Agenda item

6 Walker’s Court, London, W1F 0BU (“The Premises”)

18/04038/LIPN

1.

Plays, Films, Live Music, Recorded Music, Performances of Dance, anything of a similar description [Indoors Only]

First Floor Restaurant, Auditorium and Theatre Bar:

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

First Floor Bar (Hatched Blue)

Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 23:30

Friday and Saturday: 10:00 to 00:00

Sunday: 11:00 to 22:30

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings:

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

On Sundays, prior to bank holidays/public holidays extended to 00:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

First, Second and Third Floor:

Monday to Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00

The area hatched in blue on the first floor of the premises was removed from the application and the plans.

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings to remain unaltered.

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

This is an application by Soho Estates Ltd for a new premises licence in respect of the Boulevard situated at 6 Walker’s Court, London W1F 0BU. There are two existing licences for these premises that are effectively being reconfigured and merged. The ground floor has a restaurant licence [14/09064/LIDPSR] and the proposal is for this restaurant to be relocated on to the first floor so as to directly service the theatre development. The existing licence for the theatre [13/09851/LIPN] is in respect of the first and second floors but the new proposal is for the theatre to be relocated on to the second and third floors. The current theatre is licenced until 1 am when it is being used as a performance venue; core hours when there is no performance and 22.00 when used for private events. Both of these licences have been offered for surrender in the event that this new licence is granted.       

Philp Kolvin QC (Legal Representative for the Applicant Company) began by requesting that Alistair Moss (local resident) address the Sub-Committee as he needed to leave the meeting soon after. The request was agreed by the Sub-Committee.

Alistair Moss stated that he was a local resident who had lived in Peter Street for 22 years with his wife and family and his home was about 100 metres from the premises. He confirmed that he was supporting the application and he felt that the proposals would help tackle anti-social behaviour and he welcomed the Applicant Company’s stance in taking responsibility for the area, especially at night. Alistair Moss commented that during the daytime, anti-social behaviour was deterred by the security staff working at the various retail outlets in the area, however after these shops closed, anti-social behaviour would surface and continue into the late hours. Alistair Moss then referred to the Applicant Company’s security plan on page 37 of the report which outlined the cameras and lighting to be installed.

Mr Kolvin then addressed the Sub-Committee and began by explaining that the premises was to operate as a theatre. The refurbishment and re-development of the theatre was part of a wider redevelopment of Walker’s Court that the Applicant Company was undertaking. The Applicant Company also intended to drive out anti-social behaviour in the area as part of the redevelopment and to reinvigorate the area through enhancing the cultural aspect and assist the place making process for Soho, thus fulfilling the aspirations of the Mayor of London. Mr Kolvin referred to the fact that the Police had not make a representation which indicated that they were content in respect of addressing the licensing objectives regarding crime and disorder and public nuisance.

Mr Kolvin stated that the premises had obtained planning permission to remain open until 04:00 in 2014, however the licensing hours sought were much more modest. The capacity stood at 480 persons and there were no proposals to increase this. The Applicant Company wished to reconfigure the premises so that the restaurant was moved from the ground floor to the first floor, an auditorium on the second floor and a balcony on the third floor. The reasons for moving the restaurant to the first floor was so that theatre guests could dine there and the reconfiguration would help improve customer facilities and afford more flexibility to the floor space. At this point, the Sub-Committee was then shown a short video explaining the proposed layout of the premises.

Mr Kolvin explained that customers would enter the premises either through an access point facing Peter Street or at the box office entrance within Walker’s Court and they would then use the stairs or lift to the first floor, where there was a glass bridge at first and second floor levels that would lead them across to the other side of the building where the theatre complex was located. There would be no street facing bar and so people would not be tempted to enter the premises from the street to consume alcohol and the area described on the first floor was a bar restaurant involving a specific route for it be accessed involving stairs and lifts. The large majority of customers would be theatre goers and the theatre had its own arts programme with an aspiration to break even. Mr Kolvin stated that the proposed late shows from Wednesday to Saturday were essential for the business’s viability and it was hoped that a loyal clientele would be built.

The Sub-Committee noted that, with the amendments proposed to the application, membership of the theatre would only bring certain privileges in respect of shows and not in respect of consuming alcohol at later hours than any other customers. Conditions were proposed so that after core hours, customers could only purchase alcohol if they were attending a performance or dining. Mr Kolvin stated that there were no proposals to extend the hours for licensable activities and the capacity would remain the same at 480 persons. Furthermore, after core hours, capacity would be reduced to 350 persons and there would be no new admissions to the premises after this time, save for guests of the management.

Mr Kolvin commented that the Applicant Company had spent considerable time addressing the representations and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and marrying these up with the commercial aspirations of the premises. He referred to the revised conditions submitted by the Applicant Company following publication of the agenda and stated that these represented six concessions from the Applicant Company, these being:

• A 30% reduction in capacity after core hours
• No new admissions after core hours
• The removal of a membership scheme previously proposed, following concerns raised by the Licensing Authority
• Removal of ability for customers attending private events to obtain alcohol after 00:00
• Cessation of the use of the Peter Street exit after 22:00
• No deliveries (including delivery and removal of stage equipment) between 23:00 and 08:00 on the following day.

Mr Kolvin stated that no alcohol could be taken outside and there were no proposals for off sales of alcohol. In respect of the smoking area, this would be located within Walker’s Court and would be supervised by staff in the evenings. He referred to the independent report by Adrian Stud, Independent Licensing Consultant which had observed that most customers entered and left the Box premises (also situated within the Walker’s Court development) via Brewer Street as opposed to Peter Street. The Sub-Committee’s attention was then drawn to the security report which stated that Security Industry Approved (SIA) guards would implement a dispersal plan to guide customers away from Peter Street and ensure that they are dispersed down Walker’s Court towards Brewer Street (page 36 of the Licensing Sub-Committee report). Security staff would also patrol the area to deter anti-social behaviour and there would be a sophisticated CCTV system linked to a central control room that was also linked to the Police’s monitoring system. Mr Kolvin advised that the only extension the Applicant Company was seeking was for the terminal opening hours to be extended to 01:30 Monday to Saturday and 23.00 on Sunday in order to provide a dispersal period of 30 minutes after licensable activities had ceased and this was also important in terms of the operation of the premises when late shows were staged.

Mr Kolvin concluded his initial submission by asserting that the longer dispersal period would be advantageous in ensuring customers would not all leave at the same and so there would be a calmer dispersal. As there would be no new admissions to the premises after core hours and the capacity would be reduced after core hours, this would also reduce the number of customers in the area at later hours. Residents of Peter Street would also benefit from the enhanced security to be provided by the Applicant Company and customers being directed away from Peter Street towards Brewer Street when leaving the premises. Mr Kolvin stated that the nature of the premises as a theatre was recognised by policy as being less problematic and the application would help transform Walker’s Court. In addition, the proposed set of conditions were broadly in accordance with policy and he did not think that an exception to policy needed to be demonstrated for approving an application that was located in a cumulative impact area as the premises operated as a theatre and the hours for licensable activities remained unaltered.

The Sub-Committee noted that the application proposed a greater variety of uses on the premises with more complex spaces involved and asked for a further explanation as to how the licensing requirements would be met. More details were also sought in respect of the holding area in the plans and what time would the bars be closing. Members asked how capacity would be reduced after core hours in view of the fact that potentially up to 480 customers could be on the premises before this time. Details of staff numbers were also sought and a question was asked as to why the model restaurant condition 66 for the restaurant area had not been proposed.

Barry Panto (Legal Adviser) asked whether the Applicant Company would agree to deleting ‘or private events whenever either of those activities are taking place’ with regard to proposed condition 38 of the revised conditions included in the additional representations. The concern about the condition as drafted was that it meant that alcohol could be sold and consumed at private events at any time without there being any requirement for the premises to be used as a performance venue.  

In reply to the issues raised by the Sub-Committee, Alun Thomas (Solicitor, Legal Representative for the Applicant Company) referred to the revised conditions in the additional representations made by the Applicant Company that he felt would ensure that the Applicant Company could meet the licensing objectives. In Particular, he referred to proposed condition 3 restricting capacity after core hours and condition 4, which stated that “Save for the first floor restaurant bar, licensable activities shall be restricted to persons attending a ticketed theatre show or performance or persons attending a pre-booked, private event.”

Alun Thomas confirmed that reference to the blue shaded area in the plans was no longer applicable and that the proposed hours for licensable activities now applied to the first, second and third floors. With regard to the reference to a ‘holding area’, he advised that capacity would only be around 15 persons. The bars would close at 01:00 and there would be no admission to these after core hours. In respect of capacity after core hours, when the auditorium was seated, it had a capacity of 190 persons, whilst the first floor area seating capacity was 170 persons, which would effectively limit the capacity of the premises after this time [though it was actually noted that the seating capacity for the auditorium was 170 and the restaurant capacity on the first floor was 190]. In addition, a number of customers were likely to leave once performances were over. Alun Thomas confirmed that customers would not be able to leave the premises from the Peter Street access point after 22:00. He added that the Applicant Company’s proposals were similar to how the Soho Theatre and the Curzon Soho operated and policy acknowledged that bars within theatres were commonplace.

Mr Kolvin agreed on behalf of the Applicant Company to the removal of the words ‘or private events whenever either of those activities are taking place’ in respect of revised condition 38. Revised condition 5 also addressed noise breakout issues from the premises and revised conditions 9 to 15 were to be expected for a venue hosting performances. In respect of the first floor, Mr Kolvin stated the model restaurant condition 66 was not appropriate in this instance as the area operated more as a restaurant and bar (also serving customers of the theatre) and not all customers would want to dine.

The Sub-Committee heard that during late shows, there would be 5 front of house staff, at least 6 hospitality staff and 2 SIA supervisors, although this number could be increased if it was deemed necessary for a particular event. The SIA supervisors would also direct customers through Walker’s Court in the direction of Brewer Street.

Ian Watson (Environmental Health) then addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that the capacity would remain the same at 480 people overall, subject to the capacity limit being signed off after completion of works. There were also floor specific capacities that would apply. Ian Watson informed the Sub-Committee that he had attended pre-application meetings with the Applicant Company to discuss various aspects of the application. He advised that the noise impact assessment had been submitted and the auditorium was designed to contain a volume of 106 decibels, which was considerably greater than the noise the licensable activities were likely to generate. However, if 106 decibels was reached, breakout noise was calculated at 32 decibels, well below the background noise for the area and so this was considered acceptable.

Ian Watson welcomed proposals to encourage customers to disperse towards Brewer Street, but added that staff could not force customers to take this route. SIA staff would also need to apply reasonable robustness to stop customers from loitering in the area after leaving the premises and possibly causing disturbance through loud talking. The Sub-Committee noted that there would be no speakers at the box office on the ground floor level. Ian Watson stated that under the current premises licence, there was no exit onto Peter Street from the restaurant. With regard to the smoking area, he commented that a capacity limit would need to be set. Ian Watson concluded his submission by advising that he had no concerns about the premises impacting upon residents operationally, apart from how it would manage customers leaving the premises at later hours.

In reply to a question from the Sub-Committee, Alun Thomas confirmed on behalf of the Applicant Company to add a condition in relation to the smoking area and a capacity limit for it (later identified as a supervised area within Walker’s Court subject to a maximum of 20 smokers at any one time).

Angela Seaward (Licensing Authority) then addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that a site visit had been undertaken and she was maintaining her representation as the premises was located within a cumulative impact area. She stated the relevant policies, CIP1, HRS1, PVC2 and PB2 should be taken into consideration in determining this application. Angela Seward added that in relation to the proposed condition regarding the sale of alcohol after core hours, Policy PB2 should apply.

In reply to a query from the Sub-Committee, Rachel Edwards (Artistic Director, Boulevard Theatre) advised that there was likely to be 2 matinees a week starting at 14:00, evening performances would commence at 19:30 and late performances would start between 23:00 and 00:00 on Fridays and Saturdays.

Richard Brown (Solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau, representing Charity Charity and Lucy Haine) then addressed the Sub-Committee and began by stating that

residents welcomed some aspects of the application and there had been agreement with the Applicant Company on some matters. However, on the current restaurant licence, he commented that restaurant model condition 66 applied throughout. Under the proposals, there was potential for increased bar use which, in theory at least, could lead to 190 customers on the premises vertically drinking, particularly where private events to core hours were taking place.  The key issue for residents was the proposal to extend opening hours to 01:30 as there were concerns that they would be exposed to noise and disturbance from customers at a later time, meaning there was a smaller window for them to be able to sleep. Richard Brown therefore stated that the terminal hour for opening times should be no later than 01:00. The standing and seating capacity in the auditorium had also increased. Richard Brown stated that residents agreed with the proposed condition to prevent new admissions to the premises after core hours. He sought a further explanation as to why the proposed blue hatched area in the plans that had been originally included in the application had been withdrawn. Richard Brown noted that the licence granted in 2014 had not been in operation.

With regard to customer dispersal, Richard Brown stated that some customers would still want to leave via Peter Street, depending on where they were returning to, and in the event of the Crossrail opening, it would make sense for users of this line to do so. In any event, SIA staff could not compel residents to leave via a route heading towards Brewer Street. Turning to policy, Richard Brown asserted that both policies PVC2 and PB2 should apply, and although policy was slightly more relaxed in respect of performance venues, any applications where general bar use was possible in a cumulative impact area needed to demonstrate exception to policy. He expressed concern that there would be an increase in people leaving the premises at late hours after late shows, particularly if the terminal opening hour was 01:30 and security staff would need to be clear how they managed this. In respect of revised condition 30 with regard to deliveries (including movement of stage equipment), residents requested that there be no such activity between 22:00 and 08:00 Monday to Saturday and no activity at all of this type on Sunday. Richard Brown concurred with Barry Panto’s suggestion in respect of revised condition 38 and he also felt there should be a condition requesting the operation of a noise limiter. He suggested that a condition be added to personalise the premises licence to the Applicant Company and also a condition to manage potential nuisance caused by pedicabs.

The Sub-Committee sought a further explanation as to why proposals for licensable activities regarding the blue hatched area in the plans had been withdrawn. In reply, Mr Kolvin stated that it would be difficult to operate in this manner during private events, so it would be more straightforward to add a condition stating that private events terminate no later than core hours.

David Gleeson (The Soho Society) then addressed the Sub-Committee and began by stating that residents were interested in some aspects of what the application had to offer, especially in respect of enhancing the cultural aspect for the area. However, crime rates for April 2011 stood at 1,011 reported cases, an increase from 560 cases in the previous year. Therefore, residents objected to extending the terminal opening hour to 01:30 and it should be noted that this was the most densely residential area in Soho which should be taken into consideration. Dispersal of customers from licenced premises was also a continuing issue for the area.

Charity Charity (local resident) stated that she had lived in the area since 2010 and used to work as a stage manager. She not only was expressing her own views, but also those of the residents of Salt House. She thanked the Applicant Company for being shown the premises and for the steps being taken to address residents’ concerns. However, residents were against the proposed terminal time for opening hours being extended to 01:30. Although residents expected Soho to be bustling, they did not want to be disturbed at an even later time. The impact of the premises being permitted to remain open until 01:30,with nearby Berwick Street market opening at 07:30, would mean residents may only get 6 hours sleep, 2 hours below the recommended 8 hours. The soundscape of the local area had also changed and Ms Charity suggested that the proposed glass bridges, although visually appealing, could reflect noise back to Peter Street. Furthermore, Salt House had timber shutters which helped communicate noise back to the building and the problem was exacerbated when the shutters were open during warmer weather. Ms Charity suggested that customers leaving at 01:30 would be different in nature than those leaving at 01:00, as they would have been inside the premises for longer and less sensitive to noise. She concluded by stating that although Soho was a cultural area, the local community should be protected as noise levels rose ever higher.

Lucy Haine (local resident) stated that she had lived in the area for 20 years, and although she supported the creative industries, she was concerned with anti-social behaviour in the area. She stated that because Peter Street was a dead-end road, this tended to draw in the majority of anti-social behaviour in the area and residents had taken to installing CCTV to address this. Ms Haine felt it was the duty of the Applicant Company and other operators to take some responsibility for the whole of Peter Street. She concurred with other residents’ views that an additional 30 minutes added to the end of the terminal opening hour would have a crucial effect on residents’ ability to sleep, whilst concerns were also expressed that corporate use of the premises during private events may involve a different clientele than the typical theatre goer and this could lead to more noise. Ms Haine also requested that in respect of deliveries, that there be no deliveries on Sundays and that this activity terminate at 15:00 on Saturdays.

Andrew Murray (local resident) advised that he was representing Pepper House Residents’ Association and in recognising the importance of the application for the area, he stated that he had no concerns with the ambition and desire of the Applicant Company. However, the needs of residents needed to be balanced, and because of the problems already being experienced, if anything the hours for the premises should be cut back. He felt that the application as proposed would inevitably lead to more noise because of the increase of visitors to the area at later hours. A short, sharp noise could be very disruptive to sleep, therefore it was important that the terminal opening hour was not extended to the later time of 01:30. In respect of the Applicant Company’s assertion that it would reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, Mr Murray suggested that it would simply displace crime to different streets. He felt that the proposals would lead to noise nuisance, anti-social behaviour and crime worsening in the area and he pondered what would happen if the operation of the premises proved commercially unsuccessful. Although a review of a premises licence was always possible, he thought that was an unfair burden to be placed on residents who wanted the anticipated problems to be avoided. 

Alun Thomas then remarked for the record that he had not received notice that Andrew Murray was going to attend the hearing to address the Sub-Committee, however the Applicant Company had not raised an objection to him speaking.

Members noted that potentially the bar area within the premises was quite large and they sought views from the Applicant Company as to how they would demonstrate that this would not add to cumulative impact and nuisance in the area. The Sub-Committee also asked whether proposals to extend private events to core hours was because this was perceived as a crucial element to how the premises operated.

In reply, Mr Kolvin stated that the effectiveness of the management of the premises would be important in ensuring that public nuisance did not increase. On behalf of the Applicant Company, he agreed to proposing a condition with regard to the smoking area, including capacity. The current licence did not require the operator to undertake any controls in respect of Peter Street, but this was now being offered in this application and could be set out by way of condition. In respect of the Licensing Authority representation, Mr  Kolvin asserted that as the bar area would be ancillary to the premises use as a theatre, then policy PCV2 applied and this is why revised condition 38 had been offered, whilst policy PB2 would not apply as this  was only relevant where premises were operating a general bar. In addition, the hours proposed for licensable activities were within core hours. It was intended to keep performances running at the premises throughout the year and the period in between shows would be no longer than a week. Private events would also be constrained by the theatre activities. Mr Kolvin acknowledged that staff could not force customers to not disperse in the direction of Peter Street, however every effort would be made to direct them south towards Brewer Street. He added that theatre goers were markedly different to a nightclub crowd and much less likely to make excessive noise.

Mr Kolvin stated that consideration would be given to amending the condition in relation to deliveries (including movement of stage equipment) and adding a condition to personalise the licence. He reiterated that the Applicant Company was not seeking longer hours for licensable activities and he argued that as crime incidents had risen, this gave more reason to diversify Soho as this application intended and a performance venue was less likely to be source of trouble compared to other types of licensed premises. The presence of security staff and surveillance would also discourage customers and others in the area from making excessive noise. The proposal to permit private events up to core hours was also subject to a number of additional controls and so should not be a cause for concern. Mr Kolvin concluded by stating that the application represented increasing controls in all ways and reducing capacity after core hours would be a real benefit to the area.

The Sub-Committee had regard to all the detailed representations and submissions, including those from persons who had not attended the hearing. It decided to grant the application, subject to the opening hours being amended to a terminal hour of 01:00 Monday to Saturday. The Sub-Committee also amended and added conditions accordingly relating to SIA staff, smokers, CCTV, deliveries, private events and revised condition 38, following the Applicant Company offering these conditions at the hearing. In respect of the sale of alcohol after core hours, the Sub-Committee amended revised condition 3 c) so that it mirrored condition 14 on page 155 of the original report, save the deletion of 14 b) and 14 d). The Sub-Committee also added a condition stating that “Licensable activities and the consumption of alcohol shall be restricted to the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd floor of the premises.”

In determining the application, the Sub-Committee recognised the need to balance a range of views, and whilst the night time economy needed to be supported which this application would add to, the potential adverse effects on residents resulting from the operation of the premises also needed to be taken into account. In view of this, a balance needed to be struck between the concerns of residents, whilst not impeding the operation of the premises. It was noted that after core hours alcohol could only be sold to persons attending a ticketed show or performance on that day or to seated persons taking a table meal there and for consumption by such a person as ancillary to their meal. The capacity of the premises also had to reduce after core hours. Prior to core hours there was a potential for the first-floor restaurant and bar to be drink led but that was a possibility under the existing Boulevard licence and was still subject to the overall requirement that the sale and consumption of alcohol had to be ancillary to the use of the premises as a performance venue.Private events after 22:00 had to be restricted to no more than 25 per calendar year and a maximum capacity of 350 people.

The Sub-Committee noted the concerns raised by residents, particularly in relation to the terminal opening hour and so considered that a terminal hour of 01:00 would address these concerns. The Sub-Committee considered that the decision had regard to policy and to the premises being located in a cumulative impact area, whilst also acknowledging that as a performance venue, the premises was less likely to impact upon the local area than other types of licensed premises. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application, as amended, would not add to cumulative impact and also considered that the conditions to be added to the premises licence would help the Applicant Company to uphold the promotion of the licensing objectives (prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety, and protection of children from harm).

2.

Late Night Refreshment [Indoors Only]

First Floor Restaurant, Auditorium and Theatre Bar:

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 01:00

First Floor Bar (Hatched Blue)

Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30

Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:00

Sunday: 11:00 to 22:30

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings:

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

On Sundays, prior to bank holidays/public holidays extended to 00:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

First, Second and Third Floor:

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 01:00

The area hatched in blue on the first floor of the premises was removed from the application and the plans.

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings to remain unaltered.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol [On and Off sales]

First Floor Restaurant, Auditorium and Theatre Bar:

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 11:00 to 22:30

First Floor Bar (Hatched Blue)

Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 23:30

Friday and Saturday: 10:00 to 00:00

Sunday: 11:00 to 22:30

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings:

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

On Sundays, prior to bank holidays/public holidays extended to 00:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

First, Second and Third Floor:

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 01:00

Sunday: 11:00 to 22:30

The area hatched in blue on the first floor of the premises was removed from the application and the plans.

Off-Sales of alcohol were withdrawn from the application.

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings to remain unaltered.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

4.

Hours premises are open to the public

Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 01:30

Sunday: 08:00 to 23:00

Seasonal variations/non-standard timings:

From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

On Sundays, prior to bank holidays/public holidays extended to 00:00.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted until 01:00 on the day following Monday to Saturday and for the hours applied for on Sunday, subject to conditions as set out below. Seasonal variations and non-standard timings granted as applied for (see reasons for decision in Section 1).