Agenda item
Wingstop Restaurants, Basement to Second Floor, 138 Shaftesbury Avenue, WC2H 8HB
Minutes:
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No.1
(“The Committee”)
Thursday 3 March 2022
Membership: Councillor Matthew Green (Chairman)
Councillor Melvyn Caplan
Councillor Maggie Carman
Officer Support: Legal Advisor: Horatio Chance
Policy Officer: Kerry Simpkin
Committee Officer: Kisi Smith-Charlemagne
Presenting Officer: Kevin Jackaman
Application for a Variation of Premises Licence in respect of Wingstop Restaurants Basement To Second Floor 138 Shaftesbury Avenue
London WC2H 8HB – 21/07770/LIPV
Others present also: MsLana Tricker - LT Law (Solicitor) Mr Herman Sahota Director (PLH) (Via phone) PC Reaz Guerra (Metropolitan Police Service)
Mr Anil Drayan (Environmental Health Service) Ms Jessica Donovan (The Licensing Authority) Mr Richard Brown (Citizens Advice Project ) Mr David Kaner (CGCA) Ms Jane Doyle (The Soho Society)
Premises
Basement To Second Floor 138 Shaftesbury Avenue London WC2H 8HB
Premise Licence Holder
Lemon Pepper Holdings Ltd
Cumulative Impact Area
West End Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ)
Special Consideration Zone
None
Ward
St James’s
Summary of Application
This is an application for a Variation of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Premises operates as a restaurant with ancillary takeaway. The Application sought to:
· extend the sale of alcohol, late night refreshment and opening hours from midnight to 01:00 Thursday Friday and Saturday. No changes on other days.
· vary existing condition 42. from "On Fridays and Saturdays, from 22:00 until close, there shall be a minimum of 1 SIA door supervisor on duty at the premises. They shall wear either a high visibility yellow jacket or vest." to "On Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, from 22:00 until close, there shall be a minimum of 1 SIA door supervisor on duty at the premises. They shall wear either a high visibility yellow jacket or vest."
· remove existing condition 43.
· vary existing condition 44. from "There shall be no supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises after 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and 22:30 on Sunday " to "There shall be no supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises after 23:30 hours Monday to Wed, 00.30 Thurs to Sat and 23:30 on Sunday."
Activities and Hours applied for
Late Night Refreshments: (Indoors and Outdoors)
Seasonal Variations: The premises may remain open for the sale of alcohol and the provision of late night refreshment from the terminal hour for those activities on New Year’s Eve through to the commencement time for those activities on New Year’s Day
Sale by Retail of Alcohol: On and Off Sales
Seasonal Variations: The premises may remain open for the sale of alcohol and the provision of late night refreshment from the terminal hour for those activities on New Year’s Eve through to the commencement time for those activities on New Year’s Day
Opening Hours of the Premises
Monday to Wednesday 10:00 to 00:00 hours Thursday to Saturday 10:00 to 01:00 and Sunday 10:00 to 00:00 hours
Seasonal Variations: The premises may remain open for the sale of alcohol and the provision of late night refreshment from the terminal hour for those activities on New Year’s Eve through to the commencement time for those activities on New Year’s Day
Proposed conditions being varied
Current Condition 42:
On Fridays and Saturdays, from 22:00 until close, there shall be a minimum of 1
SIA door supervisor on duty at the premises. They shall wear either a high visibility
yellow jacket or vest.
Proposed Condition 42:
On Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, from 22:00 until close, there shall be a minimum of 1 SIA door supervisor on duty at the premises. They shall wear either a high visibility yellow jacket or vest.
Conditions being added
A copy of the premises’ dispersal policy shall be made readily available at the premises for inspection by a Police officer and/or an authorised officer of Westminster City Council.
Representations Received:
· PC Nicole Sondh (Metropolitan Police Service)
· Mr Anil Drayan (Environmental Health Service)
· Ms Jessica Donovan (The Licensing Authority
· The Soho Society
Summary of issues raised by objectors:
Concerns were raised on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, and cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact Area. It was felt that application proposal to extend its on and off sales licence in an area already saturated with late night licences. Objectors felt that if granted the premises would fail to promote the licensing objectives and increase cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.
Policy Position:
Policies HRS1, RTN1(B), FFP1 and CIP1 apply under the City
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP).
SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS
The Presenting Officer Mr Kevin Jackaman introduced the application to the Sub-Committee, he advised that this was an application for a variation application for a restaurant. The PLH had applied for extended hours for off sales of alcohol and late night refreshment at the premises, and the removal of condition 43 of the licence. The amendments to the licence were no longer sought, having read the representations. He advised that the variation application was therefore limited to extending the hours for alcohol, late night refreshment and opening hours from midnight to 01:00 Thursday, Friday and Saturday. No changes were sought for the other days of the week.
Mr Jackaman advised that following on from this, condition 42 would be amended so security was also provided on Thursday and the following proposed condition would be added. A copy of the premises’ dispersal policy shall be made readily available at the premises for inspection by a Police officer and/or an authorised officer of Westminster City Council. The Premises are located within the St James’s ward and in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.
Ms Lana Tricker Solicitor appearing on behalf of the PLH addressed the Sub-Committee, she advised that the PLH operated a chain of restaurants and that the premises on Shaftsbury Avenue was the flagship restaurant. She stated that the Premises had varied the licence in 2019 and that after reviewing the representations the PLH amended the application by removing the extended hours of off sales of alcohol, late night refreshments at the Premises and the removal of condition 43.
Ms Tricker confirmed that the variation was now to extend the hours for alcohol, late night refreshment and opening hours from 00:00 to 01:00 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday and no changes were sought for the other days of the week. She also advised that a model condition for dispersal would be added and condition 42 would be amended so that two SIA security staff was also provided on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
Ms Tricker confirmed that there would be no change to the capacity of the Premises, regulated entertainment, or takeaway element. The sale of alcohol would be ancillary to food as the Premises was a restaurant as stated in condition 10 and there was no change to the restaurant style. Licensable activities would take place on the ground floor and first floor; the basement, second and third floors were all back of house.
Ms Tricker explained how the Premises operated, stating that orders were placed at the counter and a waiter or waitress would take the freshly prepared meal (8-10 minutes preparation) to the customer’s table. She confirmed that there was no bar or holding bar and that the Premises was not a fast-food restaurant and should not be added to the cause of the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). Alcohol sales make up 1% of the total turnover and that the Premises did not serve super strength beer and only offered a choice of two beers.
Ms Tricker advised that there was no policy presumption to refuse the application as the Premises operated as a restaurant with waiter and waitress service and that it should be judged on its merits. The Premises has not been the subject of complaint by EH or the Police regarding the premises operation, a good dispersal policy supported by good transport links and was subject to Westminster restaurant conditions. Ms Tricker advised that no alcohol was on display, and this was a family restaurant which implemented challenge 25.
Ms Tricker confirmed the Premises had a designated smoking area, which was regularly cleaned, and that staff had implemented certain measures to monitor noise disturbance and were trained in effective crowd dispersal.
The Sub-Committee advised all parties that the main issue for consideration was establishing if the Premises was a restaurant or a fast-food premises and if the latter applied Policy FFP1 was to refuse fast food applications in the West End CIZ. At this point the Sub-Committee sought further information regarding the outcome of the 2019 variation to the premises licence. The Sub-Committee sought further clarification under the SLP regarding the distinction between a restaurant premises and a fast-food premises and how the PLH would mitigate against adding to cumulative impact.
In answer to questions from the Sub-Committee Ms Tricker advised that the Premises operated a modified version of Model Condition 66 and referred to condition 10 which read: The sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall only be to persons purchasing a substantial table meal there and as an ancillary to that meal, which is to be eaten seated at a table or counter in the premises. Ms Tricker confirmed that the Premises offered takeaway until 23:00, alcohol was not provided to customers who were not seated and having a substantial table meal. Alcohol is provided at the counter but there are very low levels of alcohol sales.
The Sub-Committee noted that one exception had been granted to the Premises and sought clarification from the PLH as to why a second exception should be granted. The Sub-Committee also noted that the Police withdrew its representation in 2019, but had maintained its representation this time around with the current application. The Sub-Committee also sought further clarification as to what the PLH intended to do during the one-hour extension on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
Ms Tricker advised that there would be no change to the Premises operation save, that customers would simply be coming into the restaurant for a meal until a later hour. To accommodate the extra hours there would be extra SIA security.
The Sub-Committee noted that the operation remained the same, however it expected the PLH to be going above and beyond to mitigate any impact on the West End CIZ as this was an application for an additional exception. The Sub-Committee queried if the PLH would consider any further measures to mitigate the impact.
Ms Tricker offered a last entry time condition and a consumption condition, she stated that the PLH had policies in place until 00:00 and had been successful in mitigating the impact in the West End CIZ. She advised that there was no evidence that the Premises had caused any impact. The Sub-Committee queried if condition10 could be amended to the MC66 in its entirety. Ms Tricker confirmed that could be implemented, however alcohol would still need to be purchased and collected at the counter as this was the PLH’s business model. The Sub-Committee sought further clarification regarding why meals could be brought to the table and alcohol could not.
The Sub-Committee was surprised that what had been offered to mitigate the impact in the West End CIZ and questioned why the PLH was reluctant to operate the full model restaurant Model Condition MC66. It was noted by the Sub-Committee that the Premises did not provide food at a fast pace and there was a presumption to refuse fast food establishments. Ms Tricker stated that the Premises was food led and would allow intoxicated customers to eat, and possibly sober up before heading home.
The Sub-Committee also queried why the PLH had sought extended hours on Thursday. In response Ms Tricker confirmed that Thursday, Friday and Saturday are the busiest nights of the week.
Mr Anil Drayan appearing on behalf of EHS addressed the Sub-Committee, he advised that he was initially concerned with the application due to the extension of hours and the takeaway element of the application which was now withdrawn. Mr Drayan confirmed that there had been no complaints made regarding the Premises, he also stated that the Premises did operate an amended MC66 but believed that the Sub-Committee needed to decide if the application was an exception. He confirmed that the last entry condition was welcomed.
Mr Kerry Simpkin Policy Officer to the Sub-Committee, advised that the Premises would not fall into the restaurant category as it provided a takeaway service, he confirmed that ‘takeaway for delivery service only’ was the definition and that the Premises would fall into the fast-food policy. He confirmed that it was not possible to use one policy for a period and then switch to a different policy, it would be linked to the primary use of the Premises and in this case it would be fast-food.
PC Reaz Guerra appearing on behalf of the Metropolitan Police addressed the Sub-Committee, he advised that the key issue was whether the Premises was a restaurant or a fast-food establishment. He reiterated the PLH’s earlier statement that food was prepared in 8-10 minutes which fitted with a fast-food establishment attracting people leaving a pub or a bar. He advised that there is sometimes a queue that develops outside the and with the later hours when people have been drinking more, there is the premises protentional for confrontation. PC Guerra confirmed that the Premises was in a busy part of the West End and the later hours could have the effect of drawing and retaining people in this area.
Regarding MC66 and alcohol being supplied by waiter and waitress service PC Guerra stated that it was a key element of control for the Premises which ensures that customers receive the alcohol when they are sat at a table. Ms Tricker confirmed the alcohol was provided in plastic bottles.
Ms Jessica Donovan appearing on behalf of the Licensing Authority addressed the Sub-Committee, she confirmed that the Licensing Authority had maintained its objection as the Premises was in the West End CIA and as such various policy points must be considered, namely policies CIP1 and HSR1. Ms Donovan noted that the PLH was no longer seeking to remove condition 43. She paraphrased Paragraph D16 of the CIP1 policy which states that the Licensing Authorities policy in relation to the West End CIA is directed to the effects on licences in the area, therefore a case was most unlikely to be considered exceptional unless it was directed at the underlying reason of the policy.
Ms Donovan referred to policy HRS1 advising that the PLH was seeking to vary the hours outside of core hours in the West end cumulative impact zone, adding to cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact and on that basis the Sub-Committee must be satisfied that the application’s hours would not add to the CIA.
Mr Richard Brown, appearing on behalf of Ms Jane Doyle from the Soho Society and calling Mr David Kaner as a witness addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Brown advised that based on how the Premises operated it seemed to fall within policies CIP1 and FFP1 under the SLP. He confirmed that he agreed with Mr Simpkins interpretation of the policy. He stated that the policies set out a strict presumption to refuse certain types of application (including for extended hours) unless an applicant can demonstrate genuinely exceptional circumstances to the policies.
Mr Brown said that the current hours had been gained incrementally. He advised that a new licence was granted in 2018 with a terminal hour of 23:00 Monday to Saturday 22:30 Sunday for the sale of alcohol. He commented that the PLH returned soon after with a variation application in 2019 and was granted extensions to midnight Monday to Saturday. Mr Brown stated that the current application sought an additional 60 minutes for the sale of alcohol Thursday to Saturday.
Mr Brown was of the view that the Premises did not operate as Model Condition 66 restaurant, it had partial waiter and waitress service and not the crucial aspect relating to alcohol being served at the counter and not directly to seated customers. Mr Brown felt that this was a high turnover Premises i.e. that food can be ordered within 8-10 minutes, which went against the workings of the SLP and likely to cause more impact by attracting people drinking in the West End. Mr Brown stated that there were queues that formed outside the Premises and no table can be booked in advance.
Mr Brown said that these were characteristics of a fast-food premises, stating that there were several fast-food premises in the area such as Mc Donald’s, Donna Kebab which operated to core hours although Shake Shack which was an old licence and had slightly longer hours. Mr Brown believed that granting longer hours to the PLH would change the feel on Cambridge Circus.
Mr Brown acknowledged that there were no resident objections and touched upon the fact that the PLH’s submission stated that the impact of the longer hours would be minimised as there were no nearby residents. However, Mr Brown emphasised that there was already several residential premises in the vicinity and that cumulative impact could not be judged solely on the impact of one premises, but how it impacted on the wider area. He was of the view that a premise open until 01:00, retaining people in the West End CIZ would be problematic.
Ms Jane Doyle of the Soho Society addressed the Sub-Committee, she advised that every time she walked past the Premises there was a queue of people often going down Charing Cross Road. Ms Doyle stated that she was interested to find out where the smoking facilities were located and whether the Premises had toilet facilities available to customers. She also expressed concern with additional people entering the West End hotspot areas.
Mr David Kaner addressed the Sub- Committee, he advised that residential properties were located above Shake Shack/Slims Chicken, he stated that those residents had commented on the queues, but had never actually complained to EH. Mr Kaner confirmed that there were also residents at Mansions and Seven Dials area. Mr Kaner commented on how busy the area was and that there was a high level of impact from all the licensable premises.
Mr Herman Sahota (PLH) joined the hearing via telephone and addressed the Sub-Committee, he responded to earlier queries raised and confirmed that the Premises provide fresh food to order, very similar to Nando’s or Five Guys which was ready in 10-15 mins and delivered to the table. He also explained that the sale of alcohol was minimal, and the Premises was frequented by families. Mr Sahota said that the Premises rarely had queues and that queue managers were in place alongside queue barriers. Mr Sahota confirmed that the smoking area was next to the chapel entrance (on Shaftesbury Avenue) and was limited to 10 people at any given time.
The Sub-Committee discussed with Mr Sahota the option of accepting the extension to late night refreshment without the sale of alcohol. Mr Sahota advised he would accept a condition for alcohol to be served to tables from 23:00, but not late night refreshment without alcohol. The Sub-Committee also discussed applying the full restaurant condition of Model Condition 66 for the Premises including alcohol served to seated customers at tables and not at the counter to the licence. Mr Sahota said at this time it would be challenging to accept such a condition.
In closing Mr Kerry Simkins confirmed that the Premises was subject to the fast-food policy due to its takeaway element and this should be noted by the Sub-Committee.
Conclusion and reasons of the Sub-Committee
The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a Variation of Premises Licence under the Act. It is not bound by previous Decisions of licensing premises that may or may not have been granted within the area. It realises that it has duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so when determining the application.
The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises has been licensed since 2018 with a chain of restaurants nationally and that the Premises located at 138 Shaftesbury Avenue (on the corner of Shaftesbury Avenue and Charing Cross Road at Cambridge Circus) is the flag ship for the UK and has been operating for almost 6 months.
The Sub-Committee noted that the PLH had applied for extended hours for the off sale of alcohol and late night refreshment and the removal of Condition 43 but this was later withdrawn after much resistant by those who objected and welcomed by the Sub-Committee. Instead, the variation is now limited to extending the hours for the sale of alcohol, late night refreshment and open hours from Midnight to 01:00 Thursday, Friday and Saturday with no changes sought for the other days of the week. Effectively this would mean an extra hour for licensable activities taking place on the Premises three days of the week at busy times within the West End CIZ.
The operation would be restricted to Condition 10 on the Premises Licence which states:-
“The sale of alcohol for the consumption on the premises shall only to be persons purchasing a substantial meal there and as an ancillary to that meal, which is to be eaten seated a table or counter in the premises”.
The Sub-Committee considered the evidence before it and whether the four licensing objectives will be promoted. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from all the respective parties and in the light of considering that evidence refused the application for the reasons outlined below: -
Under the fast-food premises policy FFP1 (B) there is a policy presumption to refuse an application within the West End CIZ unless the PLH can show an exception to policy (the matters contained in Paragraphs B 1-2 and C1-3 refer).
Contrasted with the restaurant policy RNT1 (B) this states that applications within the West End CIZ will be granted but subject to licensable activities being within the core hours policy HRS1 and meeting the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered the PLH’s written submission in support of the application appearing at Appendix 2 of the Agenda Report and the arguments advanced by Ms Tricker during the hearing as to why an exception had been proven and the justified reasons as to why the variation application should be granted.
However, the key question for the Sub-Committee was to decide whether the operation of the Premises fell within policy RNT1 (B) or policy FFP1 as this was a crucial aspect of the Sub-Committee’s decision making in deciding which policy rightfully applied. The only way to establish this was to consider from the facts how the Premises operated daily and what its key characteristics were by applying those key characteristics and components to the workings of both policies and the evidence.
Turning to policy FFP1 the Sub-Committee was advised by the PLH that the Premises operated a takeaway service up until 23:00 hours. Whilst this was not subject to the variation application it is nevertheless a key indicator as to how the Premises operates daily giving rise generally to the overall nature, style and character of the Premises.
In its assessment of the matter the Sub-Committee considered paragraph F110 on page 100 of the SLP when considering whether the Premises fell within the meaning of a restaurant. The matters contained under Paragraphs C 1-5 of the SLP are quite specific and define a restaurant and this is usually demonstrated by the Council’s model restaurant conditions being imposed on a premises licence namely Model Condition 38 (MC38) Model Condition 40 (MC40) and Model Condition 66 (MC66) to ensure that a premises operation is food and not alcohol led and is complaint with those conditions. Paragraph F110 also on page of the SLP states the reasons for policy RNT1 is as follows:
“This policy applies to those premises that are proposed to be used as a restaurant as defined within this policy, and not to fast food premises. The policy distinguishes between restaurants, where dining (a substantial meal) is the main activity for its customers, and fast food premises which at certain hours are likely to attract and provide food for people at the end of an evenings’ drinking”
Applying the definition above the Sub-Committee concluded that the Premises did not operate as a restaurant within the meaning of the RNT1 policy but instead fell neatly within FFP1. The crucial aspects of FFP1 are set out at Paragraph F111 on page 101 of the SLP and swayed the opinion of the Sub-Committee in this direction which states:
“Fast food premises provide late night refreshment either by way of take-away food for immediate consumption, or fast food on a counter or self-seating basis. These types of premises are in general more likely than restaurants (as defined in this section) to lead to people remaining on the streets of the West End Cumulative Impact Zone or returning rapidly to those streets. If no fast food premises were available people would be more inclined to disperse, and in retaining people until a later hour these fast food premises undermine the objective of timely dispersal. Late at night, it is likely that they would be attractive to persons who have been drinking elsewhere. The Licensing Authority considers that seeking to minimize the
number of people on the street late at night, through rapid dispersal, especially those who have been drinking, is fundamental to promoting the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public nuisance, and public safety. The Licensing Authority comes to this view notwithstanding the benefits which may be offered by well run fast food premises in terms of security, staff, CCTV, toilets,
and the provision of a safe environment in which to wait until transport is available. These aspects have been considered by the council but are outweighed by the need for more rapid dispersal from the area in order to promote the licensing objectives”.
In deciding this aspect of the SLP the Sub-Committee had regard to the definition of a fast food premise contained under Paragraph D (1-4) on page 85 of the SLP and the reasons set out at Paragraph F56 for Policy FFP1 also on page 85 which states:-
“Fast food premises which are open after 11pm can attract large groups of customers, many of whom have been consuming alcohol in pubs, bars, or night clubs sometimes some distance away. The congregation of people around these premises leads to additional noise and disturbance and further congestion in the area. Although premises which serve cold food and drink are not subject to licensing and may stay open all night, they are not so attractive to people
who have been drinking as those providing hot food and drink. The council considers that the addition of hot fast food and hot drink adds to the attractiveness of premises to people who have been drinking and who are more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour”.
The Sub-Committee did not dispute that the PLH was not a good operator that managed the Premises well and was free from complaint. However, the issue the Sub-Committee had to contend with was whether the additional hour would have a negative impact on the West End CIZ and this really was the true crux of the matter.
The Sub-Committee did express concern regarding customers exiting the Premises at the later hour and questioned whether the dispersal arrangements the PLH had in place/were proposing to implement with staff and or additional SIA controlling the front were adequate to promote the licensing objectives in particular the public nuisance licence objective. The PLH stated that dispersal had not been a problem because its established management practices had been proven over time with experienced staff and it was envisaged that a gradual dispersal of customers would take place during the later hours in the hope that this would minimise any nuisance caused to nearby residents. The Sub- Committee noted the PLH’s offer to have a bespoke dispersal plan which would be made available to the Responsible Authorities as well as offering a condition on the Licence in that respect.
The Sub-Committee noted the capacity for the Premises and what affect this would have on the number of persons dispersing at the proposed terminal hour of 01:00 and the impact to local residents in terms of public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee noted that Environmental Health did not have specific issues now that the application had been amended and if the Sub-Committee were minded to approving the variation, they would require the proposed conditions are imposed on the premises licence including the dispersal condition.
The Sub-Committee noted that the Licensing Authority had maintained its objection because the Premises was in the West End CIZ and that the application would have an impact on the core hours policy due to the hour extension. Likewise, the Police shared the same views and reported that the Premises was not a problem Premises where crime and disorder was concerned but appreciated that the Premises was nevertheless in the West End CIZ where exceptional reasons had to be proven.
The Sub-Committee noted the views of the Soho Society, David Kaner and the arguments well made by Mr Brown in relation to the negative impact the application would cause to the West End CIZ.
It was the Sub-Committee’s considered view, however, that the increase in licensable activities for the additional hour would lead to public nuisance, particularly when customers are leaving the Premises.
In terms of the policy considerations for hours the Sub-Committee had regard to Policy HRS1 on pages 62-68 of the SLP and Paragraph E9 on page 65 which states that “Hours later than core hours will be considered on their own merits in relation to other policies in the SLP…..”
The Sub-Committee appreciated it has discretion when considering the merits of the application but took the view that granting the application would be contrary to other policies. The Sub-Committee had regard to all relevant policies under the SLP in particular Policy PN1; the prevention of Public Nuisance and the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.
Policy PN1 states: “The Licensing Authority will not grant applications that will not promote the public nuisance licensing objective. The criteria and considerations to be taken account are contained on pages 32-35 of the SLP.
Similarly, regarding Policy CD1 this also states the Licensing Authority will not grant applications that do not promote the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. The criteria and considerations to be taken account are contained on pages 27-29 of the SLP.
The Sub-Committee was of the view that the Premises could potentially become a destination venue due to the later hours as this would attract customers in the West End CIZ drinking alcoholand adding to negative cumulative impact. It also considered carefully the SLP in terms of the crime and disorder licensing objective and the potential for crime and disorder particularly regarding violent offences and street robberies that take place in the area which could have the potential for exacerbating existing problems and a drain on Police and City Inspector resources.
The Sub-Committee wanted to emphasise and place on record that the Premises was not associated with crime and disorder but had to consider in its determination of the matter the global affect and impact on the West End CIZ for granting additional hours would have on the area.
The Sub-Committee was of the view that exceptional reasons had not been provided. It sympathised wholly with the PLH that businesses are struggling in the current climate for obvious reasons post the Covid-19 pandemic and the financial implications for the business might not necessarily be good, but exceptionality must first and foremost be proven in accordance with the policy aims and objectives as referred to above. Regrettably on this occasion this had not been demonstrated by the PLH as to why the policy requirements should be departed from by the Sub-Committee.
Based on the evidence the Sub-Committee concluded that the Premises operated within the definition of a fast-food premises and that the Premises primary use was that of a fast-food premises. This was in keeping too with the takeaway element offered up to 23:00 hours to its customers and therefore a key characteristic for the Premises even though the Premises required customers purchasing alcohol to be seated in accordance with condition 10. The increase in the additional number of SIA staff was welcomed but again the Sub-Committee did not consider the management of the Premises to be the central issue here but more the fact that customers are likely to be drawn to the Premises due to the food offer available and its popularity at a later hour causing negative impact in the West End CIZ.
It was on this basis the Sub-Committee concluded that the proposed terminal hour of 01:00 would have a negative impact on the West End CIZ. The Sub-Committee did consider the conditions offered by the PLH including the issue of a dispersal plan but did not consider that this went far enough and to the heart of the problems experienced in the area. Having a dispersal plan is something the Sub-Committee would expect the PLH to have in place and implemented in any event even at the current terminal hour of Midnight as this would aid dispersal in an already busy area and help promote the licensing objectives. Ms Tricker’s offer of a last entry time condition, and a consumption condition, was considered and noted by the Sub-Committee but these measures in the opinion of the Sub-Committee did not outweigh the negative impact likely to be caused in the West End CIZ over the three days which were the busiest periods.
The Sub-Committee felt that it needed to strike the right balance when considering the commercial needs of the PLH, the merits of the application and the evidence before it given by the Responsible Authorities and Soho Society and did not arrive at the decision to refuse the application lightly having regard to the full set of circumstances of the case. It did properly consider whether the proposed conditions offered would mitigate the concerns of residents but was not persuaded by the PLH that these would go to the heart of the problems associated with public nuisance and exceptionality.
The Sub-Committee having carefully considered all the oral and written evidence by the parties in addition to all relevant parts of the Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Act decided that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives and therefore refused the application for the extension of hours for licensable activities.
The Sub-Committee came to the overall conclusion that due to the style, nature and character of the Premises it operated as a fast-food premises under Policy FFP1 and not as a restaurant therefore the additional hours applied for would have a negative impact on the West End CIZ leading to the licensing objectives being undermined which is not what the Act is designed to do or achieve.
In all the circumstances of the case the application is Refused.
This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith
The Licensing Sub-Committee
3 March 2022
Supporting documents:
-
Wingstop - LSC Report, item 1.
PDF 7 MB - Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 1./2 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 1./3 is restricted