this meant the impact on residents was very low.

A local resident addressed the Sub-Committee virtually who was a long-term resident of the area. The Sub-Committee were informed that this area did have residents living in close proximity. The Sub-Committee were informed that there were currently no large noisy queues of people, and this could easily become the case should the low-profile licence be used. The local resident addressing the Sub-Committee also raised concerns about smoking and vomiting of patrons outside, and the smoke entering bedrooms.

Mr Thomas clarified that the low-profile licence could not have effect while the ground/basement licence has effect. The low-profile, basement licence would have to be surrendered to use both. Mr Thomas said that it was most likely that the Premises would be let as a restaurant style operation but that it was technically possible to let the basement only under the low-profile licence. Mr Thomas said it was their preference for the Premises to be let as a restaurant style operation as this covers the ground floor and the basement area, not just the basement.

A local resident present at the Sub-Committee addressed those present and showed the proximity of their dwelling to the premises. Members were informed the resident had lived there for 30 years and over this time there had been many different venues in this property. Throughout this 30-year period, the local resident said that people have always congregated after being told to leave the local premises in the early hours. Members were informed there were late licences in the area, but the noise continued after this due to the congregation of people outside. Members were asked to do as much as possible to condition these shadow licences to mitigate the impact on local residents.

The Sub-Committee asked what dispersal plans were in place should the low-profile licence be used, and Mr Thomas said that there would be a plan in place with the new tenant.

In summing up, Mr Richard Brown said that it was obvious a potential late-night venue would be of detriment to local residents such as the low-profile licence would permit. Mr Brown requested these hours be reduced to mitigate the impact on those living in such close proximity. Local residents had fewer issues with the restaurant licence but it was still a late licence for which the hours could be reduced.

Mr Thomas summed up on behalf of his client by saying that if the application were refused that would not stop the current tenant from using the current basement licence or transferring it to someone else. The most likely scenario was that the premises would be let as a restaurant over ground and basement floors. Mr Thomas said that there have been no issues thus far with the licences. Mr Thomas said curtailing the hours or refusing these applications would still mean the premises licences could be used. Mr Thomas said the Applicant’s preference was to continue with the restaurant licence across both floors despite the entitlement of being able to use either licence.

REASONS AND CONCLUSION

The Committee has determined an application for a grant of a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003. 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 considered that the shadow licence applied for would not undermine the licensing objectives, would not add to cumulative impact and constitutes an exception for the purposes of Policy CIP1 because the shadow licence replicates exactly what is on the current existing licence, with the addition of a condition agreed with the Licensing Authority that the shadow licence will not take effect when the current licence is in operation.

In reaching this conclusion the Sub-Committee placed great weight on the fact that all responsible authorities (including the Licensing Authority) were satisfied with the application and had no outstanding concerns. The Sub-Committee noted Mr Brown’s submissions on the condition attached to the current low-profile licence but was satisfied that the two licences at the Premises could not both be used at the same time. The condition on licence 21/14512/LIPN that ‘No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until the premises licence 21/02214/LIPT (or such other number subsequently issued for the premises) has been surrendered and is incapable of resurrection’ meant that it would not be possible to operate both licences at the same time.

The Sub-Committee did recognise the validity of the concerns raised by two local residents. However, because the shadow licence replicates exactly what is on the current licence, the Sub-Committee considered that there would not be any impact on the licensing objectives. If it transpired later that the operation of the licence at the Premises did cause any problems then there would be the potential mechanism of a review under section 51 of the Act.

Finally, the Sub-Committee noted that in respect of this particular application the residents had expressed less concern and the Applicant had indicated that its preference would be to utilise this restaurant licence rather than the basement licence.

Having carefully considered the committee papers, the additional papers and the submissions made by all of the parties orally, the Sub-Committee has decided, after taking into account all of the individual circumstances of this particular case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives:-

1. To grant permission for:

Live Music (Indoors)

Sunday to Thursday: 10:00 to 01:00

Friday to Saturday: 10:00 to 02:00