Agenda and draft minutes

Simpsons In The Strand, 100-102 Strand, WC2

15/03287/LIPV

1.

Regulated Entertainment - Performance of Live Music

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 Browning, representing the Applicant.  He explained that the premises had been operating approximately 150 years and comprised four floors.  There were extensive kitchens in the basement, the Bishop’s Room was on the lower ground floor and the main restaurant known as the Grand Divan was on the ground floor.  On the first floor there were 2 functions rooms known as The West Room and The Regency Room and also The Knight’s Bar.  Mr Browning stated that his client was seeking extended hours for licensable activities from Wednesday to Saturday and also for Sundays before bank holidays.  The proposed conditions of the Police including those relating to CCTV and two SIA licensed door supervisors being on duty for the extended hours had been agreed as had Environmental health conditions that there would be a personal licence holder on duty at the premises at all times when the premises were authorised to sell alcohol, noise prevention measures and limits on when waste or recyclable materials could be moved or deliveries made from the front of the premises.  Maximum capacities had also been agreed for the different areas of the premises.

Mr Browning made the point that there were no known previous complaints about noise emanating from the premises.  There were no residents in the immediate vicinity.  There were Savoy Hotel residents in terms of guests and those living in the Savoy Flats and there was therefore a vested interest in there being no disturbance from regulated entertainment being played.

Mr Browning’s interpretation of Mr Kaner’s representation on behalf of the Covent Garden Community Association was that it was not an objection but it also did not support the application.  He added that Mr Kaner had stated ‘that whilst the premises remain part of the hotel it is unlikely to cause a public nuisance.  However, the fact of being connected to the Hotel and the nature of the premises would need to be fully conditioned within the licence.  If they are not then the premises could, in the future, change its nature and a nuisance could arise without any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Aura, 48-49 St James’s Street, SW1

15/03326/LIPN

1.

Regulated Entertainment

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below.

The Applicant, Vevil International Limited, who is the landlord of the property, submitted a new application to apply for a secondary licence at the premises.  It was noted that the licensable activities and hours applied for mirrored those of the existing licence for the premises (14/07530/LIPT).

The Sub-Committee accepted that there could be more than one premises licence and as had been determined in the Extreme Oyster case, the landlord had a right to apply for a secondary licence.  Members of the Sub-Committee however were required to determine whether granting a further licence would promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee granted the secondary licence application with exactly the same conditions attached as the existing licence for Aura (14/07530/LIPT) apart from slight updates to some conditions that had existed under the old licensing regime.  Members had no desire to make the conditions more restrictive or less restrictive than those on the existing licence.  The proposed hours that were granted on the secondary licence reflected those on the primary one.  The Sub-Committee considered that there was no reason to believe that the licensing objectives would not be promoted.  Environmental Health had withdrawn their representations following confirmation that the Applicant was not seeking different hours or conditions from those on the primary licence and the Metropolitan Police had not made a representation at all.  The Applicant was seeking to protect its commercial interest in the property and in the event the premises licence was used in order to conduct licensable activities, it was highly likely that the landlord would be submitting a transfer application with the Police being able to assess any future tenant’s suitability.  In granting the application, the Sub-Committee considered that both the primary and secondary licences were now in effect so as to leave the potential option of  reviewing both licences in the event that the licensing objectives were undermined at 48-49 St James’s Street.

The Sub-Committee fully appreciated the concerns of residents in respect of the issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.