From: Jackaman, Kevin: WCC
Sent: 03 December 2019 11:22
Subject: 6 Brewer Street, London, W1F 0SB - 19/12383/LIPN
Attachments: 18_00357_NMA-DELEGATED_REPORT-5369963.pdf
Dear All
Ahead of the hearing due to be heard on the 5 December 2019, please find attached late submissions from Richard Brown, acting on behalf of two residents and the Soho Society.
Kisi, please kindly circulate to Members of the Committee and I can confirm that a copy has been sent to all interested parties.
Regards
Kevin
Jackaman
Senior
Licensing Officer
Licensing
Team
Public
Protection & Licensing Department
Westminster
City Council
15th
Floor
64
Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6QP
Direct
Line: 0207 641 8094 (07931 545491)
Call
Centre (for general queries): 0207 641 6500
Email:kjackaman@westminster.gov.uk
Web: www.westminster.gov.uk
From: Richard
Brown <licensing@westminstercab.org.uk>
Sent: 03 December 2019 11:12
To: Jackaman, Kevin: WCC <kjackaman@westminster.gov.uk>;
Steward, Michelle: WCC <msteward1@westminster.gov.uk>
Cc: Alun Thomas <Athomas@tandtp.com>
Subject: 6 Brewer Street - 19/12383/LIPN
Dear Kevin,
I am representing two local residents and the Soho Society at the hearing of this application on Thursday.
Thank you for sending me the additional documentation provided on behalf of the applicant. I thought it would be helpful if I provide a short response to a number of points raised in this documentation prior to the hearing, and indicate the general position of those whom I represent.
Introduction
My clients have two concerns: firstly, the hours sought. Secondly, the location of the entrance.
My clients’ flats are in 1 Brewer Street. Both are long term resident/owners of their flats. The flats are located above a premises called ‘Sophisticats’, at 3-7 Brewer Street. The entrance to ‘Sophisticats’ is almost directly opposite the proposed entrance for the premises at 6 Brewer Street. ‘Sophisticats’ benefits from a premises licence with a terminal hour of 3am for licensable activities and for customers to be on the premises. The proposed entrance for 6 Brewer Street is opposite. There are a number of late night licensed premises in the vicinity.
The representations give Members a flavour of the impact of the entrances to late night licensed nightclub premises being in close proximity to their flats. Mr Roeber was relieved when the redevelopment placed the entrance to the proposed new premises in Walker’s Court.
Licence and Planning history
Members will be aware of the licence history contextualising the current application. Part of the premises was for many years ‘Madame Jojo’s’, at 8-10 Brewer Street. The remaining part of the premises was a separate premises known as ‘Escape’, at 10A Brewer Street. Both entrances were on Brewer Street.
In 2014, planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of Walker’s Court, including those licensed premises such as ‘Madame Jojo’s’ and the adjacent ‘Escape’. On 17 April 2014, Soho Estates was granted a premises licence ref: 14/01181/LIPN for premises with the postal address of ‘1 - 4 Walker's Court And 8 - 10 Brewer Street’. This licence effectively combined the previous premises licences for ‘Madame Jojo’s’ and ‘Escape’. There was however one major difference – the location of the entrance.
On 21 August 2014, Soho Estates was granted a ‘shadow’ licence ref: 14/05192/LIPN for the same premises, on precisely the same terms.
On 20 November 2014, the premises licences for ‘Madame Jojo’s’ and ‘Escape’ were revoked by the Licensing Sub-Committee following ‘expedited’ review proceedings initiated by the Metropolitan Police under s53A(1)(b) Licensing Act 2003 (premises associated with serious crime or disorder).
The development as approved by the City Council’s planning department provides for the entrance to the premises effectively combining the ‘Madame Jojo’s’ and ‘Escape’ footprints to be in Walker’s Court. The licences subsequently granted to Soho Estates provided likewise. A planning application (see attached, ref: 18/00357/NMA) sought planning approval for relocating the entrance. This element of the planning application was subsequently withdrawn, and so the planning consent still mandates the entrance as in Walker’s Court.
Relocation of the entrance
This licence application proposes returning the entrance to Brewer Street, and in closer proximity to the residents of 1 Brewer Street than was the case previously.
As can be seen from the drawings provided by the applicant, the ‘old’ entrance to ‘Madame Jojo’s’ was on Brewer Street at no 8-10. The entrance to ‘Escape’ was further west along Brewer Street at no10A, adjacent to the entrance to Walker’s Court. The entrance for the ‘combined’ premises is, under both planning and licensing, in Walker’s Court. Therefore, not only is the entrance to ‘Madame Jojo’s’ moving further east down Brewer Street compared to when the premises was last operating, so is the entrance to ‘Escape’. The combined capacities of these two premises would, under the current proposal, use the entrance closer to the residents of 1 Brewer Street.
The applicant provides 4 reasons why it says the entrance should be moved back to Brewer Street (para 21 of the ‘Summary of Proposals’).
Firstly, it is said that the applicant has ‘listened to stakeholders’. No further detail is provided, although the applicant has included excerpts from representations submitted by residents of Berwick Street on the 2014 application which raise concerns about noise and nuisance resulting from the entrance being in Walker’s Court. Nevertheless, the application was granted despite these concerns. Similar concerns are raised now by residents on Brewer Street. It is not sufficient for an applicant to simply ‘transfer’ a nuisance. If the applicant now agrees that the entrance in Walker’s Court would cause a nuisance to residents of Berwick Street, can they explain why relocating the entrance to Brewer Street would not do exactly the same for residents of 1 Brewer Street?
Secondly, it is said that the relocation of the entrance would ‘maintain the cultural heritage of a Brewer Street entrance’. This raises the question of why the applicant proposed and obtained planning and licensing consent to relocate the entrance in the first place.
Thirdly, it is said that the relocation will ‘ease congestion’ in Walker’s Court. However, it is not clear how it would not add to congestion on Brewer Street.
Fourthly, it is said that the location on Brewer Street is ‘believed to be a safer location and less likely to increase crime and disorder and nuisance’. This view appears to be supported by Mr Studd, Independent Licensing Consultant. Mr Studd says (para 12 of his report) that ‘the environment on Brewer Street is less controlled than previously now that the entrance to Jojo’s is no longer in use’. He goes on to say (para 13) that ‘It appeared to me that this could be improved by a more visible presence of authority figures along Brewer Street leading to a more controlled environment.’ Mr Roeber’s evidence will be that, in his experience of living on Brewer Street when ‘Madame Jojo’s’ and ‘Escape’ previously operated, this is not the case.
Hours
It is accepted that there are two extant licences for ‘1-4 Walker’s Court and 8-10 Brewer Street’ which permit the hours and activities now sought. The representations set out views on this, and why alternative hours should be considered.
Policy
It is not accepted that because the application does not seek to increase the capacity, hours or activities permitted by the current licences for ‘1 - 4 Walker's Court And 8 - 10 Brewer Street’, the applicant does not need to persuade the Licensing Sub-Committee that ‘exceptional circumstances’ pertain to the application in relation to cumulative impact (para 22 of the ‘Summary of Proposals’). The relocation of the entrance is a very material change to the way in which customers will use the premises. In this sense, it is intrinsically linked to the terminal hour sought. The Sub-Committee will, in my submission, need to assess the likely impact of the relocation of the entrance on local residents and the area, in light of the terminal hour sought.
There is also a reference in the papers to Policy PVC2. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not accepted that policy PVC2 applies to this application.
Mr Roeber and David Gleeson (Soho Society) will be present at the hearing and happy to answer any questions Members may have.
I should be extremely grateful if you would distribute this to Members and the parties. I have copied in Alun Thomas.
Kind regards,
Richard
Richard Brown
Licensing
Advice Project
Citizens Advice Westminster
Citizens
Advice Westminster is an independent charity
that helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing
information and advice and by gathering evidence to influence policy-makers. We are registered with the
Information Commissioner's Office under Z6357995 and will process your
personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation and
Data Protection Act 2018. Please refer to our online Privacy Policy for more information on how your personal data
will be processed and stored. Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority: FRN 617795 Charity
Registration Number: 1059419; Company limited by guarantee, Registration
Number: 03039752 England; Registered Office: 21a Conduit Place, London
W2 1HS. |
P Please consider the environment before printing this email