Agenda item

Mr Fogg’s Society of Exploration, 1A Bedford Street, London, WC2E 9HD 18/03517/LIPN (“The Premises”)

1.

Late night refreshment: Indoors, outdoor or both (both)

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 23:00 to 23:30

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours 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 Bedford Street Bar Limited for a new premises licence in respect of 1A Bedford Street, London, WC2E 9HD (“The Premises”).  The Presenting  Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and confirmed that the Licensing Authority had made a representation and proposed a condition to the effect of ?, The Metropolitan Police, Environmental Health and local resident’s also made representations.

This was an application for a new premises licence, the Premises already benefits from an existing premises licence.  Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that the Premises is to be refurbished in to the style of Mr Fogg’s society of Exploration, which is a Phileas Fogg themed Tavern.  Mr Grant explained to the Sub-Committee the background of the tenants and why the application met exceptional circumstances in the Cumulative Impact Area (“CIA”).  Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that Mr Fogg have premises all over London, starting in 2013 in Mayfair.  Mr Grant explained, that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, the premises in Bedford street would be similar to its premises in Mayfair that premises benefits from a licence with a terminal hour of 02:00 hours.

Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that the Applicant was seeking to extend licensable activities hours of the current licences associated with the Premise from 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours Monday to Saturday, with Sunday’s remaining the same.  Mr Grant advised that the Premises is 5 meters within the CIA and suggested that the principle reason the application is unlikely to add to the CIA, is because it should be considered  an improvement to what is already there. Mr Grant stated that the Applicant, was offering something  different to customers by way of the Mr Fogg’s concept and experience, which appeals to all age groups ; explaining that they had just celebrated an 80^th Birthday at their Mayfair premises .

Mr Grant explained to the Sub-Committee that the most important policy points were that at the moment the safe capacity at the Premises has very recently been set at 373 and has been examined by City Council officers and viewed by Environmental Health Officer Mr Nevitt.  Mr Grant advised that if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the licence, the Applicant would agree a much reduced capacity down to 250.  Mr Grant summarised that his client is offering in exchange for extended hours to reduce by a third (33%) the potential foot fall for this Premises, receiving less people in the CIA.

Mr Grant explained to the Sub-Committee that the reason for the extended hours requested was because potential patrons in the evening would be both the pre and post theatre crowds.  Most theatre performances will not finish before 23:00 hours and the Applicant would want these patrons to visit the establishment and enjoy a highly civilised drink and food if they wished.   It was acknowledged that the Premises is not a restaurant, however good food will be on offer during the hours of operation.  Mr Grant felt that because there is an existing premises licence, albeit not for the hours sough, the Applicant is not putting in something that is brand new.  The previous tenant operated a vertical drinking establishment and the Applicant hopes to replace this with a Mr Fogg’s style tavern.  Mr Grant then took the Sub-Committee through the Applicants further submission documents with example photographs of other Mr Fogg’s establishments, highlighting the proposed “Gin Parlour” and “Tavern” areas for the Premises. 

Mr Grant drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the staff and footman’s uniforms and the “Victoriana” theme.  The Sub-Committee also reviewed the Rules of the House where Mr Grant advised that Mr Fogg’s was not seeking to attract patrons that cause trouble, highlighting that there haven’t been no reported  licensing issues with any of the other Mr Fogg’s establishments.  The Premises will be themed around the great explorers, who will give lectures such as Bear Grills and Robert Swan.  The Sub-Committee was told that the Premises is seeking to introduce a replica Orient Express carriage, new fully engineered cocktails and full afternoon tea.

Mr Grant summarised that the Applicant will be replacing a vertical drinking bar, reducing the bar capacity by one third down to 250 and introducing considerably more seating.  The Applicant will be reducing the size of the bar by one third from the existing licence, replacing the existing licence which has a number of outdated conditions with a comprehensive set of updated model conditions.  It was also stated that surrendering unrestricted private entertainment on the existing licence and reducing hours of recording music were factors for the Sub-Committee to consider in its determination of the matter.  Mr Grant highlighted a number of conditions to demonstrate why he felt that the application would not add to impact in the CIA:

• Condition 21, door supervisor provision for the first time, which would be a minimum and would seek to employ more supervisor’s on busy nights. 
• Condition 22, to insert the capacity condition with a proposed figure of  250
• Condition 23, no noise shall emanate from the Premises or cause a disturbance which include usual waste and delivery noises so as not to  disturb residents
• Condition 38, Noise limiter, to prevent any potential noise out break from the Premises
• Condition 39, to operate in accordance with an outdoor Management and Dispersal Policy.

Mr Grant confirmed that no residents or local businesses had objected to the application, highlighting that the Applicant received 5 representations all in support of the application, which included the CEO of the Savoy and David Kaner from the Covent Garden Community Association.   Mr Grant took the Sub-Committee through the letter from David Kaner in more detail, drawing their attention to the sentence where the Applicant has agreed that “The premises shall only be permitted to carry out licensable activities after midnight if it operates as a Phileas Fogg themed lounge and wine bar” Mr Grant felt that if after some time the Applicant was to sell the premises, it could not be used after midnight unless it was operated as a Phileas Fogg themed bar.

Mr Grant made reference to the noise report compiled by Peter Rogers submitted on behalf of the Applicant as evidence. The Sub-Committee was advised that Mr Roger had recorded noise levels at the Premises and at its Mayfair premises on a Friday and Saturday night to work out whether there is a noise impact.  Mr Rogers felt that in his opinion any noise generated by patrons leaving the Premises would be drowned out by the existing surrounding noise coming from the Strand.  Mr Roger then addressed the Sub-Committee advising that the noise impact feasibility investigation was a common sense piece of work undertaken to establish whether the Premises would be the subject of noise impact due to later hours using his years 25 experience. Mr Rogers felt that there would be no impact on noise levels. The Sub-Committee considered Mr Rogers findings in some detail when looking at the merits of the application.

Mr Grant made two final points, advising that given the rental charge, economically there are only two operating models in which the establishment can operate.  Firstly by keeping the existing hours on the existing licence with more patrons (373) or secondly the preferred option of extending the current hours (23:00 to 01:00) with less patrons (250). Mr Grant was reminded that the Applicant is also offering a last entry time of 00:00 Monday to Saturday and 23:00 on Sunday.

The Sub-Committee made enquiries regarding the layout of the Premises, specifically the percentage of standing and seating areas within the Premises.  Mr Grant advised that generally the Premises would have 70% seating and 30% standing, this may by different with private events.  The Sub-Committee queried the way in which the establishment would operate, as current licence conditions states that after 23:00 hours any alcohol should be ancillary to a table meal.  Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee only if that condition was enforceable.  The Sub-Committee advised Mr Grant that policy stated that the Applicant must be able to demonstrate exceptional reasons as to why the Sub-Committee should not follow the terms of the policy.  Mr Grant advised that this is exceptional because it is an exceptional venue, who will reduce capacity by one third, and that the 250 patron will be there longer.  Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that the question is what is going to have the lesser impact? Mr Grant felt that if you compared the two, the Applicants offer will have a lesser impact than the existing offer.

The Sub-Committee then heard from Mr Nevitt, who felt that it would be balancing what the Applicant is seeking with what is already there.  The reason why Environmental Health made its representation is that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or exception to policy.  In that regard the argument is the existing license with less hours and the advantage of the new licence is that it will come with a host of updated model conditions which offer a level of protection.  One of those key conditions for the first time is a capacity figure.  Mr Nevitt then went onto explain that there will still be 250 persons actively present in the CIA after core hours and the potential impact of those persons within the area in what is already a busy area of the West End.  Mr Nevitt stated that Environmental Health did recognise the proximity to the Strand and that there are not many residents nearby, the dispersal path via the strand would be the preferred option.  However it was submitted that the Applicant is to show the reasons for a genuine exception to policy.

Mr Nevitt asked the Sub-Committee to consider, if they were minded to grant, would they grant every day of the week, all the hours requested, or is there somewhere in between that would reduce the impact?  Mr Nevitt maintained the EH objections because the application is contrary to policy, however confirmed that EH has had no issues with the other Mr Fogg’s premises, advising the Sub Committee that they are well run and a good operator.  Mr Nevitt was unsure how enforceable the condition suggested by David Kaner would be, the usual option is a personalised grant to an individual or business.

Mr Steven Rowe from the licensing Authority maintained the LA objections, advising that the application was contrary to policy (PB2), unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances.  Mr Rowe referred to Mr Grant’s earlier statements regarding capacity, the issue surrounding the policy is whether that is a genuine exception.  Mr Rowe advised the Sub-Committee that he recognised new conditions would be added to a new licence and may want to consider 2.4.7 of the SLP where there may be a reduced impact with a reduced capacity.  Mr Rowe then advised that it does state that the Police have found that a reduction in capacity promotes the licensing objectives in relation to crime and disorder.

The Sub-Committee sought further information on the regulated entertainment section of the application, specifically the exhibition of films and in-house music.  The Sub-Committee also enquired to the use of live band music and in-house DJ’s.  Mr Gilts on behalf on the tenant, advised that they do not use DJ’s.  The music played is background music and ambient music, they occasional use a live Musician in the evenings.  Mr Gilts advised that corporate clients may want to show films, but they will not run the Premises like a cinema.  Mr Gilts also addressed the Sub-Committee regarding off sales, advising that they will be happy to forgo off sales, as a policy and gave the example that at their Mayfair premises they do not allow patrons to take drinks outside.

PC Adam Deweltz addressed the Sub-Committee echoing the objections raised by the Environmental Health Officer and Licensing Authority Officer.  PC Deweltz advised the Sub-Committee that the Police would be maintaining their objections based on the Crime and Disorder Licensing Objective.  PC Deweltz went on to say that the venue is situated within the CIA and the hours sought are beyond core hours.  In terms of the conditions PC Deweltz was happy with conditions proposed by the Applicant and confirmed that the Mr Fogg’s venues had never given the Police any trouble in relation to crime and disorder.

Mr Grant summarised by advising the Sub-Committee that the problems within CIA do not get better by locking out what he felt was better competition and Mr Fogg’s in their submission, he felt was a better alternative to what is there.  Mr Grant felt that Mr Fogg’s has proven itself to be a better, safer alternative with less impact under the licensing objectives than the other vertical drinking establishments.  Mr Grant then went on to speak about the reduction in capacity by a third is which he felt was significant, reduction of the bar area by a third and stopping patron from drinking outside adding to the CIA.  Mr Grant felt that the hours were not the key issue, it was what the patrons did when they left the Premises so dispersal of patrons had to be considered by the Sub-Committee when promoting the licensing objectives.  Mr Grant referred to the evidence submitted by Mr Roger’s and the impact of patrons actually leaving Mr Fogg’s.  Concluding that this had a negligible impact on the area, because it is an extremely busy and noisy area, anything that happens will simply be masked by what is already there.  Therefore suggested that rather than let the establishment reopen as a vertical drinking bar, this was a better alternative.

The Sub-Committee, queried the Applicant’s representative Mr Grant, as to why they had applied for a new licence rather than a variation of the existing licence.  Mr Grant explained to the Sub-Committee that applying for a new licence is simply another method that is commonly encountered to gaining a variation.  At the moment the variation to the existing licence would be so huge, it was better and fairer to start again.  The Sub-Committee made enquiries as to the Applicant’s thoughts regarding reducing the requested hours in line with core hours.  Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that if that was the case, then there would be no need for them to be there.

The Sub-Committee allowed Mr Grant 10 minutes to take instructions from his client’s.  On returning to the hearing, Mr Grant addressed the Sub-Committee suggesting new hours of licensable activities; Monday to Wednesday until 00:00 and close at 00:30 and Thursday to Saturday until 00:30 and to close at 01:00.  Sunday hours are already less than core hour, so is to remain the same.  Mr Grant then went on to discuss making the licence personable, as per the condition suggested by David Kaner; Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that they would be happy for the personal licence to be granted to Bedford Street Bar Limited.

After careful consideration and listening to all the arguments put forward, the Sub-Committee summarised that this was an application for a premises licence in the CIA.  Therefore for an application to succeed it had to prove exceptional circumstances and Mr Grant set out what he felt those circumstances were.  In addition to that there was an offer of slightly reduced hours which was also considered as part of the Sub-Committees deliberations in reaching its decision.  The Sub-Committee considered the capacity argument put forward, which offered a lower capacity than what is in the current premises. 

The Sub-Committee decided that reducing capacity numbers did not exceed exceptional circumstances in the CIA and therefore would not up hold the promotion of the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee also felt that extended hours in the CIA would add to nuisance and impact on the pressures in the CIA in what is already a challenging area. The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the Applicant is a good operator that has run premises well in Mayfair however, this is not an exceptional reason alone to grant the licence. The Sub-Committee considered that any competent operator should be running his business in and effective and efficient manner that would help promote the licensing objectives. The production of a management and dispersal policies are all matters that a good operator should have in place in any event to promote the licensing objectives.

For the reasons given above the Sub-Committee felt that exceptional circumstances were not proven to show that the Sub-Committee should not divert from the terms of the SLP acting appropriate and proportionately in all of the circumstances of the case and therefore the application was refused.

2.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On and Off Sales

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

3.

Regulated entertainment:

Performance of Dance

Exhibition of a Film

Performance of Live Music

Playing of Recorded Music

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

4.

Regulated entertainment:

Anything of a similar description

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 12:00 to 01:30

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

 As stated above

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

5.

Hours Premises Are Open to the Public

Monday to Saturday: 08:30 to 01:30

Sunday: 10:00 to 23:30

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.