Agenda item

The Wellington Club, 116A Knightsbridge, London, SW1X 7PL

16/11875/LIPN

1.

Live Music - Indoors

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 – 01:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

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

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Quaver Limited for a new premises licence in respect of The Wellington Club, 116A Knightsbridge, London, SW1X 7PL.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.

All parties were invited to make representations to the Sub-Committee in relation to the application.  The parties responded to members’ questions and were given an opportunity to ask questions of each other.

Ms Tricker, representing the applicant, confirmed that the application was for a shadow licence on behalf of the owner of the premises. The application was simply to re-establish the licence in the owner’s name and provide safeguards for the landlord. Paragraph 3.2.11 of the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”) highlighted that this was a recognised method and the application before the Sub-Committee was a prime example of a shadow licence. The application duplicated the current premises licence with no material changes. The Sub-Committee was reminded that this was not a review of the existing licence and following the withdrawal of the Police’s representation no objections had been received from the Responsible Authorities.

The residents objections received related to issues with the previous operator of which the landlord had been unaware. No complaints had been made to the landlord and the Council had also not received any large number of complaints. To help address any previous problems experienced and help reassure residents the landlord would circulate his contact details to them. Paragraph 3.2.14 of the SLP ensures that the issuing of a shadow licence to the landlord would also provide further protection to residents. Paragraph 3.2.14  states “The Council recognises that  landlords have powers over their tenants outside of the licensing regime and would expect responsible landlords to exert that control to promote the licensing objectives. Where the landlord is also a licence holder of an premises licence in effect at the premises the Council considers that the landlord has further responsibilities in respect of the operation of the premises to promote the licensing objectives”

Ms Tricker explained that despite issues with the previous operator no licensing reviews had ever been brought against the premises. The importance of understanding that the owner of the premises had not been involved in previous issues experienced with residents was stressed. The application was simply to duplicate the existing licence in similar terms.

Mr Botkai, representing the Kensington Residents Management Company, queried the following aspects of the application:

• Was the application simply duplicating the existing licence as there appeared to be differences?;
• Who was the proposed new operator for the premises?;
• Why was no DPS stated on the application?;
• Was there a copy of the current club and membership rules?;

In response Ms Tricker confirmed that there were some, non-material, changes to the conditions in order to update them and bring them in line with the Council’s model conditions. An agreement was in place for a high end Lebanese style restaurant to become the new operator of the premises. Also, no Designated Premises Supervisor “DPS” had been listed as the licence was not operational. A copy of the current club and membership rules in place was not available but the Sub-Committee was assured that the premises would be fully compliant with the conditions imposed.

Mr Botkai expressed concern that the application was requesting the Sub-Committee to grant a licence retaining the current club and membership rules but it was unknown what these rules were. Concern was also raised that the hours for the sale of consumption of alcohol were outside core hours. It was questioned why the landlord felt a shadow licence was required to afford him protection. The Sub-Committee was advised that there was a covenant within the terms of the  lease to ensure that the Tenant would comply and in turn  the landlord was protected if any issues arose with the licence holder and it could therefore be transferred if necessary. Mr Botkai suggested to the Sub-Committee that if this was a new application it would not be granted as many  of the model conditions were missing, it was outside core hours and there was a lack of information concerning what the club rules entailed. The existing licence had created various issues for residents but if this fell away a licence with exactly the same out-dated conditions would remain, not necessarily addressing any of the concerns raised.

The Chairman confirmed that if a review of the licence was brought this would be for both licences in place in accordance with the usual practice of the City Council.

Mr Botkai also stressed that the area where the premises was located had recently become significantly more residential in nature, which increased the sensitiveness of the granting of a late night licence. There would not be the same level of concern if the licence applied for was modern, complied with the SLP and was within core hours. It was submitted that the  application however was none of these things. It was recognised that the Police had withdrawn their representation however, the premises had been closed for many months which may have influenced any data on the premises.

The Council’s Policy Adviser clarified the Council’s position on shadow licences. The Licensing Policy only referred to shadow licences as a term an applicant may use when putting an application before the Licensing Sub-Committee. The Policy did no more than recognise that the law permits an application for a second licence and recognised that applicants were able to make these applications. The Council however did not encourage these type of applications and dealt with them on their individual merits.

Mr Barras, representing Mr Hays of 10 Lancelot Place, supported the arguments put forward by Mr Botkai. The area had become much more residential recently and it had become a great relief for residents when the club had closed down. The fact that the premises may operate again was of a worry as the hours requested had the potential to generate anti-social behaviour.

Mr Richard Roberts, representing Wellington Court RTM Company Ltd, advised the Sub-Committee that the previous problems experienced were relevant to the application before the Sub-Committee. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that their premises was operating in a responsible manner, something which had not happened previously. No steps had been taken in the past to address issues raised by residents and there was concern this would be the case once more. The application lacked various important key conditions and as such the Sub-Committee was requested to refuse the application.

Ms Tricker, informed the Sub-Committee that the landlord had only owned the premises for the past two years and should not be tarnished with the conduct of the owner previously. He had not been informed of previous issues with the premises and requested that residents inform EH and the landlord of any problems experienced. With regards to the hours requested these would be exactly the same as currently allowed and no extension had been proposed. If the licence was granted the premises would be fully compliant with all the conditions imposed on the licence. In response to a question it was confirmed that the previous tenant had vacated the property in September 2016 but no notice of the surrender of the licence had actually been received.

Mr Botkai requested that the Sub-Committee refuse the application. It was stated that no Designated Premises Supervisor (“DPS”) had been stated on the application, the club/membership rules were unknown, it was outside Policy and core hours and the conditions were very dated. The application was not appropriate and did not promote the licensing objectives. Concern was expressed that if the existing licence was surrendered a licence with the same conditions would remain in place.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and confirmed that as the premises was not in a cumulative impact area it would be considered on its own merits. As such it was the opinion of the Sub-Committee that applying for a second licence which was identical to the existing licence, albeit with minor alterations, did not automatically follow that it should be granted on the same terms by the Sub-Committee. The conditions proposed were considered inappropriate and out of date and it was felt that granting a licence without knowing what the club and membership rules entailed would be a cause for concern. It was also recognised that the hours requested were beyond core hours and as the premises was located in a residential area this was not considered appropriate. Based on all the evidence the Sub-Committee had before it, it was felt that the application would not promote the licensing objectives and therefore the application was refused.

2.

Recorded Music - Indoors

Monday to Sunday: 00:00 – 00:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

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

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee refused the application, see reasons for decision in Section 1.

3.

Performance of Dance – Indoors

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 – 01:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

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

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee refused the application, see reasons for decision in Section 1.

4.

Anything of a Similar Description to Live music, Recorded Music and Dance – Indoors

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 – 01:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

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

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee refused the application, see reasons for decision in Section 1.

5.

Late Night Refreshment – Indoors

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 – 01:30

Sunday: 23:00 – 01:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

New Year’s Eve from 23:00hrs to 05:00hrs on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee refused the application, see reasons for decision in Section 1.

6.

Sales By retail of Alcohol

Monday: 10:00 – 01:00

Tuesday to Saturday: 10:00 – 02:00

Sunday: 12:00 – 00:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

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

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee refused the application, see reasons for decision in Section 1.

7.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday: 09:00 – 01:30

Tuesday to Saturday: 10:00 – 02:00

Sunday: 09:00 – 01:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

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

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee refused the application, see reasons for decision in Section 1.