Agenda item

Century Club, 61-63 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 6LQ (West End Ward/ West End Cumulative Impact Area) (“The Premises”) 18/03894/LIPV

1.

Current

Regulated Entertainment (Indoors, outdoors or both): Indoors

Exhibition of films

Playing of recorded music

Ground, First, Second, Third & Fourth Floor

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 01:00

Proposed

Regulated Entertainment (Indoors, outdoors or both): Indoors

Exhibition of films

Playing of recorded music

Ground, First, Second, Third & Fourth Floor

Monday to Wednesday: 10:00 to 01:00

Thursday to Saturday: 10:00 to 03:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 01:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Century Club Limited, for a premises licence variation in respect of Century Club, 61-63 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 6LQ, in the West End Ward and West End Cumulative Impact Area.  The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.

Ms Tricker advised the Sub-Committee that the operator opened its doors in 2001 and the premises operates as a discrete, private members club on Shaftsbury Avenue.  Ms Tricker described the location and the interior of the premises, explaining that there is no trade on the ground floor.  The Applicant sought to increase licensable activities for Thursday, Friday and Saturday until 03:00 and terminal hours until 03:30.  The Applicant also sought to update conditions 28 to bring it in line with Westminster’s model condition and to add a last entry condition.

Ms Tricker explained to the Sub-Committee the details of the club’s membership criteria, as set out in the application. Ms Tricker advised the Sub-Committee of the club’s operations, referring to what was on offer to members.  Ms Tricker then explained that there had been no previous noise or nuisance complaints.  Ms Tricker confirmed that this was supported with a noise survey report prepared by Big Sky Acoustics (set out at pages 69 to 93 of the Licensing Sub-Committee report) which showed that the extension of hours would not cause any impact.  Ms Tricker advised the Sub-Committee that the premises consisted of three floor and a roof terrace, where smoking and dining took place. Ms Tricker advised that the noise survey shows that there would be no impact from the terrace and it was advised that there were certain noise insulation and barriers that prevented the noise from travelling.

Ms Tricker stated that the objections from the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health, Metropolitan Police and Soho Society, had confirmed that there were no real operational concerns, all objections were concerned with policy.  Ms Tricker advised that a new licence was granted in 2016 under delegated authority, with terminal hours of 01:00, which was already past Westminster core hours as an exception to policy.  Ms Tricker advised that this was not a premises that added to cumulative impact issues; and this had been verified by user trade and the premises does not exhibit characteristics of a cumulative area; as per appendix 14 of WCC policy.  It was also advised that there is no impact on the life of local residents, the support submission showing that there are many residents who are club members.

Ms Tricker advised that a condition for last entry of 01:30 had been proposed with the exception of smokers, however this exception was no longer required as smokers could access the roof and there would be no impact at street level.  It was advised that there were no off sales, no issues with street cleaning and that the application was member driven and was for members who wanted to stay in a safe environment.  It was also advised that the premises was not a dance lead operation, there were no advertisements and no queuing and the club was not associated with drunk and disorderly behaviour. Mr Tricker referred to the WCC policy on Cumulative impact advising that it is not absolute and each application should to be judged on its own merit.  Ms Tricker advised the Sub-Committee that the premises had operated a number of TEN’s (20) until 03:00, with no problems. Ms Tricker advised that this showed that the premises is responsible and capable of operating until 03:00 with no concerns.

Ms Tricker then discussed the additional conditions proposed, referring to last entry time of 01:30 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday advising that there were currently no security condition on the licence, but are prepared to offer a condition for 1 Officer on Shaftsbury Avenue until 02:00 to aid dispersal.  The Delivery condition on page 64 had been agreed, as had the reduction in capacity at 23:00 from 550 to 500.   Ms Tricker also advised that each member is allowed up to 4 guests, as per WCC model conditions. 

The Sub-Committee asked the legal adviser to clarify wording of the WCC Cumulative Impact Area policy.  Mr Panto referred to page 22 of the report referring to PB2 and confirming the need to show an exception to the policy to ruse drink led applications in the Cumulative Impact Area. He also referred to paragraphs 2.4.10 to 2.4.12 from the Statement of Licensing Policy which stated that proprietary clubs and premises which promote private functions are very likely to contribute to cumulative impact. Ms Tricker advised that she agreed with Mr Panto and stated that there were a variety of reasons why her client was exceptional. She summarised the operation of the club, stating that there were no complaints about dispersal, made reference to the use of TEN’s, additional security conditions, transport links, including the later tube service, the provisions of cabs in Shaftesbury Avenue and finally pointed out that the customers would be contained within the premises after 01.00 rather than seeking to find alternative venues.  Ms Tricker advised the Sub-Committee that these were the exceptions. Ms Tricker confirmed the capacity within the premises and 150 on the roof terrace. She pointed out that half of the terrace roof is retractable and is closed as 23:00.

The Sub-Committee then heard from local residents in support of the application, Mr Rezakhani discussed the members behaviour, explaining the importance of good behaviour from themselves and their guest in order to protect their membership. Mr Rezakhani described the premises as a safe place to socialise and work for the creative industry. Mr Rezakhani advised that the extended hours would allow the time to sit and order a cab in a safe way

Mr Rogers described the membership processes which required 2 references, an intensive interview and committee approval.  Mr Rogers advised that he loved the contained space. It’s a great space to socialise for work and bring in guests.  Mr Rogers discussed dispersal and capacity, advising the Sub-Committee that he had never seen 500 people at the premises in the early hours, leaving at the same time.

Mr Davies confirmed that he had been going to Century since 2002, first as a guest then as a member.  Mr Davies advised that it is a great place for him to do business and he brings business guests there all the time.  When he has international guest they are surprised that the club closes at 01:00.  Mr Davies explained that Century is a safe place and he has never seen any trouble in the sixteen years that he has been going there. 

It was further explained to the members that the Club had 2,500 members and a Committee of 8 people would determine whether to grant membership renewals every month. The Sub-Committee inquired as to whether the club had a dress code.  The Applicant advised that there was a dress code of smart/causal; and this was enforced. 

The Metropolitan Police (MP) maintained their objection and PC Bryan Lewis advised the Sub-Committee that he had visited the club and had raised some concerns.  PC Lewis explained that he was able to walk straight into the club without being challenged.  PC Lewis maintained that the premises was hidden, so much so that you would not know there was a club there.   PC Lewis informed the Sub-Committee that there were Security staff on site, but some were not wearing SIA licenses, which is essential.  PC Lewis advised that they would possibly need to review security.  PC Lewis also advised that there were still club members on the roof terrace until 01:30 and a group of at least 20 people on the street outside, but they were not causing a nuisance.

The Environmental Health (EH) officer Mr Anil Drayan, maintained his representation and confirmed this was based on policy.  Mr Drayan advised the Sub-Committee that the last noise nuisance complaint was received in 2014, this was resolved using acoustic measures and sound limiters.  Mr Drayan informed the Sub-Committee that he had visited the roof terrace and observed that it was very isolated and he was unsure who would be impacted at 03:00, if the area is well controlled.

The Licensing Authority (LA) represented by Ms Daisy Gadd, also maintained their representation, referring to WCC policy 2.5.23 advising that where the LA considers licensing variations to Pubs and bars, exceptional circumstances should me demonstrated.  Ms Gadd said that the Applicant’s representative had presented points regarding alleged exceptional circumstances and it would be for the Sub-Committee to decide whether they are genuine exceptional circumstances that would allow them to depart from policy PB2, which is to refuse applications of this type.

The Sub-Committee then heard from Richard Brown from the CAB project, who advised the Sub-Committee that he would be representing Ms Jane Doyle from the Soho Society.  Mr Brown confirmed that the representation was not about the current management operation of the premises, but more about the impact of extended licensable activities and later hours in the CIA and on local residents.  Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that in order to grant, they should be convinced that there are genuine exceptional circumstances.  Mr Brown continued advising that the policy does not state what a genuine exceptions is, it states that the case is unlikely to be an exception unless it addresses the underlying reasons for the policy, in this case the number of late night and drink let establishments which have given rise to crime and public nuisance; and the cumulative effect.  Cumulative impact arises from the number of people in the CIA late at night.

Mr Brown addressed the points raised by the Applicant’s solicitor, specifically responding to the main reasons for the variation, which was club members requesting extended hours.  Mr Brown felt that this was not an exceptional circumstance as any applicant could say this. Mr Brown felt this would keep 500 people in the CIA who would have ordinarily gone home.  Mr Brown felt that Ms Tricker’s statement regarding the TEN’s demonstrated a snapshot of the situation and did not determine the whole picture.  Mr Brown then addressed the capacity reduction proposed by the Applicant, from 550 to 500, advising that from 01:00 there would still be 500 more people in the CIA.  Mr Brown also discussed the noise report confirming that this was not conducted during a TEN, so was unable observe the premises at 03:00, which would have provided a more comparable analysis.  In closing Mr Brown discussed the statistics relating to the number of premises with 03:00 licenses, confirming that there were none in the immediate area.  Mr Brown also demonstrated the incremental increase of hours and capacity for the premises: 

• Prior to 2016: 01:00 with capacity of 330  
• 2016: 01:00 with Capacity of 550
• 2018: 03:00 with capacity of 500 (current application)

Ms Jane Doyle addressed the Sub-Committee explaining that there was a lot of crime in that area and Club members leaving the premises at 03:00 could be victims of crime and disorder. It was also noted that Ms Doyle’s written representation made reference to the Authority’s policy statement to the effect that the operation of a proprietary club, in itself, would not demonstrate an exception to policy. 

The Sub-Committee invited Ms Tricker to respond to the representations and comments; and to confirm in a final summary where the application demonstrated exceptional circumstances.  Ms Tricker confirmed that security would be addressed with additional conditions and repeated that there have never had any complaints or issues previously.  Ms Tricker advised that after conversations with her client, they were proposing a further reduction in capacity from 500 to 475.  Ms Tricker advised the Sub-Committee that the Applicant would be containing club members in a safe, self-contained premises which would prevent those people from leaving the premises, where they may go onto other later late night establishments and possibly become victims of crime.

After carefully considering all of the evidence heard and submitted by the Applicant, including all the supporting representations, the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the variation application.  The Sub-Committee felt that the variation would significantly impact on the already pressured West End Cumulative impact area. The Sub-Committee recognised how well the premises was run, but that could not constitute an exceptional reason for granting the application. Neither could the fact that there had been no complaints about the way the premises had been operating, including the operation of Temporary Event Notices until 3 am. The policy presumption against the application was a difficult hurdle to overcome. The proposed variation would have potentially permitted another 475 people to consume alcohol for an additional 2 hours and their membership of a proprietary club would not mitigate against the likelihood that a significant number of them would add to the existing cumulative impact in the area during those hours. Nothing else had been said in evidence which could justify the application being granted as an exception to policy.

2.

Current

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors, outdoors or both): Indoors

Ground, First, Second, Third & Fourth Floor

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 01:30

Sunday: 23:00 to 01:00

Proposed

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors, outdoors or both): Indoors

Ground, First, Second, Third & Fourth Floor

Monday to Wednesday: 23:00 to 01:30

Saturday to Thursday: 23:00 to 03:00

Sunday: 23:00 to 01:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee did not grant this application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Current

Sale by retail of Alcohol (On or off sales):Both

Ground, First, Second, Third & Fourth Floor

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 00:30

Proposed

Sale by retail of Alcohol (On or off sales): Both

Ground, First, Second, Third & Fourth Floor

Monday to Wednesday: 10:00 to 01:00

Saturday to Thursday: 10:00 to 03:00

Sunday: 10:00 to 00:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee did not grant this application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

4.

Current

Hours Premises are open to the public

Ground, First, Second, Third & Fourth Floor

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 01:30

Sunday: 08:00 to 01:00

Proposed

Hours Premises are open to the public

Ground, First, Second, Third & Fourth Floor

Monday to Wednesday: 08:00 to 01:30

Saturday to Thursday: 08:00 to 03:30

Sunday: 08:00 to 01:00

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee did not grant this application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

6.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee did not grant this application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).