Agenda item

The Admiral Duncan Public House, 54 Old Compton Street, London, W1D 4UD (The Premises”)

19/09810/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors)

Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 03:00

Seasonal variations/ Non-standard timings:

The terminal hour to be 03:00 hours the following day on Bank Holiday Sundays, New Year’s Eve and Christmas Eve.

An additional hour to the terminal hour on the day that British Summertime commences.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for the Admiral Duncan public house, which currently had the benefit of a premises licence for core hours that had been granted in 2005. The new application sought to provide late night refreshment, regulated entertainment and the sale of alcohol ‘on’ and ‘off’ the premises Monday to Saturday between 10:00 and 03:00; and on Sunday between 12:00 and 22:30. The application also sought the British summertime additional hour; with Bank Holiday Sundays, Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve until 03:00. The Sub-Committee noted that the premises were situated in the West End Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

Clare Eames addressed the Sub-Committee of behalf of the applicant who considered that the application would be an exception to cumulative impact under Policy CB2, as the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to the performance of cabaret which was the primary purpose of the Premises. The applicant also suggested that the operation of the Premises was similar to karaoke venues in Westminster, which had been regarded as exceptions to Policy. If the application were to be granted, an acoustic lobby to reduce possible noise nuisance would be constructed as part of a general refresh investment of £70,000 and additional floor staff would be provided at weekends. The applicant confirmed that cabaret events were not ticketed.

Ms Eames commented on the report of the London Night Time Commission, which had considered the development of business, the night time economy and entertainment premises in Westminster. Ms Eames stated that the Admiral Gordon was a dedicated LGBT+ cabaret venue and one of the top drag clubs in London. She considered that the Admiral Gordon was a cultural institution which was uniquely based because of its future and legacy, and highlighted the importance of preserving particular segments of the night time economy such as LGBT premises. The application sought for the Admiral Gordon to continue to operate as it had been, with the sale of alcohol being ancillary to the offer of live stage cabaret entertainment. Following discussions between the applicant, the Environmental Health Service and local residents, the hours for licensable activities that were being sought for Monday to Wednesday had been reduced to 01:00 to mitigate potential impact, with last entry at midnight and a 30 minute dispersal time. The hours being sought for Thursday, Friday and Saturday would remain at 03:00, and the hours for Sunday would not change. Ms Eames stated that the performance of cabaret would be extended to 02:00, which would allow for a more gradual and less impactful dispersal before the terminal hour. During the day the Admiral Gordon would be a place where people could come in for refreshment; and the operation of the Premises would continue to be robustly enforced by conditions.

The Applicant acknowledged that there was a lot of activity in the area, and proposed increasing the number of smokers outside the premises up to 10 until 02:00 after which there would no re-entry. The new premises licence would not take effect before the acoustic lobby had been installed.

Ms Eames informed the Sub-Committee that Stonegate operated 770 venues across the country, and that some of their 33 premises in Westminster had a terminal hour of 03:00.  Stonegate were also an established major operator of LGBT premises, with 14 dedicated venues of which 9 were in London. 

Ms Eames commented on Licensing Policy, and stated that although the Admiral Gordon was located in the West End CIA, Environmental Health had considered

that the premises could be an exception to Cumulative Impact Policy under PBC2 if the sale of alcohol was ancillary to cabaret entertainment. The Sub-Committee noted that Policy PBC2 included theatres, cinemas and other performance venues and qualifying clubs where the sale of alcohol was ancillary to entertainment. Ms Eames suggested that the performance of karaoke as part of the cabaret further supported the application being considered an exception, and not attracting the full rigour and robustness of Cumulative Impact Policy. Ms Eames stated that the prime purpose of the Admiral Duncan would be for cabaret, and that the premises licence would include a condition to provide that no dancing was permitted.

Karl Dixon addressed the Sub-Committee as the Designated Premises Supervisor, and confirmed that cabaret would be performed every night of the week. He also stated that the applicants were committed to what they did, and took great responsibility in maintaining the cultural integrity of the night time economy.

The Sub-Committee heard from Dave Nevitt, who confirmed that the Environmental Health Service maintained their representation on the grounds of public nuisance. Mr Nevitt confirmed that pre-application discussions with the applicant on the scope and nature of the application had been helpful, and that the acoustic report had also helped to identify potential noise control issues and offer solutions.  Environmental Health had expressed concern over the possible impact of noise breakout, dispersal and outdoor activity; and had acknowledged that the premises could be an exception to Cumulative Impact Policy under PBC2. Environmental Health had been happy with the proposed licence conditions and link with Stonegate as the operator of the Premises, but had also been concerned that the later time for last entrance would increase the likelihood of the Premises becoming a destination venue. Mr Nevitt stated that although the proposed improvements to sound management would reduce noise breakout, disturbance could be caused by customers at the later hour and their behaviour would need to be managed. The Sub-Committee commented on the findings of the acoustic report, and noted that the last noise complaint relating to the premises had been received in 2017.

The Sub-Committee expressed concern that customers drinking alcohol without food could contribute to noise during dispersal.  Mr Wright stated that this had not been an issue in the past as customers were well behaved, and that the additional time would allow for a more gradual dispersal with additional floor staff being provided at weekends. Ms Eames commented that the sale of alcohol would continue to be ancillary to the entertainment.

Karyn Abbott addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority, who maintained their representation on the grounds of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and protection of children from harm. Ms Abbott stated that although the Licensing Authority had been happy with the proposed conditions, it considered that the application fell within Policy PB2, and stated that it would be for the Sub-Committee to determine whether exceptional circumstances had been established that would make the application not add to Cumulative Impact.

The Sub-Committee also heard from PC Bryan Lewis, who expressed concerns raised by the Metropolitan Police that the application would undermine the licensing objectives and cause further policing problems. PC Lewis noted that the Admiral Duncan was well run with very few problems arising over the last 10 years, but considered the Premises to be operating as a pub as customers would consider the cabaret as background to alcohol. PC Lewis did not consider that the Premises were comparable with a karaoke venue, as it did not have individual booths.  He also suggested that people leaving the venue would go to look for food and be potential victims of crime; and that problems could be caused by people expecting to gain access to the Premises at the later hour.

The Sub-Committee sought clarification as to whether people would be charged for entry, and Ms Eames commented that entry would be free as it was intended that the entertainment would be available to the community.

Richard Brown addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Soho Society and local residents. Mr Brown agreed that Stonegate were good operators, but expressed concerns over cumulative impact in the Soho area and did not consider that there were circumstances that would make the application an exception to Cumulative Impact Policy. Mr Brown noted that two residential blocks were located near to the Premises, and suggested that the application would introduce more people into the area at 03:00 when the venue closed. The Soho Society did not agree that the application fell within Policy PBC2, and Mr Brown suggested that the key issue was whether the Admiral Duncan was a performance venue with an ancillary bar; or a bar with ancillary performance which would take it outside of the PBC Policy.  He commented that no stage had been shown on the floorplan to the Premises Licence; and that performances were not ticketed or seated, with no pre-booking as was the case with karaoke. The Committee noted that the application for the Adanami karaoke venue had only sought the sale of alcohol until 23:00.  Mr Brown asked whether the cabaret would be constant between 20:00 and 02:00, and suggested that the Admiral Duncan was a pub with entertainment. Mr Brown suggested that defining the Premises as a performance venue as it put on performances could set a precedent that would lead to similar applications from other premises. The Soho Society wished the Premises well, but considered the application to be seeking very serious extensions in hours which was against Cumulative Impact Policy, and accordingly asked that it be refused.

The Sub-Committee heard from Jane Doyle who was a member of the Soho Society and had objected to the application on grounds of crime and disorder, public nuisance, and cumulative impact. Ms Doyle described other licensed premises in Old Compton Street, and referred to instances of drug abuse, anti-social behaviour and robbery which had occurred in the area.

The Sub-Committee also heard from Alison Henry, who had objected to the proposal as a local resident and had considered the application to be driven by profit, rather than as a cabaret venue for the wider LGBT+ community. Ms Henry commented that the level of noise from the Premises increased during performances and fell during breaks, reaching a peak when performances ended.  Ms Henry confirmed that she had been a local resident since 1983, and that the Premises had changed to a gay venue in 1997 with the intention of providing live entertainment and cabaret ancillary to the pub. Ms Henry considered that the Admiral Duncan was of cultural significance, but was operating as a pub that offered cabaret.

Ms Eames highlighted the high level of operation for the other businesses run by the applicant, and commented that there was no police evidence of alcohol related issues associated with the Premises. She suggested that it could not be assumed that the later hours would lead to problems, and referred to previous case law which had found that the type of clientele attracted to a premises had a material part to play in the decision. Previous case law relating to BrewDog in Leeds had also found that a simple increase in footfall had not been a reason to refuse permission. Ms Eames highlighted the view of the Licensing Service and Environmental Health that the application fell within Policy PBC2, and commented that concerns relating to noise and dispersal could be dealt with by robust conditions. She suggested that the existing management had mitigated the risk of undermining the licensing objectives, and believed the application had been well crafted by an experienced operator who would improve the existing situation.

Mr Brown commented that the BrewDog case referred to by the applicant had been a Magistrate’s Court decision in Leeds which had no jurisdiction, and which had been determined with reference to Leeds’ Policy. He suggested that in terms of Westminster’s Policy, the application would retain people in a CIA and add to impact.

The representatives from the Soho Society expressed concern that an extension of operating hours could result in the area developing problems similar to those in other parts of Old Compton Street, and strongly opposed any extension of hours on any day of the week. 

PC Lewis stated that Friday and Saturday were the busiest days for crime and disorder.

The Sub-Committee recognised that the premises were well run, and that the operator was respected across Westminster. The Sub-Committee had, however, also heard from the Police and from the Soho Society and its advisors that the Premises were known as a pub with cabaret performances. The Sub-Committee, while cognisant of the submission made by the applicant, had taken the view that this did not fall under Policy PBC2. The Sub-Committee had heard from residents regarding nuisance and problems associated with later hours, which were not necessarily from the Admiral Duncan. The Sub-Committee had also heard from the Police concerning criminal activity patterns associated with any later hours of operation. The Premises had many residential properties surrounding it, and the Sub-Committee considered the potential nuisance arising from these later hours of operation.

Whilst the Sub-committee appreciated the points made regarding the dispersal policy, it did not feel that this would eradicate the potential problems likely to be faced by residents.  The Sub-Committee noted the point that this was a cultural venue on account of it being for the LGBT+ community, but on the merits of this case felt that exceptionality had not been proved on this occasion. The Sub-Committee thanked everyone for their detailed submissions and for the helpful acoustic report. However in conclusion, and having taken into account all the evidence put before it, the Sub-Committee felt that the conditions offered by the applicant would not have the overall effect of promoting the Licensing objectives, and the application was therefore refused.

2.

Provision of films, live music, recorded music, performance of dance and anything of a similar description (Indoors)

Monday to Saturday:  10:00 to 03:00

Sunday:                                   12:00 to 22:30

The terminal hour to be 03:00 hours the following day on Bank Holiday Sundays, New Year’s Eve and Christmas Eve.

An additional hour to the terminal hour on the day that British Summertime commences.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee refused the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On and Off Sales

Monday to Saturday:  10:00 to 03:00

Sunday:                                   12:00 to 22:30

Seasonal variations/ Non-standard timings:

The terminal hour to be 03:00 hours the following day on Bank Holiday Sundays, New Year’s Eve and Christmas Eve.

An additional hour to the terminal hour on the day that British Summertime commences.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee refused the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

4.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Saturday: 10:00 to 03:30

Sunday:                                   12:00 to 23:00

Seasonal variations/ Non-standard timings:

The terminal hour to be 03:00 hours the following day on Bank Holiday Sundays, New Year’s Eve and Christmas Eve.

An additional hour to the terminal hour on the day that British Summertime commences.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).