Agenda and draft minutes

Be Health Chinese Medical Centre, 98 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 5EQ (“The Premises”)

16/09470/LIMSTR

A request was received from the City Inspectors to revoke the special treatment premises licence for Be Health Chinese Medical Centre Ltd, 98 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 5EQ. On 21 September 2017 the licence holder was successfully prosecuted by the Council in the City of London Magistrates Court for breaching a condition on the licence regarding touting. The licence holder was fined £750 and was ordered to pay costs of £1,500. Following the successful prosecution, the City Inspectors Team Manager requested that the Licensing Sub-Committee hear the request to revoke the special treatment licence.

Decision:

The Sub-Committee carefully considered all of the material received from the parties involved.  The Sub-Committee also heard submissions and evidence at the hearing prior to Members retiring to reach a decision.

Mr Keegan, the City Inspectors Team Manager, confirmed that the company holding the licence also operated three other venues in Westminster. The issue of touting from the Premises in question had been to court on 21 September 2017 where the licence holder had been successfully prosecuted. The licence holder was responsible for compliance with the conditions on the licence however there had been several other instances where they had been breached. The Sub-Committee therefore had to make a decision on whether it was satisfied for the licence holder to continue to hold a special treatments licence. Mr Keegan stressed that he had no confidence in the company or the licence holder in ensuring that no further breaches of the conditions took place.

Mr Carter, representing the licence holder, confirmed that Dr Bi accepted that touting had taken place by her staff but there were mitigating and extenuating circumstances. Following the incident in question Dr Bi believed that her solicitor was in contact with the relevant authorities, unfortunately this was not the case, she had been badly let down by her solicitor who if they had submitted a response would have resulted in the case not going to court. Subsequently Dr Bi was prosecuted and fined.

Mr Carter explained that Dr Bi had held four special treatment licences since 2005. During this time none had been refused and no prosecutions had taken place demonstrating over an extended period of time that Dr Bi could be considered a fit and proper person. When Dr Bi was made aware of a staff member touting from the Premises she would have disciplined the staff member but the Sub-Committee was advised that the City Inspectors did not advise her who the member of staff was. Following the incident, a staff notice sheet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Temper, 5 Mercers Walk, London, W2 (“The Premises”)

17/11396/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment - Indoors

Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30

Friday to Saturday: 23:00 to 00:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

From 23:00 on new Year’s Eve until 05:00 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 Casper & Cole Limited for a new premises licence in respect of temper, 5 Mercers Walk, London, W2.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and confirmed that the Metropolitan Police had withdrawn their representation following the agreement of conditions with the applicant.

Mr Bayliss explained that the applicant already had another Temper premises operating from Broadwick Street in Westminster which was also situated within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). This Premises had operated very successfully at this location with residents living directly above it reporting no issues. The application before the Sub-Committee was very similar, it was located on a new development and the applicant had invested approximately £1.5 million in upgrading the Premises. It was highlighted by Mr Bayliss how the application was compliant with Westminster City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP). The Premises would only sell alcohol for consumption during core hours, the full restaurant model condition would be attached to the licence to provide reassurance it would not become a drink-led Premises and no fast food would be available at any time. Residents had expressed concern over the use of the external area however this would be restricted to twenty covers with the tables and chairs being rendered unusable by 22:00 hours. Staff would inform customers at 21:00 that the external area had to be vacated by 22:00 hours. These restrictions on this area were not currently conditioned but the applicant was happy for a condition specifying this to be placed on the licence.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee Ms Lee detailed how there would be a capacity of 20 customers outside on the private forecourt and 144 inside split across two floors, 92 upstairs and 52 down stairs. Dispersal of customers would be managed in the same manner as the Broadwick Street premises where staff greeted customers in a reception area and following their meal ensured  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Reign (Formerly known as Rah Rah Rooms), 215-217 Piccadilly, W1 (“The Premises”)

17/11198/LIPV

1.

Conditions being varied, added or removed

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 Strongarm Holdings Ltd for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Reign, 215-217 Piccadilly, London, W1J 9HF.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and confirmed that the Metropolitan Police had withdrawn their representation following discussions with the applicant.

Mr Kolvin, representing the applicant, explained that the applicant had submitted a similar application in August 2017 which sought to vary condition 55 to extend the last entry time to 01:30 hours. At that time the Sub-Committee had refused the variation to condition 55 as it wanted the Premises to demonstrate first that it was a responsible operator who could successfully promote the licensing objectives. Two Temporary Event Notices (TENs) had also come before the Sub-Committee in October 2017 due to a fault with the Premises ID scanner. The two TENs had requested a last entry time of 01:30 and the Sub-Committee had granted these as it recognised the well-run nature of the Premises and the fact it had joined Westminster City Council’s Best Bar None scheme. Since the applicant had been operating the Premises a total of twenty-one TENs had now been allowed to proceed with a last entry time of 01:30. During their operation no complaints had been received from local residents, no responsible authorities had objected to the events and no evidence had been provided that it would undermine the licensing objectives.

Mr Kolvin highlighted that the one residential representation received was from a resident based in Eagle Place. Eagle Place was located further down the street from the Premises and there was no evidence that any noise experienced by the resident was created from customers of the Premises. Efforts had been made to contact the resident on several  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Clifton, 96 Clifton Hill, London, NW8 0JT (“The Premises”)

17/11411/LIREVP

An application was submitted by the Clifton Hill Residents Group for a review of the premises on 11 October 2017 on the grounds of Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance. Their concerns related to noise emanating from the outside areas, in particular the Beer Garden and patrons congregating on the low wall and noise escaping from the conservatory to the rear of the Premises. The Environmental Health Service initially supported the review application in regards to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objectives.

Decision:

The Sub-Committee carefully considered all of the material received from the parties involved.  The Sub-Committee also heard submissions and evidence at the hearing prior to Members retiring to reach a decision.

Mr Woods, representing the applicants, highlighted how twelve local residents had submitted statements detailing nuisance emanating from the Premises which they experienced on a regular basis when in their own homes. In response they had prepared log books as requested by Westminster City Council (WCC) and the Sub-Committee was asked to accept the evidence provided by the witnesses.

Mr Woods drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the map submitted Mr Nadal which detailed the nearby residences to the Premises. Apart from the property opposite all the residences located in the immediate vicinity of the Premises where those supporting the review and this was relevant in terms of the alleged nuisance. It was acknowledged that the nuisance experienced from the outside areas was intermittent, did not occur every night and was not related to the Premises internal areas. The nuisance when it occurred however did disturb residents and intruded into their lives. By way of example, he said that a nuisance being caused at 20.00 hours might have stopped by 20.15 hours. The disturbance experienced was not that associated with a nightclub for example but one which could affect some nearby residents but not others located further down the street.

Mr Woods confirmed that the Clifton Hills Residents Group was not an official, elected residents’ association but simply the name given to the group of residents who had brought the review. The Group did not want the pub to close or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.