Agenda and draft minutes

Bea’s Of Bloomsbury, 27A Devonshire Street, W1

15/08801/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On and Off)

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.  He referred to the document submitted to the Sub-Committee which described Bea’s Of Bloomsbury as a ‘cake boutique’.  It served cakes and bespoke pastries in the mornings and the core business was afternoon teas.  There were more substantial meals for festive occasions such as Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Mr Thomas explained that the Applicant was seeking to supply a limited range of champagne and prosecco wine.  Off-sales would be restricted to alcohol sold in hampers.

Mr Thomas stated that proposed conditions had been agreed with the Council’s Environmental Health Department (“Environmental Health”) with the aim of preventing public nuisance, including no noise being permitted to emanate from the premises.  A condition had been discussed with Environmental Health to limit the use of the outside area to 22:00 hours.  Proposed conditions had been agreed between the two parties that there would be no deliveries to the premises between 23:00 and 07:00 hours the following day or collections of waste or recycling materials from the premises between 23:00 and 08:00 hours the following day.  Waste would be kept in the basement and this was likely to be minimal as food was produced at a different site and then delivered to the premises.  Mr Thomas made the point in response to the residents’ concerns that it was accepted that the premises does have access to the rear service yard and it is not part of its demise.  The Applicant owned the small private forecourt at the front of the premises and it was believed this area would accommodate a maximum of four small tables and eight chairs.  In the event the application was granted, revised plans would be submitted which would fully reflect the forecourt area.

Mr Thomas requested that some of the proposed conditions the Applicant had agreed with the Metropolitan Police, prior to the latter withdrawing their representation, were tweaked.  These included the proposed condition that ‘the supply of alcohol at the premises shall only be to a person seated taking a table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal’.  Mr Thomas asked that the reference to a table meal was replaced with substantial food to reflect that the premises provided cakes and afternoon teas.  Mr Thomas also commented that whilst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Patara Fine Thai Cuisine, 5 Berners Street, W1

15/08375/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (On)

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 Hughes, representing the Applicant.  He stated his client currently owned restaurants in London, including Mayfair, Knightsbridge, Fulham Road and around the world, including Geneva, Vienna and Beijing.  Mr Hughes took Members through the plans and referred to the proposal which had been acceptable to the Police prior to the withdrawal of their representation, and that alcohol would be ancillary to those dining or to those who are waiting to dine (limited to a maximum of 20 persons).  The designated area where the Applicant sought the ability to sell alcohol to those waiting to dine was marked “bar” and section 1 dining on the ground floor of the premises on the deposited plan.

Mr Hughes addressed the Sub-Committee on the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.  He made the point that paragraph 2.5.9 states that ‘new restaurant premises will generally be granted the core hours (for premises that serve alcohol for consumption on the premises) in line with Policy HRS1’.  He added that the premises would operate as a restaurant throughout its operating hours which would be in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.  The Applicants had proposed 14 conditions in order to promote the licensing objectives.

Mr Hughes informed Members of the Sub-Committee that as requested by Mr Nevitt in his written representation on behalf of the Council’s Environmental Health Department (“Environmental Health”), the Applicant was withdrawing recorded music from the application.  The Applicant was content for the Model Condition 37 proposed by Mr Nevitt to be attached to the premises licence.  This set a capacity of 100 persons on the ground floor and 60 persons in the basement (Mr Nevitt later clarified that this figure did not include staff).  Mr Hughes asked that the amended restaurant condition agreed with the Police that permitted the sale of alcohol to up to twenty people waiting to dine be imposed rather than the original wording of MC66 as proposed by Mr Nevitt.   

Mr Hughes also stated that his client was content for six conditions proposed by Mr Brooks, a local resident, and supported by Councillor Glanz, Member for West End Ward, to be attached to the premises licence.  These conditions included limiting the hours  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Scotch St James, 13 Masons Yard, SW1

15/08445/LISEVR

An application for the renewal of the Sexual Entertainment Venue licence.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to the same conditions as attached to the previous licence in June 2012 and July 2015.

The Sub-Committee in granting the application accepted the point of the Applicant’s Representative, Mr Grant, that there were not any grounds for the current application not to be renewed.  The proposed hours and conditions were the same as those attached to the Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) licence in 2012 and there had been no proposed amendments to the renewed applications in July 2015.  There was no evidence to suggest that Scotch St James was now having an adverse impact on the character of the relevant locality or that anything had changed within the locality since July 2015 to make it unsuitable.  It is located in Westminster core CAZ north.  The appropriate number of SEVs in this area had been set by the Council at 25 and as the premises are currently licensed, the maximum of 25 would not be exceeded.

The Committee did not raise any concerns regarding the suitability of the applicant.  Mr Grant stated that it was accepted that since his client, Mr Lalic, had taken over the operation of the premises the concerns of local residents had lessened significantly.  There had been 21 objections to the SEV licence being granted in June 2012 and previous management had been running Scotch St James when the review of the premises licence had taken place in November 2012.  There had been one objection to the current application.  Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that Scotch St James was currently operating as a nightclub and his client was not bringing the SEV licence into effect.  Mr Lalic was applying because it was a valuable asset and it was a condition on his lease that it remained in force (this was confirmed by a letter from the landlord included in the report for the application).  Mr Grant added that should there be serious concerns about the running of the premises, then the correct approach would be to apply for a review of the premises licence under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.  Mr Grant added that Mr Lalic did not accept that there was any rowdiness being caused by the premises. 

The Box, 11-12 Walker’s Court, W1

15/08960/LISEVN

An application for a new Sexual Entertainment Venue premises licence submitted by Too 2 Much Limited.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Thomas during the hearing explained the proposed changes that were envisaged as a result of the intended redevelopment of Walker’s Court following the grant of planning permission.  The Sub-Committee noted that this particular application (15/08960/LISEVN) was for a temporary interim solution to ensure that The Box would be able to keep trading whilst works were completed over an estimated two and a half to three year period.  The Applicant was proposing to move the licensed areas as an interim measure from the first floor theatre and second floor bar to a ground floor VIP area and first floor main room.

The Sub-Committee noted that this was a new Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) application.  However, the Applicant was applying for the same activities (to provide burlesque, nude cabaret, nude performances and plays, adult related theatrical performances, striptease, pole dancing and table dancing and involve implied nudity, full and partial nudity between the hours of 09:00 to 04:00 on each of the days Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 00:30 on Sundays) as was permitted on an existing SEV licence, 15/06091/LISEVR, held by the tenants.  The overall capacity of 288 was also permitted on the existing SEV licence.

Mr Baylis, representing the Applicant (the tenants of the premises), referred to the fact that there were no residents objecting for the interim SEV licence application.  The two remaining representations submitted for the application were from the Metropolitan Police and the Council’s Environmental Health Department (“Environmental Health”).  PC Deweltz made the point that the applications being considered at the hearing were new applications and The Box is located in the West End Stress Area.  The applications could potentially add to cumulative impact.  Mr Watson, on behalf of Environmental Health, stated that a key aspect from Environmental Health’s point of view was that the development ensured that there was adequate means of escape.  Current means of escape needed to be maintained and new means of escape provided.  He was content with the interim arrangements subject to clearance from the District Surveyor. 

Mr Thomas requested that the capacity split for the floors at the premises was delegated to Environmental Health to determine rather than these being imposed at the hearing.  Mr Wroe asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Box, 11-12 Walker’s Court, W1

15/08973/LISEVN

An application for a new Sexual Entertainment Venue premises licence submitted by Too 2 Much Limited.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Thomas during the hearing explained the proposed changes that were envisaged as a result of the intended redevelopment of Walker’s Court following the grant of planning permission.  The Sub-Committee noted that this particular application (15/08973/LISEVN) was for the final scheme once works were completed over an estimated two and a half to three year period.  The Applicant was proposing to move the licensed areas as an interim measure from the first floor theatre and second floor bar to a ground floor VIP area and first floor main room and then under the final scheme to the basement VIP area and first floor main room.

The Sub-Committee noted that this was a new Sexual Entertainment Venue (‘SEV’) application.  However, the Applicant was applying for the same activities (to provide burlesque, nude cabaret, nude performances and plays, adult related theatrical performances, striptease, pole dancing and table dancing and involve implied nudity, full and partial nudity between the hours of 09:00 to 04:00 on each of the days Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 00:30 on Sundays) as was permitted on an existing SEV licence, 15/06091/LISEVR, held by the tenants.  The overall capacity of 288 was also permitted on the existing SEV licence.

Mr Baylis, representing the Applicant (the tenants of the premises), referred to the fact that there was one resident objecting to the final scheme SEV licence application.  An objector had concerns that the original plans were not being followed and requested that noise was minimised after 23:00 hours.  Mr Baylis stated that generally noise was dealt with under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 rather than the SEV legislation.  It was noted that if a review is submitted, it would be dealt with under the Licensing Act.  Mr Thomas did address the Sub-Committee on the issue of patrons leaving the premises.  He stated that there were also a minimum of two SIA licensed door supervisors and usually three stationed at the front entrance to respond to any potential disruption that might arise from patrons.  Mr Chaudry informed Members that patrons were directed to Brewer Street where there were taxis and it was better lit rather than Peter Street which was pedestrianized.  Patrons departed over  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Box, 11-12 Walker’s Court, W1

15/08883/LIPN – Application submitted by Soho Estates Ltd.

1.

Regulated Entertainment

Films, Live Music, Performances of dance, Anything of a similar description to live music, recorded music or performances of dance

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Thomas during the hearing explained the proposed changes that were envisaged as a result of the intended redevelopment of Walker’s Court following the grant of planning permission.  He wished to make the point that in respect of this application before the Sub-Committee, 15/08883/LIPN, there were no changes to the proposed hours for licensable activities or the total capacity of 288 that were already permitted for the premises licence 14/01180/LIPN and the secondary licence 14/05202/LIPN.  The Applicant’s redevelopment proposals were now different from those sought in April 2014 for the premises licence 14/01180/LIPN. 

Mr Thomas stated that this particular application (15/08883/LIPN) before the Sub-Committee was for a temporary interim solution to ensure that The Box would be able to keep trading whilst works were completed over an estimated two and a half to three year period.  This included most significantly moving the VIP / staff toilets and changing area on an interim basis from the second floor to the ground floor.  When the works were complete, the VIP area would be in a basement area in Walker’s Court where there would be no entry from the street.  It was likely that this would include some of the area currently used by the Polpo restaurant.  An application would need to be submitted for the restaurant area in the future.  The second floor would under the final scheme become part of the theatre.  The existing entrance was not changing at any stage and there was no entrance to the ground floor from Walker’s Court.  There was little change proposed to the auditorium on the first floor as a result of either the interim scheme or the final scheme.  Mr Aikenhead, in response to a question from the Sub-Committee, informed Members that there would be a slight reduction in floor space used overall for the interim and final schemes in comparison with the existing footprint for The Box.

Mr Thomas requested that the capacity split  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Box, 11-12 Walker’s Court, W1

15/08865/LIPN – Application submitted by Soho Estates Ltd.

1.

Regulated Entertainment

Films, Live Music, Performances of dance, Anything of a similar description to live music, recorded music or performances of dance

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Mr Thomas during the hearing explained the proposed changes that were envisaged as a result of the intended redevelopment of Walker’s Court following the grant of planning permission.  He wished to make the point that in respect of this application before the Sub-Committee, 15/08865/LIPN, there were no changes to the proposed hours for licensable activities or the total capacity of 288 that were already permitted for the premises licence 14/01180/LIPN and the secondary licence 14/05202/LIPN.  The Applicant’s redevelopment proposals were now different from those sought in April 2014 for the premises licence 14/01180/LIPN. 

Mr Thomas stated that this particular application (15/08865/LIPN) before the Sub-Committee was for the final scheme once works were completed over an estimated two and a half to three year period.  As part of the interim scheme application the VIP / staff toilets and changing area would move from the second floor to the ground floor.  When the works were complete, the VIP area would be in a basement area in Walker’s Court where there would be no entry from the street.  It was likely that this would include some of the area currently used by the Polpo restaurant.  An application would need to be submitted for the restaurant area in the future.  The second floor would under the final scheme become part of the theatre.  The existing entrance was not changing at any stage and there was no entrance to the ground floor from Walker’s Court.  There was little change proposed to the auditorium on the first floor as a result of either the interim scheme or the final scheme.  Mr Aikenhead, in response to a question from the Sub-Committee, informed Members that there would be a slight reduction in floor space used overall for the interim and final schemes in comparison with the existing footprint for The Box.

Mr Thomas requested that the capacity split for the floors at the premises was delegated to the Council’s Environmental  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.