Agenda item

Sophie’s, 42-44 Great Windmill Street, W1

17/06235/LIPN

1.

Regulated Entertainment (Indoors) - Live Music, Recorded Music, Performances of Dance, Anything of a similar description, Recorded Music, Performances of Dance – BASEMENT

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Thomas, representing the Applicant.  He explained that there was an existing premises licence for 42-44 Great Windmill Street which permitted the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and music and dancing until 01:00 and late night refreshment until 01:30 on Monday to Saturday.  There was a capacity of 975 people (Ground Floor 325 and Basement 650).  The Applicant was now offering, as part of the application, for there to be a capacity of 400 people on both floors, which was an overall reduction in numbers of 175 people.  Mr Thomas added that if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant, there would be a further reduction in the basement after 01:30 (the closing time on the existing premises licence) to 325 people.  The Applicant was seeking an additional hour in terms of licensable activities and the opening hours to the public in the basement.  It was Mr Thomas’ case that the application, with the additional hour applied for in the basement, constituted an exception to policy in the West End Cumulative Impact Area because of the proposed reduced capacities.  It was also his case that there would not be a detrimental impact as a result of the additional hour in the basement. 

Mr Thomas wished to emphasise that Sophie’s would be nothing like Grace Bar which was its predecessor and had been a major issue for residents as set out in residents’ objections for the current application.  He expressed the view that Grace Bar had largely been a vertical drinking establishment with noise issues. There would be what he described as a substantially different offer and clientele and significant change to the entrance arrangements at Sophie’s.  The location of the smoking area had changed. The noise issue would be addressed with conditions for the current application.  Mr Thomas stated he was not aware of any objections to the layout changes for the current application and he would therefore focus on the concerns regarding the additional hour sought in the basement.  Mr Thomas’ interpretation of residents’ representations on this point was that having more people on the streets at 02:00 outweighed the benefit of having less people on the street before 01:30 when there were proposed reductions in the capacity.  However, he said that the acoustic evidence was that the ambient noise levels and footfall were virtually identical around the 70 decibel level between midnight and 03:00.  What he believed would make a difference was significantly less people on the street at an earlier hour.

Mr Thomas commented that this was not the quietest part of Soho and that Sophie’s was unlikely to have a negative impact on local amenity.  There was an office directly above the premises.  He referred to other premises in the area operating until a late hour including Piccadilly Institute (late night bar) at 1 Piccadilly Circus operating until 03:00 and The Windmill International in Great Windmill Street closing after 05:00.  He questioned the representations from residents living next door at St James Tavern on the grounds it is a rival licensed premises.

Mr Thomas said that another advantage of the current application was that there would be the replacement of historical licence conditions on the existing premises licence with up to date Council model conditions.  He believed the limited conditions on the existing licence had played a part in the problems at Grace Bar. 

Mr Thomas stated that there had been a Sophie’s premises in Wellington Street for approximately ten years and there was currently a Steakhouse and Bar located in Fulham Road, Chelsea which had been operating for approximately fifteen years.  He wished to bring to the attention of the Sub-Committee that there had been a capacity of 400 people at Wellington Street which operated until 01:00 with a bar area.  He had been advised by PC Lewis that there had not been a crime and disorder issue in Wellington Street.  There had been some issues in relation to Grace Bar.

Mr Power spoke on behalf of the Applicant Company.  He made the points that Sophie’s specialised in steaks and there would be a restaurant / bar on the ground floor with background music.  Mr Thomas provided the additional information that there would be some live music at the premises but this would be at a much lower level of decibels than when the premises had been operated as Grace Bar.  The ground floor would be predominantly seated with waiter and waitress service.  Mr Power commented that many of the tables would be booked in advance.  Mr Power and Mr Thomas explained it was intended to have a cocktail bar in the basement of the premises with a Jack Solomons, British boxing promoter theme.  There would not be signage with Jack Solomons on the front of the premises.  There would be no price promotions unlike Grace Bar.  Mr Power clarified that there would be the option for people to hold events in the basement such as early evening drinks after a work conference.  The basement would generally not operate during the daytime.

Mr Thomas referred to the proposed conditions.  He requested that the Metropolitan Police’s conditions requiring a minimum of at least four door supervisors from 18:00 daily, six door supervisors from 22:00 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday and that they wear yellow high visibility arm bands were not attached to the licence in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.  This was on the grounds that it could give the premises an image of notoriety.  The Applicant was offering two door supervisors and if it was intended to hold an event then this number would be increased.  Mr Thomas made the point that there would be sufficient managers to oversee the operation.  He also requested that the Police proposed condition requiring bags of customers to be searched after 23:00 was not attached to the licence.

Mr Thomas said that he could understand that residents had set out in their written representations that their quality of life had improved since Grace Bar had closed.  However, the premises were likely to re-open as licensed premises at some stage and he believed Sophie’s would better support the licensing objectives than a premises operating similarly to Grace Bar.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Mr Watson, on behalf of Environmental Health.  Mr Watson referred to alcohol being ancillary to substantial refreshment and music and dancing on the existing premises licence.  He made the point that whilst the Applicant was keen to indicate that Sophie’s would be a different style of operation in terms of being more restaurant led and less alcohol led than Grace’s Bar it was not clearly shown to be the case in terms of the proposed conditions.  He believed the conditions gave the impression that the premises would be entertainment led albeit with more seating than for the previous operation.  Mr Watson also wished to provide some context in respect of the Sophie’s premises that had operated in Wellington Street until 01:00, making the point that the bar area with up to 100 people was not ancillary to food but for the remainder of the premises, alcohol was ancillary to food.

Mr Watson clarified that the Applicant had agreed his proposed conditions.  He requested that whilst the overall suggested reduced capacity of 800 was acceptable to Environmental Health, the specific capacities for the two floors were finalised once he and the Senior Licensing Surveyor had assessed matters such as the floor space and the means of escape. 

Mr Watson queried what the Applicant’s arrangements would be for vacating the ground floor at 01:00 in the event the basement was able to operate until 02:00.  This included whether the ground floor could be used for consumption of alcohol until 02:00.  Would it be conditioned in terms of patrons leaving the ground floor of the venue at 01:00?  Mr Watson recommended that in the event the application was granted, a condition was attached to the premises licence that there would be no drinking outside the premises.  This he believed would promote the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance and take into account that the pavement width outside the premises was limited.

Mr Watson expressed the view that the Soho Society had in their written representation accurately reflected where the nearby residential areas are, including in Great Windmill Street and Lisle Street.  He didn’t dispute the Applicant’s acoustic report findings that it is a noisy area whether this involved traffic, people or extractor fans.

Mr Watson explained to the Sub-Committee that there had been discussions with the Applicant regarding customers smoking in Ham Yard but the allocated area was now proposed for Great Windmill Street.  The Applicant had put forward a condition that the maximum number of 20 at any one time would come into effect at 01:00.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Sycamore, on behalf of the Licensing Authority.  He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 2.4.7 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy that stated that the reduction in capacity ‘might’ be a reason for granting an application as an exception to policy.  Mr Sycamore added that it was not a ‘given’.  It was the Licensing Authority’s case that there would still be a lot of customers leaving the premises later into the night in the West End Cumulative Impact Area and that this made the Applicant’s argument for an exception to policy questionable.  It was a new application for a public bar in the Cumulative Impact Area and the policy was to refuse the application. 

The Licensing Authority shared Environmental Health’s concerns about the potential for patrons in the basement being able to take their drinks upstairs after 01:00.

PC Lewis advised the Sub-Committee that the Police were maintaining their representation on policy grounds.  He described the area surrounding the premises as being heavily saturated with late night time economy establishments and the application if granted would create further demands on Police resources.  He was concerned particularly about alcohol not being ancillary to food so that there could potentially be vertical drinking throughout the premises.  He also had concerns about two different closing times for the basement and ground floor including that unless it was correctly conditioned, patrons could leave both floors at 02:30.

PC Lewis commented that he had no specific objections to the operator and the way that the Sophie’s in Wellington Street was run.  However, it had predominantly operated as a restaurant as reflected in the conditions on the licence.  He spoke of objecting to the application due to his lack of confidence in the conditions that were currently on the operating schedule for the 42-44 Great Windmill Street application.  An example of this was that the Applicant was offering two SIA qualified doormen as an alternative.  He took the view that two doormen plus a risk assessment as to whether there should be more security personnel employed was clearly not appropriate for a capacity of 800 people.  He was seeking re-assurance about the ability of the Applicant to monitor that number of people and he was not satisfied that the Applicant had seriously taken security measures into consideration, including the guarding of the different entrances/exits.  PC Lewis recommended a minimum of 1 doorman to 100 patrons.  He did not believe that a risk assessment was needed as to whether further security staff should be employed because the risks were in his view reasonably obvious.  These included patrons being able to drink without food up until 02:30.    PC Lewis was also concerned about the narrow footpaths outside the premises and the ability of the smokers to obstruct the pavement.  He was requesting doormen to wear high visibility jackets to monitor the street.  He brought to the Sub-Committee’s attention that this and four other conditions of the seven he had proposed had not been accepted by the Applicant.

One of the conditions proposed by the Police had been that bag searches should take place inside the premises after 23:00.  PC Lewis commented on there being a high level threat from terrorism as evidenced by recent incidents in London.  

The Sub-Committee then heard from Mr Brown representing Ms Anna Moscato, Ms Katarzyna Bera and Mr Piotr Cybulak.  Mr Brown said that he would keep his comments on Grace Bar to a minimum given that the Applicant accepted residents’ written submissions on this point.  However, he wished to bring to Members’ attention that the flats above St James Tavern faced on to Great Windmill Street and the issues with the Grace Bar licence operating until 01:00 for residents were internal noise transmission, smokers outside, queuing outside and dispersal.  Mr Brown said that limiting the number of smokers to a maximum of 20 after 01:00 would not address residents’ concerns on the grounds that it only took a small number of people smoking outside to cause nuisance.  He did not see any evidence that queuing would be a problem but pointed out that there were no proposed conditions designed to prevent it.  He added that the key ongoing concern of residents was dispersal.

Mr Brown stated that the issues arising from the noise of patrons leaving the Grace Bar causing a public nuisance were exacerbated by the ‘honeypot effect’ in a very prominent location of the patrons attracting pedicabs, buskers and beatboxers.  It also attracted shady characters.  He referred to the Council’s policy regarding the prevention of crime and disorder and the risk of patrons/customers being the victims of crime.  The later the hour the premises were able to operate the greater the risk to patrons/customers.  He also referred to Mrs Doyle’s concerns regarding drug dealing in the area and the greater risks caused by a 02:00 terminal hour for sale of alcohol and music and dancing and a 02:30 closing time in the basement. 

Mr Brown emphasised that residents were very clear in their view that the reduction in the overall capacity did not mitigate the increase in the operating hours for the basement.  He made the point that even if it was accepted that there was a reduction in capacity of 175 patrons before 01:00, there was potentially up to 800 people at the premises after 01:00.  Given the impact of an operation after 01:00, it was the residents’ view that the extra hour should not be granted in the basement. He wished to differentiate between the Sophie’s in Wellington Street and the current application.  The overall capacity was approximately 360 at Wellington Street whereas it was proposed to have a capacity of 800 in Great Windmill Street.  He added that if it was fair to give Sophie’s the opportunity to operate then this should be until 01:00.

Mr Brown expressed the view that the application was exactly the type that the Council’s policy seeks to prevent.  It was not a restaurant in terms of the conditions being offered and could operate as a vertical drinking bar.  He questioned the worth of the Applicant’s overall offer as he doubted that there would be a capacity of 975 in the premises every night.  Mr Brown spoke about the statistics in the Council’s licensing policy and in particular that violence against the person offences rose significantly the later the terminal hour after midnight.  There was greater impact for premises which are not restaurants and the operating schedule did not require 42-44 Great Windmill Street to operate as a restaurant.    

Mr Brown wished to address the Sub-Committee on Mr Thomas’ point that the premises would be better conditioned if the application was granted.  He raised the matter that there was a ‘no noise shall emanate’ condition on the existing premises licence but this had not prevented noise from emanating from the premises and disturbing residents.  He did appreciate that the Applicant was offering to reduce the level of noise and play music through a noise limiter.

The Applicant’s acoustic report was referred to by Mr Brown.  He said that the testing of the premises had taken place a few days before Grace Bar had closed down so it was possible that it may not have been as busy as when it was fully operational.  Mr Brown believed that the acoustic report supported the view of residents in that it had found that ‘the noise climate is mainly affected by the patron noise from the surrounding public houses and restaurants’.

Mr Brown concluded with the comments that residents recognised the existence of a 01:00 premises licence for the premises.  They were seeking better conditions than were present on the existing licence.  Any extension to the operating time in the basement was directly contrary to policy and should be refused.    

The Sub-Committee heard from local residents.  Mrs Doyle supported the comments of the Police and Mr Brown and stated that there was a huge anti-social behaviour problem, including drug related behaviour in Soho as opposed to the Leicester Square Impact Zone.  She added that it was not possible to reduce the impact when patrons dispersed from the premises.

Mr Kosmider, representing Ms Bogatek, stated that since Grace Bar had closed there had been an average decrease of 15 decibels in noise levels.  He also made the point that he and residents he had spoken to had not received the letters from the Applicant which had been referred to in the Applicant’s representations.  He strongly objected to the proposed additional hour in the basement.  There were concerns the premises could still operate as a nightclub and there would still be significant numbers of people on the premises.  Mr Kosmider concurred with Mr Brown’s comments that there was considerable noise nuisance after 01:00 at Grace Bar which had been exacerbated by the likes of pedicabs, buskers, beatboxers coming to the area, seeking financial gain.  Pedicabs had caused obstruction to traffic and extra noise in the area.  There was also anti-social behaviour by patrons after closing time.  His daughter had been woken up during the night when Grace Bar had operated.  His family had been able to live normal lives since Grace Bar had shut.  Mr Kosmider had additional concerns with the current application that his flat was not far from the smoking area. 

Mr Cybulak did not believe that the proposed reduction in capacity in the basement would assist as the greater issues were caused by noise from patrons on the ground floor.  He expressed concerns about the noise from taxis and the potential for queuing at the premises.

Ms Bera stated that she had been woken up many times during the night when Grace Bar had been open.  There had been noise from patrons dispersing and anti-social behaviour such as fighting taking place.  The area was now more peaceful and she was more able to get an adequate level of sleep.

Mr Thomas was given the opportunity by the Sub-Committee to respond to the points made by the objectors.  Mr Thomas wished to clarify, in response to questions from the Sub-Committee, that there would be no additional patrons on the ground floor after 01:30 (he was content for this to be the subject of a condition) and there would be 325 in the basement from 01:30 to 02:30.  On sales and music and dancing in the basement would cease at 02:00.  He added that the ground floor would be closed off to customers and it would not be staffed after 01:30. 

Mr Thomas, in response to Police concerns about security arrangements, advised that the Applicant would potentially be willing to accept three security staff after 23:00.  The Applicant would also be more willing to have security staff with high visibility jackets overseeing the smoking area but not at the entrance/exit because it would give the impression of a problem premises.  The Applicant did not want to encourage the pedicabs, buskers and beatboxers. 

Mr Thomas described the ground floor as a restaurant with a bar area.  He had not offered an alcohol being ancillary to food condition as there was not one on the existing premises licence.  The Applicant was potentially willing to accept a minimum number of seats being situated on the ground floor.  He also made the point that the same food offer would be available in the basement as the ground floor.

The Sub-Committee was also informed by Mr Thomas that the Applicant would be willing to accept a maximum of 20 smokers outside the premises at all times in the event the application was granted.  The Applicant was also content for the capacities on the two floors to be assessed at a later date as requested by Mr Watson.  The Applicant was proposing that the maximum capacity in the basement could not exceed 325 for the final hour of trading.

Mr Thomas continued to question the representations from residents in St James Tavern on the grounds that whilst they lived there, they also worked there.  They also had patrons dispersing from and smoking outside their pub.  He requested that the Sub-Committee give due weight to the fact that those who live next door also operate a pub.

Mr Thomas said that he could not give a cast iron guarantee that there would never be any queuing but that it would not be anything like Grace Bar.  He also expressed the view that it was conjecture to suggest that the capacity did not reach 925 during weekdays at Grace Bar.  It was potentially the case that there would not be 325 in the basement after 01:30 at Sophie’s.  

Mr Thomas sought to counter Mr Brown’s point regarding the statistics in the Council’s licensing policy showing that violence against the person offences rose significantly the later the terminal hour after midnight with the point that there would be reduced capacities in the basement prior to 01:00 which would mean fewer people being victims of crime then.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Thomas confirmed that there would be no off sales and no drinks taken outside.

Mr Brown wished to clarify that the objections were from residents who lived above the licensed area in St James Tavern.  It was not an objection from the St James Tavern business.

The Sub-Committee read and listened carefully to all the representations and submissions received in respect of the application.  Members initially made a judgement as to whether the application constituted an exception or not.  The new application was contrary to policy but the case had been made by the Applicant that it should be considered an exception because the additional hour in the basement was offset by a reduction in the overall capacity from 975 to 800.  The existing premises licence already enabled the Applicant to sell alcohol until 01:00 and close the premises at 01:30.

The Sub-Committee decided not to grant the additional hour in the basement as an exception to policy.  The reason for this was that the Sub-Committee considered that there would still be up to 325 people at this location in the West End Cumulative Impact Area until 02:30. These customers would be able to drink alcohol without that consumption being ancillary to any other activity and this would more than likely undermine the licensing objectives.  In reaching this decision, Members had noted the objections of residents and three Responsible Authorities.  It was a concern to the Sub-Committee that whilst Mr Thomas was indicating that the ground floor in particular would operate as a restaurant with a bar and that food would be available in the basement, no conditions were being offered at any time requiring alcohol to be ancillary to food.  The Sub-Committee appreciated that the existing premises licence did not require the Applicant to provide alcohol ancillary to food.  However, the Applicant in this case was asking for an exception to policy and the Sub-Committee had to assess the overall impact of patrons potentially drinking without food for an additional hour at the premises and then dispersing from the premises at 02:30.  Members accepted the view of residents and articulated by Mr Brown that the reduction in the overall capacity did not mitigate the increase in the operating hours for the basement.

The Sub-Committee gave thought to refusing the application given that it was a new application seeking late hours for licensable activities in a designated cumulative impact area with the application being contrary to policy.  However, Members noted that the existing premises licence permitted the premises to provide on sales and music and dancing until 01:00 and late night refreshment until 01:30.  Members took the view that it would be beneficial to all parties if the conditions on the premises licence were updated, including incorporating the Council’s model conditions.  The Sub-Committee therefore decided to grant the same hours for licensable activities on the ground and basement floors as were permitted on the existing premises licence.  The Sub-Committee appreciated that it would be the Applicant’s choice whether to operate the existing premises licence or operate the new one.  It was the Members’ assessment that the existing premises licence restricted the Applicant in terms of the style of operation that could be provided and it would be advantageous to have the new licence with the same hours as the existing one.  In seeking to achieve the right balance, the Sub-Committee did not reduce the overall capacity from 975 to 800 which had been proposed by the Applicant in the event the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the basement operating until 02:30.  The respective capacities for the two floors would be assessed by Environmental Health and the Senior Licensing Surveyor at a later date.

The Sub-Committee also sought to strike the right balance on the conditions attached to the premises licence.  Members did not impose many of the more restrictive proposed conditions on the Applicant.  They did consider it necessary given the potential security and terrorist risks, to attach the Applicant’s proposed condition that ‘after 11pm, a minimum of 2 SIA licensed door supervisors shall be on duty atthe premises when the basement is open forbusiness. Any additional security shall be subject to a risk assessment’.  Members were of the view that it was particularly important that the Applicant carried out the risk assessment.  The Sub-Committee also decided it was necessary to attach the conditions that ‘all door staff shall display their SIA licenses in yellow high visibility arm bands. All Door Staff engaged in guarding the entrances shall wear yellow high visibility jackets or tabbards after 22:00 hours or during the hours of darkness’ and that ‘all bags of persons entering the premises shall be searched by Security after 23:00 hours daily’ as requested by the Police.

2.

Regulated Entertainment (Indoors) - Live Music, Recorded Music, Performances of Dance, Anything of a similar description, Recorded Music, Performances of Dance – GROUND FLOOR

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the general hours sought on the ground floor as they were in keeping with the proposed hours for the existing premises licence.  The proposed conditions were updated. The Sub-Committee did not grant the seasonal variations for the same reasons as they did not extend the operating hour in the basement.

3.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors) - BASEMENT

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the same hours as for the existing premises licence (Monday to Saturday 23:00 to 01:30).  The proposed conditions were updated.  See the reasons for decision in Section 1.

4.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors) – GROUND FLOOR

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the general hours sought on the ground floor as they were in keeping with the proposed hours for the existing premises licence.  The proposed conditions were updated. The Sub-Committee did not grant the seasonal variations for the same reasons as they did not extend the operating hour in the basement.

5.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and Off) - BASEMENT

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Thomas clarified that off sales had been withdrawn.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the same hours for on sales as for the existing premises licence (Monday to Saturday 10:00 to 01:00 and Sunday 12:00 to 22:30).  The proposed conditions were updated.  See the reasons for decision in Section 1.

6.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and Off) – GROUND FLOOR

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the general hours sought on the ground floor as they were in keeping with the proposed hours for the existing premises licence.  The proposed conditions were updated. The Sub-Committee did not grant the seasonal variations for the same reasons as they did not extend the operating hour in the basement.

7.

Hours premises are open to the public

Monday to Saturday 08:00 to 02:30

Sunday 08:00 to 00:00

An additional hour when British Summertime commences.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the closing time for the public as for the existing premises licence (Monday to Saturday 09:00 to 01:30 and Sunday 09:00 to 23:00).  The proposed conditions were updated.