Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
West End   * West End   ** None	Basement and Ground Floor,       13 Meard Street,    W1F 0ES	New Premises Licence	24/02387/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area **Special Consideration Zone

 

WCC LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 4

(“The Committee”)

 

Thursday 18 July 2024

 

Application for a New Premises in respect of Basement and Ground Floor, 13 Meard Street, London, W1F 0ES (Application Reference: 24/02387/LIPN)

 

Membership: Councillor Angela Piddock (Chair), Councillor Judith Southern and Councillor Tim Mitchell

 

Officer Support:       Legal Adviser:                    Michael Feeney

                                Policy Officer:                     Kerry Simpkin

                                Committee Officer:             Jessica Barnett

                                 Presenting Officer:             Jessica Donovan

 

Other Parties:          Duncan McLean (Applicant)

                                Fred Quartermain (Solicitor for the Applicant)

                                Anil Drayan (EHS)

                                David Doyle (London Fire Brigade), witness on behalf of EHS

                                Richard Brown (Soho Society and Interested Parties)

                                5 Interested Parties

                                Mr Wallace (Soho Housing)

                                Mr Vincent on behalf of the owners of 17 Meard Street

 

 

Full Decision

Summary of the Application

This is an application for a new Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of Basement and Ground Floor, 13 Meard Street, London, W1F 0ES.

The Premises intends to operate as a gin distillery and shop on the ground floor, with a tasting room in the basement. 

There is a resident count of 156.

Premises

Basement and Ground Floor

13 Meard Street

London

W1F 0ES

 

Applicant

Pontstreet9 Limited

 

Ward

West End

 

Cumulative Impact Area

West End

 

Special Consideration Zone

None

 

 

Representations Received

 

• Environmental Health Service
• Licensing Authority (withdrawn 15 July)
• Twenty four interested parties (two withdrawn ahead of the hearing)

 

Policy Considerations

 

Policies CIP1, HRS1 and SHP1 apply under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”).

 

Submissions

The Chair introduced the Members of the Sub-Committee and outlined the procedure to the Parties in attendance. The Sub-Committee Members confirmed that they had no declarations of interest to make.

 

The Presenting Officer, Jessica Donovan, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a new premises licence. She advised that a representation had been received from the Environmental Health Service who would be calling David Doyle from the London Fire Brigade as a witness, twenty-four representations were received from interested parties, two of which had subsequently been withdrawn following mediation and a representation from the Licencing Authority had also been withdrawn following mediation and an amendment to the application, on 15 July 2024. Ms Donovan confirmed that additional representations had been received and circulated to all parties.

 

Mr Duncan McLean, the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee explaining that they were a small business and giving a brief outline of their history to date. He stated that he wanted to be part of the community and had tried to communicate with residents.

 

Mr Fred Quartermain (Solicitor), representing the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee explaining that a previous incident which had occurred at the old premises involving a fire would not be a concern at the new premises as they had proposed new and different equipment to be used at the new site. He also advised that the distilling of alcohol was not a licensable activity and that the focus should not therefore be on distilling. The use of the property had been designed to minimise conflict opportunities with limited hours of business. He advised that a fire risk assessment had been expedited following concerns that had been raised.

 

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr McLean explained how each tasting session would work, confirming that visitors would not be unattended at any time and that tasting sessions would only be pre-bookable. This would ensure that no more than 8 people attended any one session.

 

The Applicant was asked to provide further information regarding their engagement with the local community. Mr McLean replied that he had met with the freeholder, Peter Cave, and had also put fliers through neighbours’ doors providing his email address and phone number and a date he would be on site should anyone wish to discuss the application. He explained that following a meeting with the police he revised the application, reducing hours and removing on-trade sales. He also noted that he had spoken with David Bieda over the phone. Mr McLean stated that many of the residents’ concerns related to his original application which included a bar in the basement, and he had replied to every objection.

 

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr McLean confirmed that the distillery would be operational in the daytime and they would have two to three staff on site.

 

Mr Anil Drayan appearing on behalf of the Environmental Health Service addressed the Sub-Committee. He brought to the Committee’s attention his memo dated the 15^th July 2024 stating that the Applicant had agreed to all the conditions proposed by him and the MPS. He clarified that the maximum capacity would be 16 given the potential for there to be two tasting groups at the same time and that his view was that the tastings would constitute ‘on sales’ if they were part of the booking.

 

Mr David Doyle of the London Fire Brigade addressed the Sub-Committee. He noted that the London Fire Brigade as a responsible authority had had the opportunity to make relevant representations on the application but had not. He was attending as a witness on behalf of EHS. He stated that the London Fire Brigade have no statistical data of a large number of fires in gin distilling premises and his position on the fire at the Applicant’s old premises was that it was an isolated incident. He brought condition 27 to the Sub-Committee’s attention, highlighting the many steps the Applicant would have to take should the Sub-Committee grant the application. The Applicant would have to satisfy multiple pieces of legislation, including Building Regulations, to make sure that the Premises was safe for use, particularly bearing in mind the residential use above.

 

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Doyle confirmed that he was experienced in addressing fire risk in old buildings.

 

Mr Richard Brown addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of a number of Interested Parties including the Soho Society and the Freeholder. He stated that the key issue was the appropriateness of the proposal for the precise locality, looked at in the round. The age of the property and the timber frame construction made it sensitive to public safety issues and public nuisance issues and it was a challenging location internally and externally, sharing an entrance with neighbours upstairs. He stated that although distilling was not a licensable activity there was clearly a nexus between the distillery and the sale of alcohol such that fire safety was a relevant consideration for the Sub-Committee. With respect to mediation, Mr Brown stated that local residents had not gone to see Mr McLean because they work and it was during a work day when Mr McLean had offered to see them. Mr Brown also stated that he agreed with EHS that paying for a tasting session meant that it was ‘on sales’.

 

Mr Smedley, a neighbour, addressed the Sub-Committee expressing his concern regarding the distilling aspect of the business and the potential public safety issues surrounding this and the use of the basement for tastings and tours, the lack of means of escape from the basement and the use of the common parts of the building. He also raised concerns over the use of the garden and the potential disturbance to neighbours this would cause. Mr Smedley stated that there would be greater footfall in the street and that this would undermine public safety and cause public nuisance.

 

Mr Bieda addressed the Sub-Committee explaining he had supervised restoration work previously undertaken on the building. He expressed his concern over the condition of the building and its suitability and safety, drawing particular attention to the condition of the joists, beam and floor. He believed that the building was a considerable fire risk. He stated that the previous uses of the premises did not involve the public use of the garden and communal areas and that many people would come visit the Premises as that was the entire idea behind the application.

 

Mr Cave, the Freeholder, addressed the Sub-Committee expressing his concern regarding the lack of a physical barrier between the shop and distillery. He noted the potential nuisance from the use of the communal entrances for tasting tours and felt the use of CCTV in communal areas was an unnecessary invasion of privacy. He stated that the use of the communal areas would also impact the feeling of safety for neighbours upstairs and was a potential crime risk. Mr Cave stated that it was not enforceable to limit the number of people attending tours to eight and that gin drinkers could be as rowdy as anyone else.

 

Ms Joy Harvey, resident of the upstairs property, addressed the Sub-Committee expressing her deep concern of the risk of fire and lack of escape from her property. She also raised concerns around potential loitering of guests in the communal areas.

 

Mr Schultz, owner of a neighbouring property, addressed the Sub-Committee stating he felt the fire risk assessment was misleading including information around the number of guests on tasting tours and the storage of dangerous substances involved in distilling. He believed the whole house was a tinderbox. He also raised concerns regarding people congregating outside smoking and the direct effect this would have on neighbours on the street. He requested conditions that the Premises not be allowed to use the garden, that the licence be made personal and that there not be a shadow licence.

 

Mr Steve Vincent, representing the owners of number 17, addressed the Sub-Committee. He explained that the owners were very supportive of business growth and the benefits it could bring to an area but due to the historical age of the building and the residential nature of the street they felt there was no benefit to the area or street from a distillery. From a social point of view, they believed it would be detrimental to their right to enjoy their home. They felt the large increase in footfall along this narrow street would inevitably mean more noise and nuisance. In conclusion they strongly objected and felt if the licence was to be granted it would mean a fundamental change to the way all residents on the street live.

 

Mr Wallace, Commercial Director of Soho Housing, addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Wallace explained that they own the building opposite and had concerns regarding cumulative impact, servicing and deliveries, crime and disorder and the impact on health and safety. He stated that this was an industrial use in a residential area and was inappropriate and unacceptable. He also noted that they had not been consulted on the application.

 

Michael Feeney, the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee proposed a small amendment to the proposed conditions on page 46 of the Additional Information Pack that could be made, should the application be granted, this was agreed by EHS and the Applicant. This was:

 

·       Amending proposed condition 27 to state, “As a minimum Environmental Health shall require for the following satisfactory certification / information under this condition”.

 

In response to a question from the Legal Advisor, the Applicant also stated that they would not object to a condition limiting the number of tasting sessions to 24 a week. The Applicant explained that it would be difficult to have a daily limit because there might be more tasting sessions on the days with longer hours.

 

In summing up, Mr Brown asked the Sub-Committee, after listening to all the residents’ concerns, to really consider what was reasonably acceptable for the area. The local residents were experts in their field, namely living on Meard Street and knowing its characteristics.

 

In summing up, Mr Bieda asked that if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the application, the use of the garden be restricted and that a noise assessment be added to the conditions.

 

In summing up, Mr Drayan agreed to add a noise assessment to condition 27. In response to concerns raised by residents regarding the condition and safety risk of the building, he explained that if Building Control and London Fire Brigade required certain works to be done that required Listed Building Consent or Planning Permission, the applicant would have to go through that process. He went on the explain that if the structural survey showed a certain level of fire separation could not be implemented and they could not do the works then they would be unable to comply with condition 27, therefore the licence could not be used in the form that had been applied for. Mr Drayan stated that this was safeguard should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant the licence.

 

In summing up, Mr Doyle stated that it was not possible for anyone to guarantee that any premises is 100% safe from any risk, in particular fire. He also re-iterated Mr Drayan’s point regarding the lengthy process the Applicant would need to go through regardless of whether a licence was granted.

 

In summing up, Mr Quartermain stated that although it is a residential area, the shop had always been a shop. The Applicant accepted all proposed conditions including those that had been amended during the hearing. He stated that the previous fire was not relevant to the discussions as the still proposed for this application was an electric still. He also stated that it wasn’t a bar or restaurant, it was a small shop with an experiential element. Mr Quartermain confirmed that the Applicant would agree to a condition restricting the use of the garden.

 

In summing up, Mr McLean acknowledged that this was new to the area and had not been done before however there were local residents who were excited about the business.

 

Reasons and Conclusion

 

1.     The Sub-Committee has determined an application for 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. 

 

2.     The Sub-Committee decided to grant the application, subject to conditions. The Sub-Committee considered that the robust conditions agreed with EHS and the Metropolitan Police would ensure that the Application would promote the licensing objectives. In reaching this conclusion, the Sub-Committee had particular regard to the fact all objections from responsible authorities had been answered (with EHS remaining neutral at the hearing). The Sub-Committee also placed considerable weight on the reasons given by the Licensing Authority for withdrawing their representation, namely that the proposal fell within policy SHP1 and it is widely recognised that premises that have a terminal hour before 21:00 hours have a lesser impact on cumulative impact. As the terminal hour is 20:00 it is considered that the Premises will not add to cumulative impact. The Sub-Committee agreed with the Applicant that the Premises would not have the adverse effect of a pub or bar; the proposal was for a small shop with an experiential element.

 

3.     The Sub-Committee had regard to the issues raised by the interested parties. Insofar as these related to the potential need for the Applicant to obtain planning permission or listed building consent, these would be dealt with under other regimes and not the licensing regime. The Sub-Committee agreed with the submissions made by Mr Brown that due to the nexus between distilling and the sale of alcohol that fire safety was relevant. However, the Sub-Committee placed considerable weight on the evidence presented by Mr Doyle in reaching the conclusion that public safety would not be undermined by granting the application. Condition 27 ensured that Environmental Health would have to approve a Fire Risk Assessment before any licensable activities could take place, and Mr Doyle had stated that there was no evidence that gin distilleries were particularly problematic or causing a disproportionate number of fires.

 

4.     The Sub-Committee noted the concerns raised that the Premises would cause public nuisance and would undermine public safety by attracting people into the area. However, the Sub-Committee considered that the agreed conditions would mitigate against this, in particular limiting the number of people able to attend tasting sessions, restricting the use of the garden and requiring approval of a noise assessment. The Sub-Committee did not agree that these conditions were unenforceable. The Applicant had explained that the online booking system would restrict the number of people attending tasting sessions to 8.

 

5.     The Sub-Committee did not consider it appropriate or proportionate to impose a condition making the licence a personal licence. The conditions of the licence already included conditions requiring that any alcohol sold be associated with the Applicant and that on-sales of alcohol be limited to gin sample tasting sessions. These conditions were considered sufficient to ensure that the licence could not be transferred and then used for some other purpose, such as a bar. For the same reasons, it was not considered appropriate or proportionate to impose a condition preventing a subsequent application for a shadow licence. Any shadow licence would be of limited utility given the specificity of the conditions, and it was not considered reasonable to impose a condition attempting to restrict applications for shadow licences when shadow licences are a widespread and accepted feature of licensing.

 

6.     Finally, the Sub-Committee considered whether to impose a condition limiting the number of tasting sessions per week, as the Applicant had indicated that they would accept a condition limiting the number of tasting sessions to 24 a week. However, it was felt that the conditions agreed with the MPS and the EHS were sufficiently robust without such a condition and that it would not be proportionate to impose further restrictions, especially in light of the early closing time for the Premises and the limited capacity.

 

7.     For the reasons given above, the Sub-Committee concluded overall that Premises would not add to cumulative impact and that the proposal accorded with policies CIP1, HRS1 and SHP1.

 

8.     Having carefully considered the committee papers, the additional papers and the submissions made by all parties, both orally and in writing, the Committee therefore decided, after taking into account all the individual circumstances of this case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives:

 

1.     To grant permission for Recorded Music (Basement) Tuesday to Wednesday 12:00 to 18:00, Thursday to Saturday 12:00 to 20:00 and Sunday to Monday N/A.

 

2.     To grant permission for Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On and Off Sales) Monday to Wednesday 12:00 to 18:00, Thursday to Saturday 12:00 to 20:00 and Sunday N/A.  

 

3.     To grant permission for the Opening Hours of the Premises Monday to Wednesday 12:00 to 18:00, Thursday to Saturday 12:00 to 20:00 and Sunday N/A.

 

4.     That the Licence is subject to any relevant mandatory conditions.

 

5.     That the Licence is subject to the following conditions imposed by the Committee which are considered appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

 

6.     The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.

 

7.     A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises is open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

 

8.     Customers shall not enter or leave the premises by the main door shown as private entrance, except in the event of an emergency.

 

9.     There shall be no sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises after 20:00 hours.

 

10. All sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers only, and shall not be consumed on the premises.

 

11.Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.

 

12. A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

 

13. A Challenge 21 or Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards, such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS Hologram.

 

14. An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to an authorised officer of the City Council or the Police. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and will record the following:

 

(a)  all crimes reported to the venue

(b)  all ejections of patrons

(c)   any complaints received concerning crime and disorder

(d)  any incidents of disorder

(e)  all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons

(f)    any faults in the CCTV system, searching equipment or scanning equipment

(g)  any refusal of the sale of alcohol

(h)  any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service

 

15. Licensable activities at events in the Tasting Room Zone 2 Middle shall only be provided by pre-booked events.

 

16. In the event that a serious assault is committed on the premises (or appears to have been committed) the management will immediately ensure that:

 

a)    The Police (and where appropriate, the London Ambulance Service) are called without delay

b)    All measures that are reasonably practicable are taken to apprehend any suspects pending the arrival of the police

c)     The crime scene is preserved so as to enable a full forensic investigation to be carried out by the police; and

d)    Such other measures are taken (as appropriate) to fully protect the safety of all persons present on the premises.

 

17. All alcohol for on/off sales is to be restricted to alcohol associated with The Green Room Distillery Limited.

 

18. Alcohol shall only be sold for consumption on the premises by persons attending a pre-booked gin sample tasting session. A register of persons attending shall be kept for a minimum of 31 days and made available for immediate inspection by Police or an authorised officer of the Westminster City Council throughout the entire 31 day period.

 

19. Each tasting group shall consist of a maximum of 8 customers and each person in the group shall be provided a maximum of 6 shotes each consisting of a maximum of 5ml by volume.

 

20. The garden shall not be used at any time whilst the Premises is open for business. 

 

21. Each tasting group shall be accompanied by a member of staff whilst traversing the communal corridor on the way down to the basement and garden areas.

 

22. There shall be no storage of alcohol at the premises for the purposes of maturing.

 

23. Only one still shall be present at the premises and this still shall only operate whilst a member of staff is present at the premises.

 

24. No noise generated on the premises, or by its associated plant or equipment, shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

 

25. No fumes, steam or odours shall be emitted from the licensed premises so as to cause a nuisance to any persons living or carrying on business sin the area where the premises are situated.

 

26. No deliveries to the premises shall take place between 23:00 hours and 08:00 hours the following day.

 

27. All waste shall be properly presented and placed out for collection no earlier than 30 minutes before the scheduled collection times.

 

28. No waste or recyclable materials, including bottles, shall be moved, removed from or placed in outside areas between 23:00 hours and 08:00 hours on the following day unless collections are arranged during the times for the Council’s own commercial waste collection service for the street.

 

29. No collection of waste or recycling materials (including bottles) from the premises shall take place between 23:00 hours and 08:00 hours on the following day unless collections are arranged during the times for the Council’s own commercial waste collection service for the street.

 

30. During the hours of operation of the premises, the licence holder shall ensure sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising or accumulating from customers in the area immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and or washed, and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements by close of business.

 

31. The number of persons accommodated in the basement at any one-time (excluding staff) shall not exceed 16 persons.

 

32. No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until the premises has been assessed as satisfactory by the Environmental Health Consultation Team at which time this condition shall be removed from the Licence by the Licensing Authority. If there are minor changes during the course of construction new plans shall be submitted with the application to remove this condition. As a minimum Environmental Health shall require the following satisfactory certification/information under this condition:

 

·       Building Control

·       Electrical

·       Emergency Lighting

·       Fire Risk Assessment

·       Ventilation

·       Sanitary Accommodation

·       Noise Assessment

 

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

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

18 July 2024