Agenda item

We Work, Ground To Fourth Floor 8-14 Meard Street London W1F 0EQ (“The Premises”) 19/12338/LIPN

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On Sales

Monday to Saturday 12:00 to 23:00

Sunday 12:00 to 22:30

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Applicant agreed for the Sunday ‘on sales’ hours to be amended and that the supply of alcohol to cease at 22.30.

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

Councillor Tim Mitchell, Chair, declared that he knew David Beida (Objector, Soho Society) and members of the Soho Society. Councillor Mitchell advised that he had not discussed the Application with Mr Beida or with any other member of the Soho Society. 

The Sub-Committee considered an application by 13 Meard Street Tennant Limited (“The Applicant”) for a new premises licence in respect of Ground To Fourth Floor 8-14 Meard Street London W1F 0EQ.

Mr Kevin Jackaman, Licensing Officer, introduced the application to the Sub-Committee and advised that it was proposed for the Premises to operate as an office space with the provision of refreshment facilities limited to designated officer users and bona fide guests. The Applicant sought on sales of alcohol from 12:00 to 23:00 hours Monday to Sunday. The Premises are not open to the public. Mr Jackaman advised that representation had been received from Environmental Health, the Licensing Authority and eleven residents. There were additional representations submitted by Mr Peter Schultz on behalf of the Soho Society on 19 November 2019 and these were circulated to all parties. The Premises was situated in the West Cumulative Impact Area. 

Mr Craig Baylis the Applicant’s Legal Representative advised that We Works was to occupy the Premises and that the company provided office space and meeting rooms for their members. The Applicant has over 40 premises in the UK and eight of these are located within the Borough. He advised that the Applicant intended for the Premises to operate in the same style as it’s other branches and sought the same conditions that were imposed on nearby establishments. Mr Baylis informed that Planning Permission stipulated that the building must be used as an office and confirmed that all licensable activities would be ancillary to this specification. The Premises would for the avoidance of doubt not operate as a bar or a public house.

Mr Baylis advised that the Premises comprised of a lounge/café, office workspace and meeting rooms. He informed that Members paid £1000 per month to use the facilities and used the space for a wide range of activities and events which include undertaking personal work, launching ‘start ups’, meeting clients, networking and socialising. Mr Baylis advised that the Premises was often used for ‘start up companies’ to launch their products. He advised that alcohol beverages were not always consumed at these events and on occasions members would bring their own alcohol beverages. The Premises would not be used for parties and there would be no music played or DJs. Mr Baylis advised that We Work Membership Scheme assigned members to a building and that individuals could use the facilities of other branches if they booked in advance. These facilities include meeting rooms. The Sub-Committee was advised that there were security barriers in the entrance of the Premises and that only members and their guests would be permitted into the building.

The Sub-Committee were shown pictures of the Premises layout and advised that there would be a maximum of 300 desks. The primary use of the building is for work space and the supply of beer is incidental. These supplies would be solely for members working at the Premises. Mr Baylis advised that alcohol would be in a designated area and that this part of the Premises would usually be vacated by 20:30hrs and not used during the weekends. He advised                                the Sub-Committee that a new planning application and new licence would need to be submitted if the premises were to operate as a bar. He stated that Members and their guests were required to adhere to a strict code of conduct and that individual’s membership would be terminated if they did not comply. The Sub-Committee was advised that there had been no concerns raised with the other premises which were operated by We Works.

Mr Baylis advised  that members would be instructed to use the alleyway to smoke when the roof terrace closed at 20:30 hours. He commented that this aspect would not be regulated if the Premises were to operate as a usual office building. The Sub-Committee noted that the alleyway was near residential buildings.

Following questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Baylis advised that the alcohol beverages on offer would be limited to larger and cider. These beverages will be dispersed via taps, which would be turned on at 15:00 hours and closed at 21:00 hours. Mr Baylis advised that longer hours than the above time frame had been requested and this was to ensure that beverages are available for Members using the facilities at later hours. He advised that a ‘community business spirit’ was fostered and that members were given an opportunity to network and offer their services to their counterparts. These professionals included Accountants and IT Engineers. The events which are held are corporate led.

In response to questions, Mr Baylis advised that Members are allocated access cards and are assigned to a building. All Premises have a help desk. He confirmed that individuals would need to pre-book in advance if they wished to work in a different premise from the office which they were assigned too. At current there is a waiting list to join We Works.

Councillor Freeman advised that he had previously sat on a Licensing Application for We Works. Mr Baylis in response to questions advised that the supply of alcohol in these premises were available for 24 hours and that beer taps were usually closed at 21:00 hours. There are no facilities for sleeping at the Premises and usage of the buildings normally end at 18:00 hours.

Karyn Abbot, Licensing Authority Officer, advised that representation had been maintained on the grounds of the four Licensing Objectives (Public Nuisance, Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety and Protection from Children from harm). She advised that the Premises was in the West End Cumulative Impact Area. Ms Abbot advised that the hours sought were within core hours and reminded that  Policy PB2 paragraph . 2.5.23 of the City Councils Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”) refers stipulated that any new licences for pubs and bars in the cumulative impact area should be limited to exceptional circumstances. She commented that access to the Premises would be via an ID only. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Premises Terrace would be cleared by 20:30 hours and not 21:00 hours as printed in the report.

Mr David Nevitt, Environmental Health Officer, advised that he had dealt with other We Works Licensing Applications and that no concerns or complaints had been received in connection with the operations of these other branches. He commented the Applicant operated under strict conditions. Mr Nevitt advised that the Application was over several floors. The Sub-Committee was advised that the dispensing of alcohol would be in a designated area and that members were not expected to roam around the building. The Applicant wishes the Premises to have the same licensing conditions as their other branches as far as possible. The main function of the building is to operate as an office and the supply of alcohol will be restricted to, We Work members, employee of member companies and their bona fide guests. The Premises will be minded by a We Works Community Manager and area where alcohol is supplied will be patrolled. These patrols will be constant.

Mr Nevitt advised that the Premises had  external security gates and confirmed that the Premises was not open to the public. He advised that the Premises terraces were located near to resident’s buildings and that use of this area would cease at 20:30 hours. This was required as part of the Planning Permission. Mr Nevitt advised that there were concerns that residents on Meard Street would experience nuisance and confirmed that the mentioned area was pedestrianised. He advised that it was preferred for smokers to remain on the terrace and not at the front of the Premises. There is no expectation for there to be many smokers. Mr Nevitt confirmed that the Premises was in a largely residential area and that there were no concerns that there would be any public nuisance. Mr Nevitt advised that representation had been maintained by Environmental Health and this was because of the objections received from the eleven residents.

Mr David Beida, local resident, confirmed that he had not discussed the Application with Councillor Tim Mitchell (Chair) and was unaware that he would be chairing. He advised that he had resided at his dwellings since 1993. Mr Beida advised that Meard Street and surrounding areas comprised of a mixture of small shops, restaurants and bespoke tailors. The vicinity predominately comprises of residential buildings and these properties were a mixture of private housing and those owned by Housing Associations. He advised that Meard Street was relatively quiet and that there were properties in which the bedrooms were front facing.   

Mr Beida referred to Appendix 1 on pg. 17 of Licensing Sub-Committee Report which contained a floor plan of the licensing area. Mr Beida advised that the plans did not depict that the lounge was directly facing residential buildings located at Meard Street. He commented that the hours requested were not within the core hours and highlighted that the timings requested for the supply of alcohol on Sunday was 23:00 and not 22:30 hours.  Mr Beida referred to the We Works online advertisement and commented that the description of the Premises on Meard Street did not mention that the building was surrounded by private housing. He commented that the surrounding areas of other We Works branches differed to that of Meard Street.

Mr Beida circulated copies of the online advertisement placed by We Works for the Premises at Meard Street. The Chair noted that the documents would be classified as late evidence and advised that they would be accepted.

Mr Peter Schultz, local resident raised concerns about the ‘control and management’ of the supply of alcohol’ and commented that there would be no staff on the premises after 17:00 hours or during the weekends. He highlighted that the Premises did not have a Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) on the Premises to control the licensable activities. Mr Schultz advised that he had made telephone enquiries about how the licensable activities on the Premises was to be managed and advised that he was still unaware on how the above would be undertaken.  He commented that the supply of alcohol would effectively be for 24 hours. The Sub-Committee was advised that there would be no waiter service or supervision of members after 17:00 hours.

Mr Schultz advised that there were concerns on how many guests would be permitted for each member and the number of events that would be held. The Sub-Committee noted that the ground floor would be used for events and there were was no information to say  how these will be properly supervised and questioned whether this arrangement met the promotion of the licensing objectives. There were concerns that the Premises may become a designated spot for ‘after work’ drinks and encourage individuals to travel there. He advised that the lack of supervision at the Premises meant that the licensing objectives would not be met and suggested for a DPS to be present and the supply of alcohol to be limited.

Mr Schultz commented that there was awareness that office spaces in the area was needed and there had been a loss in the number of these premises. He commented that there should be a balance of residential buildings, commercial space and office buildings.

Mr Baylis advised the Sub-Committee that the We Works operational schedules would alleviate the concerns raised. He advised the Sub-Committee thatthe exceptional rule contained within Policy PB2 (paragrapah  2.5.23 of the SLP refers)  was met as the supply of alcohol would be limited to Members working at the Premises and their bona fide guests. The Sub-Committee commented that any member could use the Premises and that the group had over 4000 members. The Committee queried whether this would have a bearing on the ‘exceptional rule’. In response to questions Mr Baylis advised that prospective We Works members at the Meard Street Office would be allocated unique membership cards and would be required to access the building via the main gates. He advised that the advertisement for membership for Meard Street stated that only members could use this site. 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Baylis advised that membership to the We Works scheme did not give members automatic access to all the buildings that the company were based. He confirmed that members whose office base was not at Meard Street would be required to book in advance if they wished to use this premises. The Sub-Committee was advised that a meeting room would also need to be available before their request can be processed. In response to the Legal Advisor to the Committee , Mr Baylis confirmed that all Members ID Cards were restricted to a single particular site.

Mr Schultz advised that he had attended a meeting with We Works and commented that he was aware that membership of the scheme did not give automatic access to all of the Applicant’s premises. He advised that there was particular concern that the lounge in the Premises could be misused and that access to this area was not restricted. The Sub-Committee was advised that the lounge and meeting rooms at the Premises all faced Meard Street and these rooms were opposite residential buildings.

Mr Schultz advised that he supported the submission from Mr Beida and confirmed that the Premises was located in a vibrant mixed area. He commented that he had resided in the area for over 30years and held no anti-business sentiments. The Sub-Committee was advised that the area was predominantly residential and comprised of largely Georgian period houses. He commented that these style of properties had poor sound insulation and noise would penetrate through the walls. Mr Schultz advised that these Premises had been converted and that residents lived in the basement, ground floor and the upper floors of these buildings. The Sub-Committee was advised that smoke from pedestrian’s cigarettes would travel into resident’s homes.  Mr Schultz also raised concerns about cumulative impact and the changing nature of the area.

Mr Schultz queried whether the Premises should be considered as an office and commented that alcohol was being supplied and this was typical feature of a bar.  He highlighted that unlike a bar the supply of alcohol would be done via a tap rather than a waited service. The Sub-Committee was advised that the subscribers to We Works were able to chose locations where they wanted to work from.

Mr Peter Cave, local resident advised that he had resided at his dwellings for over 20 years and stated that he supported the submission which had been made by both residents. He advised that We Works online advertisement included a picture of his property and had several errors which included the company’s name. Mr Cave commented that there were several uncertainties and contradictions with the application. He stated that members would be allowed to roam the Premises with alcoholic beverages and that there were uncertainties about the number of guests that each member would be permitted. The Sub-Committee were reminded that there could potentially be over 300 members and each of these individuals could each bring several guests. There were concerns about the lounge and congregation in this section of the building and there being a ‘spill out’ from the vicinity. Members were advised that the noise emanating from this area would cause a public nuisance to occupiers in adjacent properties.

Mr Cave commented that there had been no confirmation that music would not be played at the Premises. There were concerns that events could continue until late in the evening and the hours sought for licensable activities. He reminded the Sub-Committee that individuals were permitted to bring alcohol to the Premises and raised concerns over the dispersal of members. He highlighted that Meard Street and surrounding areas were pedestrianised. 

Mr Victor Salussolia, local resident, advised that he had lived at his property for a long period and commented that Meard Street comprised of largely residential properties. He advised that the area had a good ‘community spirit’. Mr Salussolia raised concerns over noise nuisance emanating from the Premises and advised that residents were already affected by noise travelling from Wardour Street. The Sub-Committee noted that there were concerns over the supply of alcohol and the number of delegates attending events held at the Premises.

Ms Marina Tempia, local resident, advised the Sub-Committee that there were concerns about the large numbers of Members using the Premises and potential disturbances to residents ‘daily lives’. She informed the Sub-Committee that Meard Street and surrounding areas were largely pedestrianised. She advised that there were anti-social behaviour in the vicinity. Ms Tempia highlighted  that the Premises would have the License for an indefinite period if granted and confirmed that there were concerns that a large premise would be in operation in a predominately residential setting. There were concerns that the Premises could be converted into a restaurant.

Ms Tempia recommended for the Licence to be limited personally to We Works  and that the Applicant should be required to surrender the Licence once they vacate the building. This would help to protect the surrounding areas.  The Sub-Committee was advised that the other nearby establishments did not have front covers. Ms Tempia advised that the Sub-Committee should take into consideration the Premises locality and its proximity to residential buildings. The Sub-Committee were advised that the Premises terminal hours should be restricted until 20:00 hours or 21:00 hours and the supply of alcohol be limited to specific persons.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Baylis informed that access to We Works premises was governed by contract and that Members paid a fee of £1000 to work in their buildings.  He confirmed that the office space was limited and that members could pre-book rooms at various branches if they were available. The Sub-Committee were reminded that members were assigned to a dedicated site and that the planning permission conditions restricted the use of the building. Mr Baylis advised that Conditions proposed required that all licensable activities were ancillary to the main function of the premises as offices. The supply of alcohol will be limited to specific persons.

Mr Baylis highlighted that there had not been any representation from the Metropolitan Police. He also stated  that We Works operated in three premises which were located in Soho London and that there were no concerns raised about their operational models. It was confirmed that there will be no music and dancing at the Premises and members would not be expected to ‘spill out’ onto the pavements. Mr Baylis advised that a Condition which stipulated that alcohol could not be taken out of the Premises would be accepted.

Following questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Baylis agreed that the Model Condition 12 which stipulated that no nuisance should emanate from the Premises would be accepted. Mr Baylis advised that the External Staff and Community Team supervised the use of the alcohol beverage taps. He advised that the security team members receive training on ‘alcohol management’ and this will include how to turn ‘taps’ off. The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises comprised of four floors and that members could take alcohol beverages in any part of the building. Mr Baylis advised that members could bring their own alcohol and that events held at the Premises would mainly be business meetings and corporate functions.

Mr Baylis advised  that the primary consumption of alcohol would be between 15:00 hours and 21:00hours. He confirmed that the hours sought in the application was undertaken in order to accommodate events taking place later during the day and the requirement to apply for Temporary Events Notices (TENS). The Sub-Committee was advised that other Premises which were operated by We Works had the same conditions and operational times. It was stated that the Application before the Committee were the same as the other localities. He commented that the alcohol was supplied until 23:00 hours was per their other Premises.  Mr Baylis advised that the requirement for the supply of alcohol to cease at 22:30 hours on Sunday would be accepted.

The Sub-Committee held a discussion on what was considered as nuisance and advised by the Legal Advisor to the Committee that the model condition in respect of nuisance  had been universally tested and had a wide threshold. These includes noise and vibrations.

Mr Beida advised the Sub-Committee that Meard Street was different from the other localities which We Works operated. Mr Beida commented that a picture of the residents property was used in a We Works advertisement and that the images was still on the company’s website nor was there any apology received for its usage. The Sub-Committee requested that this be rectified. 

Having carefully listened to the Applicant, Environmental Health, the Licensing Authority and residents the Sub-Committee granted the Application with Conditions. In granting the Application the Sub-Committee took into consideration the Premises locality and noted that it differed from other nearby sites. The Committee  therefore imposed conditions to reflect the above. These included imposing  Model Condition 12 on noise prevention and restricting the use of a Terrace until 20:30 hours during Mondays to Fridays. The Sub-Committee also stipulated that the Applicant work with Environment Health in identifying a suitable location for designated smoking so this did not cause a nuisance to residents. The Sub-Committee noted that the primarily use of the Premises was an office and that all licensable activities would be ancillary thereto. The entrance to the Premises was restricted to members and their bona fide guests. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed to conditions which restricted the supply of alcohol to beer, wine and ciders. The Sub-Committee noted that the supply of alcohol was available until only 21:00hrs. The Sub-Committee agreed that the Applicant was able to demonstrate that the application was an exception to policy and on that basis the conditions imposed would have the overall effect of ensuring the promotion of  the licensing objectives

2.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

The premises are closed to the public.

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).