Agenda item

Ward CIA*	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
West End	No’s. 1-8 Davies Mews, London W1K 5AB	New Premises Licence	20/09233/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area

 

Present:                   Lana Tricker, Solicitor, Lt Law (representing the applicant); Simon Cummin (for the applicant); Louis Hartshorne (for the applicant).

 

Representations:    Representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service; the Licensing Authority; and local residents.

Applicant:                Hartshorne Hook Enterprises Ltd

Ward:                       Bryanston and Dorset Square

CIA[1]:                         None

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence for a venue which the applicant was transforming into a performance space which would operate as a theatre space offering a variety of productions, performances and an immersive theatre setting where attendees would be invited to be part of the theatre production. The application was for a time-limited licence until 31 July 2006.

INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the Members of the Sub Committee and the Council Officers who would be supporting the Sub Committee before explaining the procedure that would be followed at the meeting.

The Chairman then invited the Presenting Officer, Mr Kevin Jackaman, to present the report.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Mr Kevin Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer

Mr Jackaman, Licensing Officer, summarised the application as set out in the report before the Sub Committee. The application was for a time-limited licence to July 2026. Representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service and one other interested party who was not represented at today’s meeting. It was noted that the premises were within the West End Ward and did not fall within any Cumulative Impact Area.

Presentation by Ms Lana Tricker of LT Law on Behalf of the Applicant

Ms Tricker stated that the applicants, Hartshorn Hook Enterprises Ltd, were applying for a five year time-limited premises licence for an Immersive Doctor Who Experience.

The applicant was an award-winning theatre company that transformed vacant buildings into live theatre sets. £4.2 million had been spent on building the Doctor Who set at 1-8 Davies Mews, and installing an acoustic system. The estimated running costs for the Doctor Who Immersive Theatre shows were £100,000 per week. It was noted that the applicant already had a premises licence for No. 56 Davies Street which was next door where the Immersive Great Gatsby Show was running.

Ms Tricker described the content of the show, noting that it would be one of the most expensive immersive theatre productions in London. Shows would have staggered start times such that, as one audience of up to 200 persons, having seen the first part of the show, descended into the basement area for the second part of the show, a new audience would enter the ground floor area for the start of the next show. Therefore, there could be up to 400 persons in the premises at any one time but there would be no overlapping of the two audiences either entering the premises, watching the shows, or exiting the premises. There would be three shows a day.

The applicants planned to open the shows in April of next year, coronavirus permitting, and shows would run Tuesday to Sunday, with no performances on Monday. The entrance would be on Davies Mews, nearest to South Molton Lane. Audiences would purchase their tickets online and would be provided with information on terms and conditions including dispersal and informing them that there was no right of re-entry after leaving the premises.

Entrances to the premises would be supervised by SIA badged door supervisors who would wear Hi Viz jackets when outside the premises clearly, identifying who they were, as well as clearly visible identification when inside the premises. There would also be a front of house manager and a show manager who would liaise in letting guests into the pre-show foyer and bar area and then into the show.

Ms Tricker described the procedures that would be followed when checking tickets as guests entered the premises and how the queues to the shows would be managed before guests entered a pre-show interactive experience prior to being taken around the venue/show by a team of mostly theatre actors. At the conclusion of the show, guests could go to the bar and/or participate in some interactive photo opportunities. These after-show activities would stagger dispersal of guests from the premises. Ms Tricker then detailed showtimes and arrangements for dispersal of guests when leaving the premises.

Ms Tricker stated that agreement had been reached with the Environmental Health Service (EHS) on proposed conditions and there was an ongoing dialogue between the applicant and a local resident who had objected to the application. To accommodate concerns expressed by EHS regarding opening hours, the applicant had agreed to some reduction in the hours sought. She stated that the hours that had been sought were to promote the licensing objectives and to prevent guests leaving both the Doctor Who show and the Great Gatsby show in the nearby premises at 56 Davies Mews at the same time.

Regarding holding events, including corporate events, at the venue, Ms Tricker stated that, based on events held at The Great Gatsby venue, these numbered less than one week and tended to be during the daytime with attendees then possibly going to see a show at the conclusion of the event. She noted that the premises lease contained strict terms and conditions in relation to the use of the premises for events. In addition, there was a dispersal policy in place specifically for events.

Ms Tricker stated that the sale of alcohol was ancillary to guests attending a show and there was no application for off sales. She stated that the application was in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy which stated at Paragraph 2.5.33 -

Theatres, cinemas, other performance venues, and qualifying clubs

2.5.33   These policies apply to a wide-ranging premise including:

·       theatres, cinemas, concert halls and other performance venues providing regulated entertainment

·       …

Bars are a normal feature of performance venues but they should be ancillary to the overall use of the premises as a performance venue. The hours of the operation of the bar will usually be those related to the times the premises are open for performances and should not extend later than the hours of performances…

In conclusion, Ms Tricker stated that this was a time-limited application and that she relied upon the dispersal policies and crowd management plan attached to the submissions before the Sub Committee.

In response to a number of questions, Ms Tricker and Mr Collins provided the following information.

(a)    Audiences entered the premises and moved round the exhibition in such a way that the audiences did not overlap. However, it was possible that if every member of each audience remained in the bar after the shows, there could be up to 400 people in the bar but that was extremely unlikely.

(b)    Guests would have timed entry tickets and could arrive up to 45 minutes before the start of the show. To avoid the possibility of queues forming outside the premises should guests turn up more than 45 minutes before the start of the show, they would be asked to come back at a time when they would be allowed to enter the venue.

(c)    Events tended to be during the day and tended to be corporate events. Occasionally there were birthday events which would precede a show. The attraction for holding events at the venue was the show itself.

(d)    Mr Collins, using the floor plans on display, described how an audience would move through the venue. He stated that the bar area was similar to a foyer bar in a theatre and, therefore, it was not expected that all 200 guests attending a show would buy drinks at the bar, but the application was for the whole of the floor where the bar was located to be licensed.

(e)    There was a box office and merchandising section on Davies Mews and the application contained a provision for this section to open from 7:30 AM. The reason being that experience had shown that people bought tickets for shows on their way to or from work, and having a box office with members of staff provided a user-friendly front of house presence.

(f)      The earliest show would be a matinee performance at 12 midday on days when there were matinee performances. The opening hours were in accordance with the planning permission and were indicative and it was proposed that licensable activities would take place later in the day, as per the application.

(g)    Smoking was covered in the applicant’s policies on pages 15 and 16 of the papers before the Sub Committee. It was not anticipated that there would be many people wishing to smoke but a smoking area had been identified at the Davies Street end of Davies Mews which would be managed by the SIA door staff. Very occasionally guests may be allowed out to have a cigarette and be granted re-entry to the venue by the SIA door supervisor staff.

(h)    Mr Hartshorn detailed the number of staff that would be employed and in what capacity, stating that there was strict adherence to the requirements of social distancing and the Coronavirus Regulations, and that arrangements for staff and the operation of the premises had been agreed with the Acting Union, Equity.

(i)      Mr Collins detailed the discussions that had taken place with the local resident who had objected to the application, stating that it had been agreed that no noisy works on construction of the sets would take place between 1 PM and 3 PM. Upon investigation of noise complaints by the resident, it had been determined that the source of the noise was from premises on South Molton Lane and not work being undertaken by the applicant’s contractors.

Presentation by David Nevitt on Behalf of the Environmental Health Service

Mr Nevitt, Environmental Health Service (EH) drew Member’s attention to his comments set out in the report before the Sub Committee. Referring to a photograph of the premises, he identified the residential parts of the premises which were located above the venue.

There had been consultation with the applicants during the pre-application phase of the planning process where concerns about noise, dispersal and the sale of alcohol had been discussed during a site visit and meeting. The applicant had subsequently agreed to the various conditions that had been proposed during the pre-application consultation.

A number of restrictions had also been imposed as part of the planning process including acoustic treatment. Having inspected the premises, Mr Nevitt stated that he could confirm that the building generally had good acoustic integrity.

Pages 47 and 48 of the report set out conditions proposed by EHS. In particular, Mr Nevitt drew attention to the following proposed conditions –

·       Condition 44: The sale of alcohol shall, at all times, be ancillary to the primary use of the premises for theatre performances.

·       Condition 57: alcohol shall only be sold for consumption by persons:

(i)     Attending the performance of a play or theatre production that day and/or,

(ii)    Attending a pre-booked and bona fides private function or event to which members of the public are not admitted. A register of persons attending the event shall be kept at the premises and made available for immediate inspection by police or an authorised officer of the Council.

He stated that Condition 57 addressed possible concerns for residents about events held at the premises.

The other concern for officers was departure and dispersal of guests. He said that the proposed dispersal policy addressed these concerns and the officers were happy that the applicants were experienced operators.

In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Nevitt stated that, regarding conditions relating to the sale of alcohol, his preference was for the proposed Condition 44. Ms Tricker confirmed that the applicant had no objection to that proposed condition.

In response to a further question by the Chairman, Mr Hartshorn stated that, as audiences moved through the show in a linear manner, it would not be possible to host a private function while a show was taking place because, at some point, members of the audience would come to the location where the private function was taking place.

Mr Hartshorn noted that the cost of the Doctor Who set alone (not including costumes etc.) was £1.7 million and the applicants cared-for the set and were mindful of the need to keep it in good order with three waves of audience going through the set each day. Therefore, it was not realistic to hold a vertical drinking function for 400 people and then set up the premises for a show the following day. Although events were a key ancillary revenue stream, they remained ancillary to the operation of the venue as a theatre.

In response to Member’s question about whether the applicant would have any objection to the licences being put in the applicant’s name, Mr Hartshorn confirmed that Hartshorn Hook Enterprises Ltd would be willing to take responsibility for the management of the venue.

SUMMING UP

At this stage of the proceedings, the Chairman invited the various parties who had made representations to sum up their representations, if they so wished.

David Nevitt on Behalf of the Environmental Health Service

Mr Nevitt stated that he was happy with what had been agreed with the applicant and, therefore, he had nothing further to add.

Ms Tricker on Behalf of the Applicant

Ms Tricker stated that events were a necessary part of the operation and were ancillary to the operation of the venue as a theatre. The applied-for hours were important, including those applied for on Sunday which were intended to promote the licensing objectives.

The proposed conditions, agreed with the Environmental Health Service (EHS), had been subject to thorough and meaningful consideration. In addition, and there had been good communication with the resident objector and it was the applicant’s intention to maintain a dialogue with residents, including providing residents with a direct telephone number should they wish to contact the applicant.

Regarding noise, a Model Condition had been agreed with EHS to ensure that there would be no noise emanating from the premises, including noise from electrical and mechanical plant.

In conclusion, Ms Tricker noted that the Sub Committee Members had read the dispersal policy.

In response to a question about complying with core hours, Ms Tricker stated that the opening hours were in accordance with the planning permission and were indicative for the purposes of licensable activities. Mr Cummin stated that matinee performances started at 12 midday and the audience could arrive up to 45 minutes before the show. Therefore, to be consistent with the times of shows and the box office and merchandise shop hours, the applicant would wish to keep to the hours as set out in the application for licensable activities.

Mr Nevitt noted that the Core Hours for the sale of alcohol on Sunday was 10 AM, and 9 AM for other licensable activities.

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman adjourned the meeting so that Members could retire to consider their decision. She stated that the Sub Committee would not announce its decision today but that a summary of the decision would be sent to the various parties within five working days.

The Chairman then closed the live part of the virtual meeting.

 

DECISION

It was the Sub Committee’s decision to Approve the application as set out in the Appendix to this minute.

 

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having read the report by the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before it; and having heard representations by the applicant and the Environmental Health Service (EHS) as a responsible authority, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to grant the application, subject to added conditions to the premises licence agreed by the applicant and the EHS.

In particular, the Sub Committee noted that -

1.     This was an application for a 5-year time-limited premises licence to July 2026;

2.     The sale of alcohol would be ancillary to theatre events, as set out in the following Conditions proposed by the Environmental Health Service and agreed by the applicant:

(a)  Condition 44 (see Model Condition 86): The sale of alcohol shall, at all times, be ancillary to the primary use of the premises for theatre performances.

(b)  Condition 57 (see Model Condition 94): alcohol shall only be sold for consumption by persons:

(i)     Attending the performance of a play or theatre production that day and/or,

(ii)    Attending a pre-booked and bona fides private function or event to which members of the public are not admitted. A register of persons attending the event shall be kept at the premises and made available for immediate inspection by police or an authorised officer of the Council.

3.     The Sub Committee also took into account the strict terms and conditions governing the premises’ lease in relation to the applicant hosting events. Accordingly, the Sub Committee was of the view that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to require that the premises licence be in the name of the applicant, as discussed during the course of the proceedings.