Skip to main content

Agenda item

11 Great Cumberland Place W1

App

No

Ward /

Cumulative

Impact Area

Site Name and Address

Application

Licensing Reference Number

9.

Bryanston And Dorset Square Ward / not in cumulative impact area

11 Great Cumberland Place, W1

Temporary Event Notice

17/06451/LITENP & 17/06445/LITENP

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 6

Thursday 13th July 2017

 

Membership:              Councillor Jean-Paul Floru (Chairman), Councillor Heather Acton and Councillor Aziz Toki

 

Legal Adviser:             Barry Panto

Policy Adviser:            Chris Wroe

Committee Officer:     Jonathan Deacon

Presenting Officer:     Yolanda Wade

 

Relevant Persons Objecting:      Metropolitan Police.

 

Present:  Mr Thomas O’Maoileoin (Solicitor, representing Premises User), Mr Salim Shah (Owner of premises) and PC Bryan Lewis (Metropolitan Police).

 

Declaration:  Councillor Heather Acton declared that she lives reasonably close to the premises (not close enough to be able to see the premises from her residence) and occasionally uses the shop.  She did not believe that what was proposed would impact on her personally and it therefore did not affect her ability to consider the application impartially.

 

11 Great Cumberland Place, W1

17/06445/LITENP & 17/06451/LITENP (Temporary Event Notices)

 

 

Proposal: The sale by retail of alcohol (off)

 

Event Period:        17/06445/LITENP

23:00 on 28 July 2017 to 23:59 on 28 July 2017

23:00 on 29 July 2017 to 23:59 on 29 July 2017

 

17/06451/LITENP

23:00 on 5August 2017 to 23.59 on 5 August 2017

 

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

 

Mr O’Maoileoin advised the Sub-Committee that the Temporary Event Notice 17/06451/LITENP had been withdrawn for the proposed event on 5 August.

 

Decision:

 

Following Councillor Acton’s declaration, Mr O’Maoileoin was asked whether he or his client had any objection to her considering the application.  He replied that they had no objection whatsoever to her considering the application.

 

Mr O’Maoileoin explained when withdrawing the Temporary Event Notice (‘TEN’) for 5 August 2017 (17/06451/LITENP) that his client was mindful of the concerns of the Metropolitan Police.  The Premises User had originally applied for 13 TENs in 21 days.  He was now seeking the additional hour from 23:00 on Friday 28 and Saturday 29 July.  Mr O’Maoileoin advised that whilst off-sales of alcohol ceased at 23:00, the premises operated 24 hours a day.  If the application was granted, the conditions on the premises licence would be attached to the TENs.  There were seven personal licence holders working at the shop at different times of the day and all staff members were trained.  There were 16 CCTV cameras at the shop.

 

Mr O’Maoileoin stated that the Police’s concerns were due to there being potential flashpoints at Marble Arch late into the evening.  For this reason, the Premises User was offering to have a SIA registered security person outside the premises for the two evenings applied for.  He confirmed in response to the Police’s written representation in the report that there had been an incident at the premises on 19 July 2016.  Thugs had moved on from another incident in McDonalds in Marble Arch, some of whom had wielded knives.  That evening a Police Officer had been stabbed in the Hyde Park area.  From the CCTV footage at 11 Great Cumberland Place it had become apparent that a member of staff had been involved in an altercation.  Mr O’Maoileoin commented that the member of staff no longer worked at the premises.  He wished to make the point however that it was not unreasonable that when confronted by thugs a member of staff might seek to defend the property against them.  It was not a case of a member of staff assaulting a ‘victim / customer’.  

 

 Mr O’Maoileoin explained that one issue had been that the hard drive of the CCTV had been taken away by the Police from 11 Great Cumberland Place in order to review the evidence of the 19 July 2016 incident.  The shop had been without CCTV for what Mr O’Maoileoin described as a short period of time whilst those involved with the premises had waited for it to be returned.  However, new CCTV had then been installed after it had been moved from one of the owner’s other premises.  The old CCTV was re-installed approximately three or four months later.

 

Mr O’Maoileoin added that the operators had a good track record at the premises with no recorded incidents since 19 July 2016.  The customers of the shop tended to be local residents and residents of local hotels, particularly as a bottle of wine was cheaper than the local hotels.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee as to whether the TEN was to cater for crowds leaving Hyde Park following a concert, he replied that concert goers were moved by stewards to the nearest transport, such as the underground stations.  Therefore there was limited opportunity for them to visit the shop later in the evening.  Occasionally concert goers visited the premises prior to the event taking place.  In response to a further question from the Sub-Committee as to why the Premises User was requesting this particular weekend on 28 and 29 July and not the others originally applied for, Mr O’Maoileoin responded that this had been the first of the series of TENs that had been applied for.

 

The Sub-Committee heard from PC Lewis, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.  He stated that the Police had concerns about off sales at a late hour throughout Westminster.  However, in this case there were serious concerns as the location is considered by the Police to be a very high risk area.

 

PC Lewis believed that the TENs were ground work for a variation of the premises licence for off-sales beyond 23:00 as pre-application advice had been sought from Environmental Health regarding these hours.  He had concerns about later hours for TENs being permitted at the premises, including following events where people consumed alcohol such as at Hyde Park and also that 11 Great Cumberland Place would become a destination venue.  PC Lewis advised that people who visited the premises after 23:00 would in many cases already be intoxicated.  The shop was a cheap source of alcohol and had the potential to encourage customers such as street drinkers or young people to hang around the premises later at night and drink or move on to Marble Arch and do so.  There was the potential for anti-social behaviour such as urination or for causing public nuisance.  It was not possible for the Police to monitor off-sales once the customers had left the premises and there were a lack of Police resources to handle any issues that arose.  

 

PC Lewis referred to the serious incidents which had taken place in the area on 19 July 2016.  He confirmed that fighting had taken place in the Hyde Park area and had spread to the shop.  It had required significant Police resources and a Police officer had been stabbed at Hyde Park.  He wished to clarify that he did not blame the operator at 11 Great Cumberland Place for the evening’s events although it was possible that one member of staff had over-reacted in response to the thugs showing up at the shop.  Rather than seeking to criticise the conduct of the staff, PC Lewis made the point that the incident was an example which highlighted just how high risk the location is.  He was also concerned that if later hours for off-sales were applied for via TENs it might prompt other shops in the area to seek to sell alcohol later.

 

PC Lewis expressed concerns that there had not been a CCTV back up system in place after it had been necessary for the Police to seize the hard drive because a member of staff had been involved in the July 2016 incident.  Without it, the operators at 11 Great Cumberland Place were not able to comply with conditions.  He noted Mr O’Maoileoin’s representations on this point but it had, he added, still been over four months later that the Police had been notified that there was the required CCTV system in place.  Mr O’Maoileoin believed that the new CCTV system had been introduced approximately a week after the hard drive had been seized.  PC Lewis had he believed visited the premises about a week later and the new system had not been introduced at that time. 

 

PC Lewis also raised the issue that the Premises User had not been properly risk assessing the TENs having not originally offered a SIA registered doorman outside for this and other TENs applied for prior to the Police objecting.  The Premises User had also originally applied for a TEN throughout New Year’s Eve into New Year’s Day without offering a SIA doorman prior to Police objecting.  Mr O’Maoileoin responded on this point that it had been stated in the TEN by the Premises User that all the conditions on the existing premises licence would be adhered to.  There had been correspondence with PC Janes offering additional conditions and reducing the number of TENs sought when he had initially made his objections.  

 

Mr O’Maoileoin was asked when the SIA registered doorman would be employed.  He stated that it was necessary to employ the doorman for a period of three hours so he was proposing 22:00 to 01:00.  It was agreed that in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to permit the TEN taking place, the requirement for the doorman would be in the form of an undertaking as there was no such requirement in respect of the conditions on the existing premises licence.

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the TEN (17/06445/LITENP) should not take place and that the Licensing Authority should issue a counter notice to the Premises User, in accordance with Section 105 of the Licensing Act 2003.  This decision was due to the strong evidence of the Police.  The Sub-Committee noted what had been offered by the Premises User in terms of a SIA registered doorman later in the evening but considered that PC Lewis had clearly explained why the premises is in a high risk area and why it was not appropriate for the premises to be providing off-sales late at night (after 23:00).  The Sub-Committee shared the Police’s concerns that it was not only what took place in the shop itself with there being the potential for an incident as shown in July 2016 but also what happened after the off-sales were purchased.  As advised by PC Lewis, the shop would be a cheap source of alcohol and had the potential to encourage customers such as street drinkers or young people to hang around the premises later at night and drink or move on to Marble Arch and do so.  The customers may already be intoxicated.  There was the potential for anti-social behaviour such as urination or for causing public nuisance.  PC Lewis had also advised that it was not possible for the Police to monitor off-sales once the customers had left the premises and there were a lack of Police resources to handle any issues that arose.     

 

Supporting documents: