Agenda item

Swingers, 15 John Prince’s Street, W1

17/08278/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Gouriet advised the Sub-Committee that his client had amended the proposed hours for licensable activities to the Council’s Core Hours (a terminal hour of 23:30 Monday to Thursday, midnight Friday and Saturday and 22:30 on Sunday).

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Gouriet.  He confirmed that the site of the premises was the former staff café at British Homes Stores.  The premises would operate as an indoor crazy/mini golf facility.  The Applicant was currently operating a similar venue in the City of London and had been given recent permission to operate a venue in Leadenhall Street.  The expected age range for indoor crazy/mini golf at 15 John Prince’s Street was 30-50 years of age in line with the City of London venue. 

Mr Gouriet said there would be at least two SIA licensed door supervisors employed at all times and there would be up to six door supervisors employed at peak periods.  Mr Simmonds in response to a question from the Sub-Committee stated that immediately opposite the premises were predominantly office tenants.  There were no residents directly opposite.  There were residents on the corner of Margaret Street and John Prince’s Street. 

Mr Gouriet made the point that the Phoenix pub in John Prince’s Street was able to operate until the early hours of the morning.  His client had decided to amend the proposed hours for licensable activities so that they were in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.  His client was seeking a closing time to the public of half an hour after the licensable activities concluded.

Mr Gouriet described the operation on the first floor of the premises.  There were two 9 hole mini golf courses.  They were surrounded by table and chairs.  There were 450 seats on the first floor in total (Mr Gouriet requested that the capacity was finalised by the Senior Licensing Surveyor and Environmental Health).  Mr Gouriet advised that the purpose of coming to the premises was to play indoor golf with the majority booking to play.  50% of the business was corporate bookings.  It was possible to hire out the whole venue or the private areas.  Approximately 10% would be customers who had not booked in advance.  There would be up to 7 or 8 staff on both courses supervising and helping people with carrying their drinks known as ‘caddies’.  Overall there was a pool of 150 staff with 120 being full time and 40 staff being on duty at any one time.   There were four food areas and two bars. 

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Mr Gouriet on the proposed conditions.  He requested that the Police’s proposed condition which stipulated that there would be polycarbonate vessels used at the premises was not attached to the premises licence should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant the application.  His reasoning for this was that there had been no issues at the City premises since it had opened 15 months ago, the clientele was not the type where fighting would take place, there were the caddies on hand should any issues arise and there was a stigma involved in providing polycarbonate vessels.  Mr Simmonds added that 30% of the total beverages sold were cocktails and it would be a difficult sell to ask the likes of investment bankers or tech companies to buy a £12 cocktail in a polycarbonate vessel.

Mr Gouriet provided the additional information that subject to the application being granted, the works at the premises were due to start in early October and the venue would be due to open in February 2018.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Gouriet and Mr Simmonds a number of questions.  These included how the Applicant would monitor the smokers outside.  Mr Gouriet replied that a maximum number of 20 would be acceptable to the Applicant.  The designated smoking area would be in front of the demise of the premises and next to the rear of Reserved, a high street retailer at 252-258 Oxford Street.  It would be monitored by security staff.    

Mr Gouriet and Mr Simmonds were also asked what live music would be played.  Mr Simmonds replied that live music was not core to the concept at the premises.  At the venue in the City of London there was some live jazz played during Sunday brunch.  Swingers in John Prince’s Street would not be a music venue for live bands.  It was put to Mr Gouriet and Mr Simmonds that the Applicant would not be affected if he decided, for instance, to book a live jazz band during Sunday brunch as live music was deregulated prior to 23:00.  Mr Gouriet advised that the Applicant was content for live music to be withdrawn from the application.    

The Sub-Committee also asked about what steps the Applicant had taken in terms of sound proofing the premises.  Mr Simmonds informed Members that an acoustic report had been carried out on the Applicant’s behalf.  It had found that noise would not emanate from the premises outside.  The Applicant Company was paying for acoustic treatment to ensure that noise did not travel through the walls to neighbouring retail units.  Underneath the 2 mini golf courses, acoustic matting had been introduced.  Mr Simmonds said that whilst the windows would open, there was no intention to open them.  There would be adequate air conditioning at the venue.

Mr Gouriet was asked to respond to the perception that the application was significantly drink led.  Whilst customers may be coming to the venue to play golf, a significant number of the approximate 500 capacity were able to drink.  They were also able to take drinks with them around the two mini golf courses.  There was no requirement for the alcohol to be ancillary to food.  Mr Gouriet did not accept that the application was drink led on the basis that all the customers were coming to the venue to play indoor golf.  He stated that it was not the Applicant’s experience that customers came to the venue just to drink.  He offered to amend the condition agreed with the Police in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application that ‘the sale of alcohol at all times shall be ancillary to the main use of the premises for playing indoor golf’.  He offered that in addition there would be the provision of food.

Mr Simmonds advised the Sub-Committee that the vast majority of corporate packages included food as well as indoor golf and beverages.  In terms of the ticket price, just under a third of the cost related to the food element.  He wished to emphasise the degree to which customers were playing indoor golf.  Every five minutes a group of four to five people were ‘teeing off’.  This meant that up to 1200 to 1300 people per day were on each of the two courses.  At one time there were up to 100 people playing golf over a five minute period.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Simmonds what the options were if a customer arrived who had not bought a ticket.  He replied that it was possible to have food or a drink at the bar.  Approximately 10% of the venue was not booked so that customers would be able to play indoor golf without a ticket. 

The Sub-Committee heard from PC Guerra on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.  He referred to the Applicant having amended the proposed hours for licensable activities to Core Hours and also the conditions that the Police had agreed with the Applicant.  He was content with the sale of alcohol at all times being ancillary to the main use of the premises for playing golf and with the provision of food. 

PC Guerra also requested that the Council’s Model Condition 41 was attached to the premises licence that ‘substantial food and non-intoxicating beverages, including drinking water, shall be available in all parts of the premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises’ rather than ‘substantial refreshment’ which was included in the operating schedule.

PC Guerra advised that the Applicant had agreed a variation on Model Condition 67 which restricted smokers to a designated smoking area.  It would be continually supervised whenever it was in use although no plan has as yet been submitted by the Applicant. 

PC Guerra expressed the view that there was a potential risk if glassware was used rather than polycarbonate drinking vessels.  There was the possibility of groups on the two mini courses coming into conflict and these groups would be walking around the courses with glasses in their hands.  Any injuries would be much less severe if there was conflict and polycarbonate vessels were used rather than glassware.

PC Guerra also enquired whether the Applicant agreed to the use of high visibility jackets for the SIA licensed door supervisors.  Mr Gouriet responded that his client was content for the door supervisors to wear the high visibility jackets.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Watson on behalf of Environmental Health.  He referred to residents living above a late night venue in Margaret Street which had closed and that The Finery and The Phoenix are located in the area.  The former had a midnight terminal hour Thursday to Saturday and the latter had a 03:00 terminal hour for entertainment and 02:00 terminal hour for sale of alcohol.  Mr Watson expressed the view that it was helpful that the Applicant was now requesting Core Hours for Swingers and that alcohol could only be consumed inside the premises unlike The Phoenix and The Finery. 

Mr Watson said that he was content with a designated external smoking area away from residents being supervised after 22:00.  He had noted the representations from the local residents on the corner of John Princes’ Street and Margaret Street.  He was also content with a maximum number of 20 smokers outside provided they were adequately supervised.  Mr Gouriet confirmed that the smoking area would be supervised at all times and not just after 22:00.

Mr Watson referred to the windows on the first floor potentially being opened.  He believed it was highly likely that Swingers would be a lively venue and recommended that they were secured so that they could not be opened.  It was the flank of the building where the residents are located and the Applicant was committed to providing air conditioning on the first floor.  Mr Watson was aware that the Applicant had carried out a noise impact assessment and asked that this information was provided to Environmental Health.  Mr Gouriet responded that he would be able to provide this information to Mr Watson.

Mr Watson advised that it was unlikely there would be issues with queuing but made the point that it would be for the security staff to monitor it.  He informed the Sub-Committee that a fire strategy risk assessment had been carried out that had recommended a capacity of approximately 800 people.  The maximum capacity which Environmental Health and the Senior Licensing Surveyor would assess from a public safety point of view would reduce from 800 as the mini golf courses would take up significant space.  The ballpark figure based on emergency escapes would be 500 people.  In response to concerns expressed by the Sub-Committee that there could potentially be a maximum capacity of 800 people, Mr Gouriet said that subject to the view of the Environmental Health/Senior Licensing Surveyor inspection his client was content with a maximum capacity of 600 including staff.

Mr Watson made the additional point that there would be significant numbers dispersing from the venue.  It was the security staff’s role to direct customers to Oxford Street or via Castle Street to Regent Street.  He advised that there had not been any formal complaints received by the Noise Team in respect of The Finery or The Phoenix despite the latter having a later terminal hour and both premises having drinkers outside.  A query had been raised by one resident with the City Guardians about drinkers obstructing pedestrians on the pavement in respect of The Finery and The Phoenix.

Mr Gouriet referred to the dispersal plan which had been submitted to the Sub-Committee.  He confirmed that security door staff would direct customers towards Oxford Street and Regent Street.  Mr Gouriet wished to emphasise that dispersal would be more gradual from the venue that it would be from a nightclub.  He advised that customers tended to complete one of the courses, finish their drinks and leave. 

The Sub-Committee asked whether the employees of corporations who hired the venue would leave at the same time.  Mr Simmonds replied that corporate bookings tended to be during the early evening.  He added that the average dwell time for customers as a whole was two hours to two and a half hours.  By the time the premises in the City reached the terminal hour, there were thirty or forty people remaining who were playing indoor golf.  There was not a mass exodus of customers.

Mr Watson stated that he supported the Police’s view that the Council’s Model Condition 41 was attached to the premises licence requiring substantial food to be available in all parts of the venue where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises.

Mr Simmonds clarified that it was intended that there would at peak times be two SIA licensed door supervisors situated at the external door with four others stationed around the venue and at other times there would be one door supervisor situated at the external door with one other stationed around the venue.  Peak time was 18:00 to 22:00 hours.  Mr Simmonds and Mr Gouriet also clarified that the proposed opening hours for the premises would be in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.

It was accepted by Mr Gouriet that new plans would need to be submitted to take into account that the designated smoking area was different on the old plans from the one now being proposed.

Mr Gouriet was given the opportunity to respond to the points raised by the Responsible Authorities.  He specifically revised his view on agreeing the Police’s proposed condition which it was suggested would be amended so that the sale of alcohol at all times shall be ancillary to the main use of the premises for playing indoor golf with the provision of food.  He asked that ‘at all times’ was not included in the condition because a City Inspector could enter the premises and reach the immediate conclusion that an individual was having a drink but was not playing indoor golf.  The individual could indeed be waiting to play.  Mr Gouriet was content with the remainder of the proposed condition.  He believed the key aspects were that in general the sale of alcohol was ancillary to the golf and that food would be provided.

Mr Gouriet re-iterated his concerns about the Applicant being required to use polycarbonate vessels rather than glassware.  He believed the risk of conflict was minimal.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Gouriet said that his client would like to retain recorded music as there would be occasions when DJs would be directly employed by the Applicant/licence holder.

PC Guerra asked what the approach of the licence holder would be to those under the age of 18.  Mr Gouriet replied that there was no intention to invite those under the age of 18 to come to the venue.  He was asked by the Sub-Committee whether there might be the potential for a corporate family event.  After a discussion with his client, Mr Gouriet requested that there was no condition applied preventing those under the 18 coming to the venue in case it was decided to hold a corporate family event.

The Sub-Committee noted that 15 John Prince’s Street is located outside of the Council’s designated cumulative impact areas.  There was no policy presumption against the application and it was therefore considered on its merits.  Members decided to grant the application for a number of reasons.  These included that the Applicant had reduced the hours for licensable activities to Core Hours (the closing time would be half an hour later). In addition to there being no live music which could possibly emanate from the premises, there was less potential for a public nuisance to be caused to local residents. 

The Sub-Committee also considered that the conditions attached to the premises licence would promote the licensing objectives.  A key condition which was attached in line with what was offered by the Applicant was that there would be sufficient SIA licensed door supervisors to monitor inside and outside the premises, including the designated smoking area and also direct customers away from residential areas as they dispersed from the premises.  Before 18:00, there would be a minimum of two door supervisors on duty including one located outside the main entrance.  After 18:00, there would be a minimum of six door supervisors on duty including two outside the main entrance.

The Sub-Committee did consider it appropriate to attach a condition as requested by the Police that polycarbonate vessels would be used at the premises rather than glassware.  Whilst Members did not take the view that there were likely to be regular problems caused by the clientele of the premises, in the event there was conflict between rival groups on or off the mini golf courses it would reduce the potential for injuries if glassware was not used.  The Sub-Committee did not accept that there would be a stigma created by not using glassware and that customers’ safety was the main priority.

As requested by the Applicant, the Sub-Committee decided to attach the condition that on sales of alcohol (no drinks could be taken outside) would be ancillary to the main use of the premises as a golf playing venue and with the provision of food and not add the words ‘at all times’.  This was sufficient for the premises not to operate purely as a bar.  The Sub-Committee accepted that the Applicant’s intention was for customers to visit the premises primarily in order to play indoor mini/crazy golf. 

Also at the request of the Applicant, the Sub-Committee did not stipulate by way of condition that those under the age of 18 would be prevented from entering the premises.  Members noted that the Applicant would potentially think about having corporate family days at the venue.  There were existing laws in place which the premises licence holder would need to comply with to ensure that alcohol was not sold to those under the age of 18.

2.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Gouriet advised the Sub-Committee that his client had amended the proposed hours for licensable activities to Core Hours (a terminal hour of 23:30 Monday to Thursday, midnight Friday and Saturday and 22:30 on Sunday).  The commencement hour on Sunday in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy would be midday.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the amended hours, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Live Music (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

During the hearing, the Applicant decided to withdraw live music from the application.

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

The Sub-Committee was not required to consider this aspect of the application as it had been withdrawn by the Applicant.

4.

Recorded Music (Indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Gouriet advised the Sub-Committee that his client had amended the proposed hours for licensable activities to Core Hours (a terminal hour of 23:30 Monday to Thursday, midnight Friday and Saturday and 22:30 on Sunday).  The commencement hour on Sunday in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy would be midday.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the amended hours, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

5.

Hours premises are open to the public

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Gouriet advised the Sub-Committee that his client had amended the proposed closing time to the public to half an hour after Core Hours (midnight Monday to Thursday, 00:30 Friday and Saturday and 23:00 on Sunday). 

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

The Sub-Committee granted the amended hours, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).