Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
West End   * West End   **	Sunset Strip Basement to First Floor 30 Dean Street W1D 3SA	Premises Licence Review	24/00928/LIREVP
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone: N/A

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.6

(“The Committee”)

 

Full Review Decision

Thursday 16 May 2024

 

Membership:           Councillor Maggie Carman (Chair) Councillor Hamza Taouzzale and Councillor Karen Scarborough

 

Officer Support:       Legal Advisor – Michael Feeney

                                Policy Officer – Kerry Simpkin

Committee Officer – Katherine Stagg
Presenting Officer – Roxsana Haq

 

Application for a Review of a Premises Licence – Sunset Strip, Basement to Fist Floor, 30 Dean Street, London, W1D 3SA

 

List of persons:

 

Premises Licence Holder

 

The Premises Licence Holder (PLH) is Sohomead Ltd. Sarah Le Fevre (Counsel), Lana Tricker (LT Law), Alastair Massie (DPS) and Dwight Okechukwu attended on behalf of the PLH.

Metropolitan Police Service (‘The Applicant’)

          

PC Steve Muldoon

Counsel: James Rankin

 

The Licensing Authority

 

James Hayes

 

Environmental Health Service

 

Anil Drayan

 

Interested Parties 

 

Richard Brown on behalf of the Soho Society

 

Gary Grant (Counsel), Alun Thomas (Thomas and Thomas Partners) on behalf of Soho Estates Ltd

 

 

Cumulative Impact Area

 

West End

 

Ward

 

West End

 

Summary of Application

 

This is an application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of Sunset Strip, Basement to First Floor, 30 Dean Street, London, W1D 3SA (“the Premises”) under the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”). The Premises operates as a Sexual Entertainment Venue and bar in Soho.

 

The application was submitted by the Metropolitan Police Service on 16 February 2024 on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and prevention of public nuisance.

 

It has been identified through numerous visits by Officers from the Westminster Police Licensing unit and Council City Inspectors that there are continual breaches of the venue’s premises licence. Officers from both the police and the council have engaged with the venue in person and via email with a view to rectify any condition breaches.

 

A recent visit found further breaches and also found that despite the previous engagement and visits the DPS was unaware of the conditions on their licence and were unaware they were breaching conditions. At the time of the visit CCTV could not be used, there was no personal licence holder on site and there was one SIA registered security staff when there should have been two present.

 

Officers have requested CCTV images several times and this was never produced. On one occasion CCTV images for the wrong camera and date were provided.

 

On 13^th January 2024 Police licensing officers received a crime report that made an allegation of drink spiking having taken place at the premises. On 17^th January 2024 officers visited the venue and once again found breaches in the conditions relating to security and CCTV. There were further breaches also identified on the SEV licence. The venue was issued a section 19 closure notice that related to the breaches of conditions.

 

Representations

 

The application received a representation in support of the review from the Licensing Authority on 29 February 2024 on the grounds that the premises is failing to promote the licensing objectives and can be found at Appendix 4.1 of the Agenda Report. The Licensing Authority also provided submissions which include witness statements and a previous licensing sub-committee decision. These appear at Appendix 5 of the Agenda Report.

 

The application received a representation in support of the review from the Environmental Health Service on 15 March 2024 on the grounds that the premises is failing to promote the licensing objectives and can be found at Appendix 4.2 of the Agenda Report.

 

The Soho Society submitted representations in support of the review, which can be seen at Appendix 4.3 of the Agenda Report.

 

The landlord of the Premises, Soho Estates Ltd, submitted a representation, which can be seen at Appendix 4.4 of the Agenda Report.

 

Activities and Hours

 

The Premises currently benefits from the following:

 

Performance of Dance

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

Provision of facilities for Dancing

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

Provision of facilities for making Music

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

Performance of Live Music

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

Playing of Recorded Music

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 09:00

Provision of facilities for entertainment of a similar description to making music or dancing

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

Anything of a similar description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

Late Night Refreshment

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 01:30

Sunday: 23:00 to 01:00

Private Entertainment consisting of dancing, music or other entertainment of a like kind for consideration and with a view to profit

Unrestricted

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 00:30

Opening Hours

Monday to Saturday 09:00 to 01:30

Sunday 09:00 to 00:00.

 

Hearing:

1.          The Chair introduced the Members of the Sub-Committee and outlined the procedure to the Parties in attendance. The Chair advised that the Sub-Committee would hear the application along with the Licensing Authority’s application to revoke the SEV licence in respect of the Premises. The Chair advised that the Sub-Committee recognised that a separate decision would have to be reached on each application and that each application must be determined on its own merits. The parties were invited to make comments in respect of the proposed procedure, and no objections were raised. 

2.          Ms Haq, Presenting Officer, outlined the application to the Sub-Committee. She advised that this was an application for a review of an existing Premises Licence which had been submitted by the Metropolitan Police Service on the grounds of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety and the Prevention of Public Nuisance. She advised that the representations as summarised above had been received. 

 

3.          The Premises are situated in the West End Ward and the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.

 

Metropolitan Police Service (‘MPS’)

 

4.          Mr Rankin noted that the MPS had objected to the SEV Renewal application on 23 November 2023 and much of what the Sub-Committee was about to hear had already been said. On 23 November, the PLH said that if the booths were removed and if permission were granted to vary the Premises Licence then the problem would be removed as well. In addition, the PLH threw a number of people under the bus, and Mr Gavin Venamore was the victim on 23 November. The PLH said they had put misplaced trust in Mr Venamore, and this time it appeared that Mr Declan Forde (the DPS before Mr Massie) would be the chosen victim.

5.          On 23 November 2023 the variation was granted, but the PLH did none of the work and the problem was not solved. Mr Rankin submitted that the issue is not with the booths themselves but embedded within the culture of the Premises was a wholesale inability to comply with licence conditions.

 

6.          Mr Rankin advised that on 19 September 2023 PC Muldoon had visited the Premises and breaches of conditions (including conditions 33, 56 and 61, as well as breaches of SEV conditions 10 and 11) had been immediately apparent. The conditions on the licence were breached every time the Premises was visited. The MPS had asked for footage from the previous night and had seen graphic touching and wholesale ignoring of the ‘no touching’ condition. When the MPS had asked for footage from another night, instead the MPS were given footage of the changing room between 5:30am-9am. This may have been an honest mistake but it may have been an ploy to prevent the MPS from seeing further breaches of the licence conditions. When PC Muldoon returned at 3am on 20 September to say that the USB did not work, the DPS was not on site and there was nobody there able to operate the CCTV.

 

7.          Mr Rankin noted that this was not the first time that the Premises had been under scrutiny. On 13 February 2020 the Sub-Committee had issued a stern warning about complying with conditions. Then the same had happened on 23 November 2023. In the intervening period there had been Covid and the Premises had been closed. Only 2 months after the SEV licence was renewed on 23 November 2023, exactly the same things were happening when the MPS visited on 17 January 2024. When the MPS visited on 17 January in furtherance of an allegation of drink spiking (which the MPS does not rely on), Mr Forde was still there despite the PLH saying before that he was retiring. Mr Forde was unable to work the CCTV, and there were no door supervisors when the requirement was to have two door supervisors. Mr Rankin stated that Mr Forde had also lied about where the door supervisors were, saying that they had gone to get cigarettes. When the door supervisor did appear in a breathless state he did not mention anything about getting cigarettes and there are many places in the immediate vicinity where you can buy cigarettes.

 

8.          Mr Rankin then referred to a transcript of the CCTV that was viewed on 17 January 2024. This transcript had been provided to the Sub-Committee the morning before the hearing, and Ms Le Fevre confirmed that it had been served on the PLH on 16 February 2024. Mr Rankin stated that the MPS would play a small clip from this footage, and it is clear that the touching witnessed was graphic touching.

 

9.          Mr Rankin also referred to the fact that when PC Muldoon visited he was told that the barmaid was SIA. Although the barmaid had an SIA badge she was not there as an SIA door supervisor. Mr Rankin submitted that this was indicative of the way that the Premises twists and contorts themselves. Mr Rankin submitted that although this may seem like small beer, it is important that people who operate the Premises do so in accordance with their licence. The PLH had been given numerous chances, and these had been ignored multiple times. On 17 January Mr Forde said that the booths had not been removed because of money. Mr Rankin stated that the PLH was willing to say anything to the Sub-Committee. If illustration was needed as to how quickly the booths could be removed, the booths were removed between 17 January and 16 February, when the application papers were served. 

 

10.       The Sub-Committee had been told on 23 November that Mr Forde would be removed as DPS when he was clearly still running the Premises on 17 January and had not retired. The MPS had no comments on the new DPS Mr Massie and Mr Okechukwu but the Sub-Committee would be unconcerned about matters not relevant to running the Premises, which has to be done by people of experience who know what they are doing. Every time the Premises is threatened with not renewing the SEV licence or revocation there is a frantic moving of the goal posts. It was not enough to change the DPS, put in two new people, say it was Mr Forde’s fault and say that there was no money to remove the booths. No amount of PR material submitted on behalf of the Premises could disguise the fact that there was an embedded culture of non-compliance. Mr Rankin therefore submitted that the only solution was to revoke the Premises Licence and the SEV Licence.

 

11.       Following these submissions, the Sub-Committee went into closed session to view a CCTV clip of roughly one minute duration that Mr Rankin had referred to. This showed touching between performers and customers.

 

Licensing Authority

 

12.       Mr Hayes stated that the Licensing Authority supported revocation of the Premises Licence and were the applicant for revocation for the SEV licence. Mr Hayes explained that the premises licence had been held since 2012. Prior to 2023 the premises licence had been held by people who were officers/directors of Sohomead Ltd, so there was an ongoing and consistent link between the PLH now and the historic issues of non-compliance.

 

13.       Mr Hayes advised that the Licensing Authority had not rushed into this at all, but it was the culmination of a long history of concerns raised by the MPS but also the Council’s own enforcement officers. Mr Hayes referred to the Council’s SEV Policy, which referred to offences committed by the PLH and the operation/management of the Premises. Mr Hayes noted that it was a criminal offence to operate a licence otherwise than in accordance with the licence conditions. 

 

14.       Mr Hayes explained that the catalyst for revocation was the visit on 17 January 2024 but that there had been a long history of engagement with the Premises. Mr Hayes then summarised the instances of non-compliance with conditions as set out in the agenda papers, referring to 8 occasions where breaches of conditions had been witnessed between August 2019 and November 2023.

 

15.       At two hearings for renewal of the SEV licence following applications in 2019 and 2023 the Sub-Committee had given serious consideration to refusing the applications on the basis of repeated non-compliance and in those decisions the Sub-Committee deemed it unlikely that the SEV licence would be renewed in future if similar issues were observed. On 17 January when officers visited with the MPS, it was clear that the issues identified had not been resolved, and this was soon afterwards the Sub-Committee had been assured that the issues would be addressed through successful management. There was blatant non-compliance, and every performance witnessed included contact between performers and customers. The Licensing Authority found that no fewer than 7 conditions were not being complied with.

 

16.       Mr Hayes stated that it was essential for Premises to comply with the conditions on their licence and those that fail to do so should face proportionate sanction. Given the history of issues over an extended period of time, revocation was the only clear way in which the pattern of non-compliance could be brought to an end. The Licensing Authority felt that they were in a position where this was the last option available to them. A failure to take proportionate action would fail to promote the licensing objectives and would send a message that in cases of non-compliance a Premises could promise to change management and then be able to continue trading.

 

17.       Finally, Mr Hayes noted in particular that CCTV conditions were crucial for preventing crime and disorder and failure to operate the CCTV as required should be taken very seriously. The ‘no touching’ conditions were likewise crucial to create a safe working environment for performers to be able to work without experiencing sexual harassment or assault.

 

18.       In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Hayes stated that the licence had been transferred to Sohomead Ltd in April 2023 and prior to that Mr Forde had been the licence holder. Prior to that Mr Forde and Mr Anthony Curran had been joint licence holders. Mr Forde had been a director of Sohomead Ltd, and the Licensing Authority’s view was that the history of non-compliance had continued throughout. 

 

Environmental Health Services

 

19. Mr Drayan stated that the Premises was not a cause of public nuisance, but based on the evidence provided by the MPS and the Licensing Authority in relation to the crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives EHS supported the requests for revocation of the licences.

 

 

Soho Society

 

20. Mr Brown stated that the Soho Society essentially supported revocation of the two licences based on the history of non-compliance. The Soho Society did not object to SEVs per se, but that does not give the PLH a free pass to act in the manner set out by the MPS and expect to get away unscathed. There had been breaches in 2019, 2020, 2022 and 2024. There was a gap between 2020 and 2023, but this was during Covid when SEVs were the last category of Premises to reopen. There was a constant pattern of non-compliance and the Soho Society supported the submissions of Mr Rankin in that regard. 

 

21. Mr Brown said that whenever the Premises were visited, breaches were witnessed, and this could not be a coincidence. Mr Brown stated that this was sending a message to other operators that it is ok to repeatedly breach conditions and to make promises without keeping them. Soho relies on people playing by the rules; enforcement resources are precious and when a premises takes up a disproportionate amount of resources then the Premises has to face the appropriate sanction.

 

Soho Estates Ltd (Landlord)

 

22. Mr Grant referred to the Landlord’s written submissions made at pages 86 and 87 of the Additional Agenda Pack. In summary, Mr Grant stated that the Landlord had no association with the PLH other than being their landlord. The Landlord shared the concerns expressed by the Responsible Authorities, and Mr Grant confirmed that the Landlord would respect whatever assessment the Council made with regards to the premises licence review and SEV licence revocation applications.

 

PLH

 

23. Ms Le Fevre referred to the written submissions made by Ms Tricker at pages 130, 134 and 326-330 of the Agenda Pack. Ms Le Fevre referred to the fact that Mr Massie’s role as DPS had been confirmed formally at the end of March. No issue was raised with Mr Massie, and his CV was in the papers. Ms Le Fevre added that Mr Massie was not only the DPS but also a director of Sohomead Ltd, so he was ‘baked into’ the structure of the licence. 

 

24. Ms Le Fevre stated that there had been a change of cast. When representing the PLH previously she had always been accompanied by Mr Forde, and the PLH was now offering a condition that would prevent Mr Forde and Mr Venamore from being involved in the day to day running of the Premises.

 

25. Ms Le Fevre stated that neither the PLH nor Mr Massie were there to defend the indefensible, and the findings of the visit on 17 January 2024 fell into that bracket. The assessment for both applications had to be with reference to what was in place at the Premises now. On 23 November one of the measures proposed consisted first of the removal and replacement of Mr Venamore. Mr Venamore as a former Council employee was expected to be an asset but it turned out that he was a liability. That has been done. In addition, work has been carried out at the Premises to update the CCTV system, which was done on 1 March. This was a substantial upgrade which had no blind spots and allowed for remote supervision. On 23 November it was confirmed that every instance of contact had taken place in the vicinity or within the private booths, and that was why it was essential to remove and design out the booth areas. It took longer than it should have to remove the booths, but that was done in early February.

 

26. Ms Le Fevre advised that the progress and change at the Premises did not stop with Mr Massie’s appointment, and there was hard evidence in the papers of root and branch reform of the system, staff and policy. The culture of the Premises had been swept out and replaced. Mark Fulton had carried out an unannounced visit on 28 March and he found no issues at all. Mr Fulton had been recruited to provide a rolling programme of quarterly inspections and these would be available for inspection. Further, on 22 April 2024 the MPS and Licensing Authority had been invited to the Premises to view the new CCTV system. There was no mention of this visit, which showed that no issues of concern were discovered during the course of the inspection. This is the accurate picture of the current situation, which is when the Sub-Committee’s assessment would bite.

 

27. Ms Le Fevre explained that following the hearing on 23 November, not all of the measures had been carried out due to the need to find personnel and overcome regulatory hurdles, such as planning consent. In addition, one of the investors had pulled out and had had to be replaced. These hurdles had however been overcome, and the change required had been effected. With regards to future proofing, Ms Le Fevre stated that there was permanency of change that had been built in with regards to the change in equipment and the topography of the Premises. Mr Massie would be permanently present at the Premises, and his reputation was on the line.

 

28. Ms Le Fevre noted that the issue of the booths and the historic touching were of primary concern to the SEV Licence application, as such entertainment was not authorised pursuant to the premises licence. It was the first time that the premises licence had been brought before the Sub-Committee, and this was a clear distinction that would need to form part of the decision-making on the two separate applications. 

 

29. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Massie stated that he had been at the Premises every day, apart from on two occasions where he had been watching the CCTV and on comms. He would continue to be there five nights a week. If in future Mr Massie had to take time out for eg holiday then he would be replaced by a business partner from a different company who is also a personal licence holder of 30 years.

 

30.  In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Massie stated that a dancer would be dismissed for breaching the code of conduct. A number of dancers had left before Mr Massie joining, and since he had joined two had been dismissed for breaching the ‘no touching’ rule.

 

31. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Massie stated that he believed the manager of the Premises had been there for about 6-8 months so he had been there for the breaches in January but had been relatively new at that point. In November the manager had been behind the bar working at the Premises but was not a manager. Mr Massie stated that Mr Forde had been wrong and old-fashioned in his attitude. Ms Le Fevre added that Mr Forde had been consistently there and that Mr Venamore had been brought in to resolve issues and under his management things got worse rather than better, which is why he had been removed. Ms Le Fevre stated that rather than characterising this as throwing someone under the bus, it was a correct response to an incorrect piece of employment.

 

32. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Massie explained that the policies that had been developed were normal and needed to prevent the place from falling apart. All the controls were permanent and had been put in place. The staff training policy was also from Mr Massie.

 

33. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Ms Le Fevre confirmed that the investor pulling out was not to do with the poor running of the Premises. Ms Le Fevre added that the redesign of the Premises was seen as a complete package, which was now ready to go. The work with the booths had not taken place as an interim piece of work, had not been done immediately, because the refurbishment was seen as a complete package. Ms Le Fevre stated that it would be unfair to say that this meant the work was not taken seriously; the work was seen as part of a whole rather than hived off and done separately. Ms Le Fevre added that Mr Forde had been the original director of the PLH. In November he was said to be retiring, but it took some time for him to retire and move on because of the need to secure funding. He has now left the Premises.

 

34. In response to questions from the Sub-Committee as to whether the concerns raised in November 2023 had not been taken seriously, Ms Le Fevre stated that she could not speak for Mr Forde. She was there with the PLH, the new DPS and a condition preventing any involvement of Mr Forde with the Premises.

 

Summing-Up

35. In summing-up, Mr Rankin stated that the last exchange had brought him concern. The unnamed manager was there initially on instructions for 8 months, and then when the PLH realised what way the wind was blowing this changed to 6-8 months. Mr Rankin submitted that this was indicative of the PLH changing their story to suit their case, which was a source of concern. It is a concern when the PLH promises that they are going to take measures to secure renewal and then do not do them. The Premises had been given multiple chances, and they had run out of chances. Mr Massie by his own admission said that he had had to dismiss two dancers for touching customers. The issue is still going on, and it will continue to go on. Removing the booths was not the ‘silver bullet’, the problem is endemic and systematic. The time had come for the Sub-Committee to make a firm stand. The PLH had been given every opportunity. 

 

36. In summing-up, Mr Hayes stated that the Sub-Committee had heard all this before about the culture of the Premises changing. The Licensing Authority had not heard enough to change its position and it still felt that based on the history of non-compliance, revocation was the proportionate response.

 

37. In summing-up, Ms Le Fevre submitted that there was hard evidence that the Premises was now being run by a responsible person and that there had not been any issues for the last four months. Ms Le Fevre repeated that a distinction between the two applications had to be drawn given that the SEV Licence authorised adult entertainment. The Sub-Committee could if minded upgrade the premises licence by adopting model conditions on CCTV. For the SEV revocation application, the operator was not the operator that appeared previously before the Sub-Committee. The change in venue and personnel had been hard-wired and baked into the system. The changes had already been effected, which had never been the case before.

 

 

The Sub-Committee’s Decision and Reasons

 

Review Decision

 

38.Being mindful of the Home Office Guidance, the Act and having carefully considered the review application, the evidence and the representations made by all the parties, both orally and in writing, the Sub-Committee decided that it was appropriate and proportionate in order to promote the licensing objectives to take the following step: -

 

·       To Revoke the Premises Licence of the above Premises.

 

Reasons

 

39.      The Sub-Committee recognised that the proceedings set out in the Act for

reviewing Premises Licences represent a key protection for the community when problems associated with crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance or the protection of children from harm are occurring. The Act provides the Licensing Authority with a range of powers on determining a review that it may exercise where it considers them appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.  In deciding which of these powers to invoke, the Licensing Authority should so far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns which the representations identify.  The remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response.  Each case has to be determined on its own merits.

 

40.      The Sub-Committee decided that it was appropriate and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to revoke the licence for the reasons given by the MPS and the Licensing Authority. There was an extensive history of non-compliance with conditions stretching back a number of years, and the Sub-Committee noted that the PLH did not deny that the conditions had been repeatedly breached as alleged. The Sub-Committee considered that the history of the Premises was indicative of a culture of non-compliance. In order for the licensing regime to function and for the licensing objectives to be upheld, it is essential that conditions designed to promote public safety and prevent crime and disorder are followed. The Sub-Committee takes non-compliance with such conditions extremely seriously.

 

 

41.      The Sub-Committee accepted the point made by the PLH that the ‘no touching’ rule and the issue of the booths were more relevant to the SEV licence than the Premises Licence. However, the evidence presented by the MPS and the Licensing Authority demonstrated that there had been repeated, persistent breaches of the conditions on the premises licence in addition to breaches of conditions on the SEV licence, most notably in relation to CCTV and the requirement to have two SIA doormen. The Sub-Committee agreed with the central submission made by the MPS and the Licensing Authority that in the face of persistent and repeated non-compliance revocation was the appropriate and proportionate response when repeated warnings and interventions had been ineffective in securing compliance.

 

42.      The Sub-Committee did not consider that alternative options would be sufficient to promote the licensing objectives in these circumstances. The PLH had previously promised that the culture of the Premises would change and that the problems identified would not happen again. These promises had not secured compliance, and previous conditions banning the involvement of certain individuals from participating in the operation of the Premises had been ineffective. The only condition offered, to add Mr Forde’s name to the list of individuals banned from being involved with the Premises, was not therefore sufficient to allay the Sub-Committee’s concerns.

 

43.      The Sub-Committee also did not consider that the hiring of a new DPS and the implementation of new policies would address the fundamental concerns raised by the MPS and the Licensing Authority. The Premises had been given multiple chances and told multiple times that its operation needed to improve. The PLH had, in the Sub-Committee’s view, failed to take these warnings seriously and had continued to operate in blatant breach of numerous conditions, on both the premises licence and the SEV Licence. The PLH had responded in the past by saying that the problems would be addressed via new management (eg by getting rid of Mr Venamore ahead of the hearing on 23 November 2023). That was essentially the response of the PLH to this review application, but the Sub-Committee had no faith that repeating the same process and relying on assurances as to new management would produce a different result. The Sub-Committee agreed with the MPS and the Licensing Authority that in the face of such persistent non-compliance stretching over a period of years, the only suitable and proportionate action to take to address the concerns raised was revocation.  

 

44.      In all the circumstances of the case and having carefully considered the application for the full review and the evidence presented by all the parties, both verbally and in writing, the Sub-Committee concluded it was appropriate and proportionate to Revoke the Licence in order to promote the licensing objectives.

 

The determination of the revocation does not have effect until the end of the period given for appealing against the reasoned decision, or if the decision is appealed against, until the appeal is concluded. 

The Applicant for the Review, the Premises Licence Holder and any Party who has made a relevant representation to the review application may appeal against this Decision to Westminster Magistrates Court, 181 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5BR,within 21 days of receiving this Decision.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

16 May 2024