Ward |
Site Name & Address |
Application |
Licensing Reference No. |
St James’s
* West End
** None |
44-46 Cranbourne Street, WC2H 7AN |
New Premises Licence |
24/07785/LIPN |
*Cumulative Impact
Area |
Minutes:
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 6
(“The Committee”)
Thursday 27th February 2025
Membership: Councillor Aziz Toki (Chair), Councillor Hamza Taouzzale and Councillor Caroline Sargent
Officer Support: Legal Adviser: Michael Feeney
Committee Officer: Katherine Stagg
Presenting Officer: Jessica Donovan
Other Parties: Stewart Gibson (representing the Applicant Company), John Johnson and Klodian Gica (of the Applicant Company), PC Tom Cooke (Metropolitan Police Service) and James Hayes (Licensing Authority).
Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of 44-46 Cranbourne Street, London, WC2H 7AN
Premises
44-46 Cranbourne Street
London
WC2H 7AN
Applicant
Pizza Fasta Ltd
Ward
St James
Cumulative Impact Area
West End
Activities and Hours
Sale by Retail of Alcohol (off sales)
Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 23:00
Sunday: 09:00 to 22:30
Seasonal variations/Non-standard timings: None.
Hours Premises are Open to the Public
Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 23:00
Sunday: 09:00: 22:30
Seasonal variations/Non-standard timings: None.
Policy Considerations
Policies CIP1, HRS1 and SHP1 apply under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”).
Case Summary
This is an application for a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of 44-46 Cranbourne Street, London WC2H 7AN (“The Premises”). The Premises intends to operate as a retail convenience store. The Premises are located in the St James’s Ward and the West End Cumulative Impact Area.
There is a resident count of 99.
Representations Received
Representations were received from the Licensing Authority, the Metropolitan Police and the Environmental Health Service (withdrawn).
SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS
Ms Jessica Donovan, Senior Licensing Officer, outlined the application to the Committee. She advised that this was an application for a New Premise Licence located in the St James Ward and West End Cumulative Impact Zone. She confirmed that representations had been received from the Licensing Authority (LA), Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and Environmental Health Service (EHS), which had been withdrawn following agreement of conditions. She confirmed that the additional submissions from the Applicant and the Interested Parties had been circulated.
Mr Stewart Gibson, representing the Applicant Company, outlined the application to the Committee. He advised that they were applying for off-sales for their convenience store under the Londis brand. The brand was a subsidiary of Tesco, so they had the support of the brand, including their field management teams and head office. Mr Gibson advised that their request was within WCC Core Hours and no more than 15% of their selling space would be dedicated to alcohol (including the space behind the counter). Spirits would be supplied behind the counter and the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the main use as a convenience store. He advised that selling alcohol would be key to the growth of the business as it was likely to double the basket spend and 95% of similar stores sell alcohol for that reason. Mr Gibson advised that they would not sell single cans or bottles and there would be no sale of beer, cider or larger above 5.5% except for pre-approved premium beers and ciders. Mr Gibson advised that they had operated at the location for the last 7 years as a covid test store and vape shop so were aware of the issues of the location. To mitigate the Cumulative Impact (CI) they had offered to have a SIA between 21:00hrs and 23:00hrs on Fridays and Saturdays and would be happy to accept it on more days if the Committee thought it was appropriate. They would also not sell any mini sprits and would get involved with the local Pubwatch. Mr Gibson advised that there were two shops within 75 meters of the premise who sold alcohol, but their hours were considerably later than core hours unlike this application. He stated that they did not agree with the picture the MPS painted in their representation and if there was a problem with street drinking and alcohol fuelled crime in the area, then the MPS should address the issues rather than stopping a high-quality premises from getting a licence.
In response to questions, the Applicant advised that the premise had two entrances but the one on Bedford Street would be closed to patrons and would only be used for deliveries. They confirmed that spirits would be behind the counter while there would be a fridge for the other alcoholic products. They confirmed that they had regular contact with Londis’ regional manager who had helped them with the layout, shop fitting and which products to stock. They also had an emergency contact for out of hour problems. They also had strong support in their staff training from head office. The Applicant advised on the issues experienced in Leicester Square and advised that the main issues were theft, street drinking and addiction but the premises had never experienced any problems. They had a strong relationship with the Hippodrome opposite, including their SIA’s, and this would continue if the licence were granted. The Applicant advised that the MPS were few and far between in the area, so they had more of a relationship with the BID security team. They also confirmed that the Londis brand would be visible on the signs. They had 4 staff members working on Friday and Saturdays and the 1 SIA would be additional to this.
PC Tom Cooke, representing the MPS, advised that the location of the premises was of severe concern to them as it was a known fact that the specific location had the highest level of footfall and crime and anti-social behaviour. He advised that off-sales would be like putting petrol on fire at this location and the addition of 1 SIA did not reassure the MPS. There was a known link between alcohol and crime and the MPS were aware of multiple calls being made about the area already. The application, if accepted, would add to cumulative impact. He advised that tourists deserved to feel safe in the area and not be approached by beggars. The area had the worst drug use problem and alcohol had a clear link to drug use and anti-social behaviour which would only be exacerbated by off-sales. Leicester Square was also the location for events such as film premiers and football screenings and preloading was a concern in the area. There was already a strain on services and adding off-sales to that location would add to cumulative impact and heighten drug use.
In response to questions, PC Cooke advised the committee that they had monthly meetings with the premises opposite and they regularly hear about the issues of the area. An SIA on Fridays and Saturdays would not be enough to address the issue as they would not go to where the street drinking took place. He advised that it would be better to run any premise without alcohol in that location, including a vape shop, as it was the worst place for off-sales. The reality of selling off sales in this location was that street drinkers would visit and it would lead to anti-social behaviour.
In response to more questions, the Applicant advised that they shared 44-46 Cranbourne Street with a restaurant in the basement and a souvenir shop on the corner. They had a close relationship with the Hippodrome and if their SIA saw anyone leaving the Hippodrome queue to buy drinks at their premises they would not serve them. They advised that drug addicts and beggars were not their target audience and they would not serve low margin products. They understood that they were not able to sell alcohol to intoxicated people. They had also agreed with alcohol restricted conditions suggested by EHS.
Mr James Hayes, representing the Licensing Authority, advised the Committee that Leicester Square had high footfall and not a lot of off sale provision and those that were, are off the square and their off-sales end at 23:00hrs. The square perimeter was set up with seating which could be used for drinking and loitering which would be added to if off-sales were granted at this premises. He had no criticism about the premises and advised that the LA’s representations were due to the area. The premises sat comfortably within the shops policy but they maintained the representation due to the West End CIZ, where drug offences, thefts and violence against persons are high. The problems would be worsened by extra alcohol. He noted that the area was not a high residential area except for hotels.
In response to questions, the Applicant advised that they were not expecting to provide deliveries.
Mr Michael Feeney, Legal Adviser, clarified the wording of conditions with the Applicant and the Applicant agreed to MC 85 and MC62 to be included on the licence if granted.
In summing up, PC Tom Cooke reiterated that if the licence was granted it would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour. In the view of the MPS, the premise was in the worst place for off-sales. In the 2023 assessment of the CIZ, it was noted that alcohol would have a negative effect and add to the CIZ.
In summing up, James Hayes reiterated that the CI policy was clear on Leicester Square and that it was the worst place for anti-social behaviour. He advised that the opening hours mirrored the hours of selling alcohol so a lockable shutter would not be necessary. The LA had concerns that a new off-sales premise would add to cumulative impact in an area where the strain was already clear.
In summing up, the Applicant advised that the operators were not the problem and had been running a premises in the area for the last 7 years. They disputed the MPS’s idea that an SIA would not help the local problems as they would be trained security guards and could vet customers on the door to not allow street drinkers into the store. He reiterated that they would be selling premium products and they needed to sell alcohol to make the store viable. He highlighted that there were no comments from residents and if there had been a concern, the Soho Society would have made a representation. They highlighted that alcohol was purchased for several reasons and in the majority of cases it would not lead to antisocial behaviour. The Applicant had offered a number of conditions to mitigate the concerns and if the committee were minded to grant, the Applicant would be happy to accept a condition that they could only sell a minimum of a 4 pack if needed. They highlighted that the MPS were few and far between in the area and that they hardly saw them on patrol. They asked the committee to consider the application on its merits.
Mr James Hayes advised that the Soho Society would not have made a representation on this application as it was not within their area.
Conclusion
The Sub-Committee realises that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so for the purposes of this application.
The Sub-Committee had regard not only to the written and oral evidence but also to the Act, the Revised Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Act and the City Council’s SLP, in particular policies CIP1, HRS1 and SHP1.
The Sub-Committee noted that for a retail convenience store there was no presumption to refuse the application in the CIZ. The application was considered on its merits, and the Sub-Committee had regard as to whether the application would add to cumulative impact.
Overall, the Sub-Committee considered that the application would not add to cumulative impact and that the application should therefore be granted. The Sub-Committee had regard to the concerns expressed by both the MPS and the Licensing Authority. However, the Sub-Committee considered that the robust set of conditions agreed by the Applicant would mitigate the concerns raised. In particular, the Sub-Committee noted that the sale of alcohol would have to remain ancillary to the use of the premises as a retail convenience store and only 15% of the floor area could be used for the sale of alcohol. The Sub-Committee also noted that the application was within core hours and that the off-sales would cease at 23:00 hours.
The Sub-Committee also considered that the addition of an SIA guard on Fridays and Saturdays would help promote the licensing objectives. Although an SIA guard did not have the same powers as a police officer, the guard would be able to prevent street drinkers or inebriated people from purchasing alcohol in the premises, and the presence of an SIA guard on duty at the premises could also help dissuade anti-social behaviour. The conditions attached to the licence would also help discourage street drinking, most notably by preventing the sale of single cans or bottles of alcohol, preventing the sale of super-strength beers, lagers or ciders above 5.5% ABV and preventing the sale of miniature bottles of spirits.
The Sub-Committee also noted that there was no evidence that the Applicant would be anything other than a responsible operator, and the Applicant would be able to access further guidance and help when needed. The evidence also showed that the Applicant had a good and co-operative relationship with other licensed premises in the area. If the premises was not well-run and did undermine the licensing objectives, then there was the possibility that an application for review of the premises licence could be submitted.
Having carefully considered the committee papers and the submissions made by all parties, both orally and in writing, the Committee has decided, after taking into account all the individual circumstances of this case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives:
A) That CCTV is in use & a Challenge 25 proof of age policy is in operation.
B) Advising customers of the provisions of the Licensing Act regarding underage & proxy sales.
(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
(g) any refusal of the sale of alcohol
(h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.
This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith.
The Licensing Sub-Committee
27 February 2025
Supporting documents: