Agenda and draft minutes

Mele E Pere, 46 Brewer Street, W1

15/07073/LIPV

1.

Regulated Entertainment – Playing of recorded music

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Mr Thomas advised during the hearing that the proposed extension of hours for recorded music in respect of the current application was being withdrawn.

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The Sub-Committee was not required to consider this aspect of the application as it had been withdrawn by the Applicant.

2.

Late Night Refreshment - Indoors

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Thomas, representing the Applicant.  He stated that there were four specific aspects to the application.  The first was the change of layout at the premises including the redesigning of the bar, re-arrangement of the seating layout on the ground floor and the conversion of office space which was now part of the premises.  The converted area did not add to the existing 120 capacity.  Mr Thomas informed Members the works had already taken place.  It was his understanding that there was no objection to this aspect of the application and Ms Thomas, representing Environmental Health, confirmed that she had cleared the works having visited the premises and there were no concerns in terms of public safety.

The second aspect of the application as referred to by Mr Thomas was the earlier commencement hour (08.00) for the sale of alcohol and the earlier opening hours (08.00) on Sunday.  He commented that the earlier start time for licensable activities was not a crucial aspect of the application for his client but that Mr Hughes was keen to be able to open earlier for non-licensable activities. During the course of the hearing Mr Thomas indicated that the applicant had decided that it was prepared to withdraw all aspects of the application relating to the earlier commencement hour for the sale of alcohol. The effect of that was that the commencement hour for the sale of alcohol on all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Shepherds Market Fine Wine, 21 & 23 Shepherd Market, W1

15/06907/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant, Mr Lowry, had agreed a condition proposed by the Metropolitan Police that on-sales of alcohol would not commence before 10:00 hours from Monday to Saturday.

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

Mr Lowry, the Applicant, described the operation at the hearing.  It would be a similar business to Pall Mall Fine Wine in Royal Opera Arcade which he stated had been in existence for three and a half years with good press reviews and no issues arising.  There would be over 100 wines available to purchase from the shop and 40 of these could be consumed by the glass in the shop.  The downstairs area would be used for wine tasting whilst the upstairs area would be where the wine was sold and some tables and chairs would be located.  The food offering would include cheese and charcuterie.  Wines would be priced from £23 with the average spend per head being £35.  Mr Lowry confirmed that he had agreed conditions with Environmental Health and the Metropolitan Police prior to the Responsible Authorities withdrawing their representations.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Lowry informed Members that he was seeking to have up to four tables and chairs on the public highway and intended to apply for a separate ‘tables and chairs’ licence.  He had agreed a condition with Environmental Health that the capacity could increase beyond 30 people subject to the sanitary accommodation being improved to the satisfaction of Environmental Health.  However, he assured Members that he would be content if the Sub-Committee attached a condition which limited the capacity to 30.  

The Sub-Committee noted, in granting the amended hours for the application (on-sales commencing at 10:00 hours Monday to Saturday), that this was an application for on and off sales with hours that were in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.  21 and 23 Shepherd Market was outside the Council’s designated stress areas and the Applicant had agreed a significant number of conditions with Environmental Health and the Metropolitan Police which had addressed their concerns regarding the promotion of the licensing objectives and had led them to withdraw their representations.  Members noted the concerns of local residents but considered that there was no evidence to suggest that this particular application would result in an increase in noise ‘from inebriated people’ or from ‘empty bottles crashing on waste trucks’ if the application was granted.  The Applicant had agreed conditions that the supply of alcohol for consumption  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Blade Soho, 26 Frith Street, W1

15/06965/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On sales only)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Ms Tricker, representing the Applicant, having already read her written submission dated 23^rd October 2015.  She stated that Blade Soho currently operates as a hair salon providing hairdressing facilities on both the ground and basement floors.  On the ground floor there are six styling stations plus wash basins and in the basement there are three styling stations plus two wash basins.  There is a coffee bar on the ground floor where patrons are served non-alcoholic drinks and could utilise iPads. 

Ms Tricker explained that her clients were seeking to have a premises licence in place to also allow the facility to sell alcohol within the venue.  It was being proposed that a bar would be built in the basement.  The purchase of alcohol would be limited to (a) patrons having a haircut with all alcohol to be served by waiter or waitress service from the basement bar area or (b) members of the ‘Blade Precision Club’ and up to three guests within a dedicated member’s area in the basement.  Ms Tricker made the point that it was her understanding that there were no objections to the concept of alcohol being ancillary to customers having a haircut with waiter or waitress service.  The concerns related to the sale of alcohol to members in the basement area.  There had been representations of support for the application from local businesses and residents.

Mr Olofsson and Ms Tricker described the operation of the members club.  The ‘Blade Precision Club’ was intended as a loyalty scheme for regular customers.  It would encourage members to bring their friends and bring new business to the premises.  The membership scheme had been in place since 2012 and there would be a two day window between applying for membership and becoming a member.  Mr Olofsson informed Members that he was considering introducing pricing for membership and potentially requiring identification for members.  Ms Tricker added that the hairdressing salon was located in the West End Stress Area but the proposed hours for on sales was well within the Council’s Core Hours policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Knightsbridge Café, Ground Floor, 7 William Street, SW1

15/06889/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (indoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Spiegler, representing the Applicant, provided an update on the premises and the application.  He confirmed that the aspect of the original application relating to the sale of alcohol had been withdrawn by his client.  The Applicant was also amenable to Environmental Health’s proposal that there would be no take-away of hot food and drink after 23:00 hours and was offering to surrender the premises licence at 75 Knightsbridge, which was not currently operating, if the current application was granted.  The hours being requested for The Knightsbridge Café were identical to those on the licence for 75 Knightsbridge.  Mr Spiegler believed that an issue with noise emanating from a temporary kitchen at the back which had been experienced by Ms Harwood, a local resident, had now been resolved.  The temporary kitchen had been required whilst a large scale development was taking place in the area and a window had previously been left open.  He apologised for this and stated that this window was now being kept shut.  The kitchen would soon be re-located within the premises.  Mr Spiegler requested that Environmental Health’s proposed condition that tables and chairs were rendered unusable at 23:00 was not imposed.  He added that this condition was not attached to the premises licence for 5 – 6 William Street which the Applicant also owned.  In response to a question from Mr Wroe, Mr Spiegler commented that his client was content for the Council’s model restaurant condition to be attached to the licence with the references to alcohol being removed as this was no longer being applied for.

The Sub-Committee next heard from Mr Nevitt for Environmental Health.  He advised Members that The Knightsbridge Café was currently undergoing refurbishment and he was therefore seeking a works condition.  It was also his understanding that the issue with noise emanating from the temporary kitchen had been resolved.  Mr Nevitt stated that his main concern was that the Applicant was seeking to operate until 01:00 on Fridays and Saturdays which is beyond core hours (his concerns regarding the sale of alcohol and takeaway after 23:00 had been addressed). 7 William Street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Revue Bar And Peep Show, 1 Tisbury Court, W1 – Application for a review of the premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003

15/02078/LIREVP

An application submitted by the Metropolitan Police Service for a review of the premises licence for the Revue Bar And Peep Show was received on 20^th March 2015 on the grounds of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, public nuisance and public safety.

Decision:

The Sub-Committee considered all of the material received from the parties involved carefully.  The Sub-Committee also heard submissions and evidence at a hearing lasting for approximately six hours.

The Sub-Committee was required to deal initially with some preliminary points.  It was agreed by all parties that submissions for item 5 on the agenda relating to the review of the premises licence application for Revue Bar and Peep Show submitted by the Police and item 6, the renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) premises licence application for the same premises submitted by Mr Dominic South, the licence holder, would be heard together.  Members of the Sub-Committee would then make a decision on the separate applications on the basis of the evidence before them.

The Sub-Committee was also required to consider whether specific evidence should be taken into account.  These included one of the objections to the SEV application from Kenneth White which Mr Barca, representing Mr South, believed to have been submitted after the deadline for representations and a representation from Councillor Church which was objecting to the renewal of the SEV licence and supporting the police review of the premises licence. Mr Barca was also objecting to the submission of a witness statement by a Police inspector, Richard Jary, which had been submitted by the Police on 22^nd October, a brief report of incidents witnessed by PC Burrows which had been submitted by the Police on 27^th October and video footage from Operation Demontere which the Police wished to show at the hearing.  Mr Barca commented that the witness statement and the report related to information from 2011 and 2013 and it was not reasonable to submit this within a week of the hearing.  He was not able to cross examine Police Inspector Jary or PC Burrows as they were not at the hearing.  The video evidence was also from 2013 and Mr Barca was of the view that this had been submitted late as the original SEV application had been submitted in September 2014. 

Mr Barca provided clarification, having  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Revue Bar And Peep Show, 1 Tisbury Court, W1 – Application for the renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence

14/07832/LISEVR AND 15/08490/LISEVR

On 12^th September 2014,the Council received an application for renewal of the sexual entertainment venue premises licence to provide relevant entertainment namely full nudity in the designated area between the hours of 09:00 to 00:00 on each of the days Sunday to Thursday and 09:00 to 01:00 on each of the days Friday and Saturday.  The Applicant did not request to change the relevant entertainment or make any changes to the conditions.

That application was opposed by the Metropolitan Police and was originally listed for hearing on 5^th March 2015. That hearing was adjourned at the request of the police so as to allow them an opportunity to also review the premises licence held under the Licensing Act 2003. The SEV licence was due to expire on 30^th September 2015. The opposed renewal of that licence had not been determined by that date so the SEV licence was deemed to continue in force. On 30^th September 2015, the licence holder submitted a further renewal application which technically means that the Sub-Committee has to determine two renewal applications.  

Decision:

The Sub-Committee considered all of the material received from the parties involved carefully.  The Sub-Committee also heard submissions and evidence at a hearing lasting for approximately six hours.

The Sub-Committee was required to deal initially with some preliminary points.  It was agreed by all parties that submissions for item 5 on the agenda relating to the review of the premises licence application for Revue Bar and Peep Show submitted by the Police and item 6, the renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) premises licence application for the same premises submitted by Mr Dominic South, the licence holder, would be heard together.  Members of the Sub-Committee would then make a decision on the separate applications on the basis of the evidence before them.

The Sub-Committee was also required to consider whether specific evidence should be taken into account.  These included one of the objections to the SEV application from Kenneth White which Mr Barca, representing Mr South, believed to have been submitted after the deadline for representations and a representation from Councillor Church which was objecting to the renewal of the SEV licence and supporting the police review of the premises licence.  Mr Barca was also objecting to the submission of a witness statement by a Police inspector, Richard Jary, which had been submitted by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.