Agenda item
Slug And Lettuce, Ground Floor, 17-19 Artillery Row, SW1
App No |
Ward / Cumulative Impact Area |
Site Name and Address |
Application |
Licensing Reference Number |
|
3. |
St James’s Ward / not in cumulative impact area |
Slug And Lettuce, Ground Floor, 17-19 Artillery Row, SW1 |
Variation |
16/08839/LIPV
|
Minutes:
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 4
Thursday 24th November 2016
Membership: Councillor Jean Paul Floru (Chairman), Councillor Nick Evans and Councillor Murad Gassanly
Legal Adviser: Barry Panto
Policy Adviser: Chris Wroe
Committee Officer: Tristan Fieldsend
Presenting Officer: Heidi Lawrence
Relevant Representations: Environmental Health, seventeen local residents and Citizens Advice Westminster representing five local residents.
Present: Ms Claire Eames and Helen Cardy (Solicitors, Representing the Applicant), Mr Radoslaw Ciula and Mr Oliver Sweetman (representing the applicant company), Mr Ian Watson (Environmental Health), Mr Richard Brown (Solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau Licensing Advice Project, representing four local residents) and Mr Kevin Hastings, Mr Raymond Gubbay CBE, Mr Nick Chism, Mr David Alker and Mrs Angela Milligan (local residents).
Slug and Lettuce, Ground Floor, 17-19 Artillery Row, London, Sw1P 1RH 16/08839/LIPV
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. |
Exhibition of Films – Indoors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amendments to application advised at hearing:
None
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Stonegate Pub Company Limited for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Slug and Lettuce, Ground Floor, 17-19 Artillery Row, London, SW1P 1RH.
The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.
All parties were invited to make representations to the Sub-Committee in relation to the application. The parties responded to members’ questions and were given an opportunity to ask questions of each other.
Ms Eames, on behalf of the applicant, explained that the application before the Sub-Committee had altered slightly as the applicant had taken steps to allay concerns raised in the representations received. It was highlighted that Artillery Row was a relatively new residential area and the premises had a complex licensing history. It was recognised that under previous operators the premises did not have a favourable reputation. The applicant had purchased the premises in 2011 and the current Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) was experienced in working in Westminster. Also in 2015 significant investment of £300,000 had been spent on the property. The premises was very food orientated with sales of food and soft drinks accounting for over half of their sales. It was not located in a cumulative impact area and all the Council’s policy considerations had been taken on-board. Endeavours had been made to actively engage with the licensing authorities and local residents to ensure the application was appropriate for the area.
Ms Eames highlighted that the application was not a review of the premises licence and had been submitted to simply extend the hours and improve the conditions on the licence. Since the applicant had been operating the premises there had been no history of complaints. Concerns had been raised by residents over the extended hours and following consultation the proposal to extend on Saturdays had now been removed from the application. The extension of hours sought on Thursday and Friday had also been reduced from 75 minutes to 45 minutes. The objective of the application was to improve the customer experience whilst also ensuring it had no impact on the local community.
The Sub-Committee was informed that it was proposed to extend the hours for exhibiting films simply as the premises opened at 07:00 and it was common practice to show moving images on the screens. Applying for these extended hours was simply to ensure they had the appropriate permissions in place. It was stressed that the amendments to the other conditions was an attempt to clear up the licence and make the operating schedule more meaningful.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Ms Eames provided clarification regarding the proposed variations to the following conditions:
Condition 19 – It was proposed to remove the condition regarding sound limiting devices as this had been placed on the licence in 2002 before the current operator had purchased the premises. The premises was operated very differently now and music was not a major factor in the operation of the business. The DPS confirmed that music levels were regulated by management and no live music was provided, only recorded music. There was however a DJ on Friday evenings but no noise complaints had been received regarding this. Ms Eames explained that if the extension in hours was granted it would accept the retention of the condition.
Condition 20 – The Sub-Committee felt it would be important to ensure there was no unauthorised external advertisement and as such the applicant explained that it could retain the condition.
Condition 41 – Members discussed if allowing special effects would introduce a nightclub feel to the premises and were informed that if they felt it necessary this condition could remain on the licence.
Condition 42 – Ms Eames explained that the entrance and exit to the premises had two sets of doors. Rather than keep both sets closed at all times it was considered only the inner doors should be kept closed after 21:00. Having the outside doors closed could give the impression that the premises was closed.
Condition 50 – It was hoped to have a substantial food offer available until 22:00 instead of during all hours of operation as after 22:00 it was found the demand for food reduced significantly. Therefore the desire was to either close the kitchen after 22:00 or provide a reduced offer.
The Sub-Committee considered that individually the amendments to some of the conditions were not of concern but taken together raised concerns that the nature of the premises could change. Ms Eames explained that these conditions had been placed on the licence historically when it was a different premises. There was no intention to change the style of operation and it was a case of updating the conditions to ensure they promoted the licensing objectives. It was believed the local residents would be better served by the updated conditions and would not be impacted by the modest increase in hours.
Mr Watson, representing Environmental Health, confirmed that under previous operators the premises had historically caused problems. Since the current operator had managed the premises though the Council had only received one noise complaint. A history of compliance inspections to the premises was provided. Environmental Health had also provided pre-application advice to the applicant and held discussions with them centreing on modifying conditions, extending the hours and allowing the exhibition of films. In response to the applicant’s request to keep one set of the double lobby doors open it was explained that they were kept closed so that noise escape was minimised, and that allowing one set of doors to be locked open undermined their purpose. One particular area of concern highlighted though involved the dispersal of patrons from the premises. Conditions had been suggested to minimise the impact on residents and the Sub-Committee had to decide if these were sufficiently adequate.
Mr Brown, from Westminster Citizens Advice Bureau, advised that the proposed extension to the premises terminal hour was a major concern for residents of Artillery Row. They already suffered noise disturbance and extending the hours beyond 00:00 on Thursdays and Fridays would only exacerbate the problem. The effect of noise was much greater late at night than in the early evening due to the lower ambient street noise levels. Complaints had been made to the operator about the noise disturbance emanating from the premises and this would explain why the Council had no record of recent complaints. Patrons often congregated outside the premises, which had a narrow pavement, for significant periods of time late at night ensuring the residents were exposed to a prolonged period of disturbance. Dispersal of patrons not only created a noise disturbance but large amounts of litter and broken glass were also commonplace in the mornings.
Mr Brown brought to the Sub-Committee’s attention several of the changes to the conditions and explained that they would actually weaken the operating schedule. The additional proposed conditions by the applicant were welcomed but they did not address the key concerns raised.
Mr David Alker, a local resident, addressed the Sub-Committee and highlighted his reasons for objecting to the application. The level of disturbance already created by the premises was unacceptable. The amount of smoking by patrons outside the premises and levels of shouting whilst dispersing were unacceptable and caused a disturbance to many families late at night. Extending the hours on Thursday night would exacerbate this problem especially when they had to get up early for work on Friday mornings. Significant amounts of urination and vomiting occurred in the residential doorways opposite the premises and had personally witnessed this from customers of the Slug and Lettuce. These issues occurred despite door supervisors being in attendance. It was felt that the application submitted failed to address some of these key concerns and the additional conditions did not provide confidence that the premises would be better controlled. Mr Alker agreed with the Sub-Committee’s concerns that removing a number of conditions from the licence could potentially alter the nature of the premises. In particular, he thought that the desire to remove tables and chairs from the premises and the sound limiting device suggested that the premises might be more like a nightclub, similar to the “Slug” premises described on the applicant’s website.
Mr Raymond Gubbay CBE, a local resident, informed the Sub-Committee that removing the condition to ensure all entrance and exit doors should remain closed after 21:00, except for entrance and exit, would only increase the noise disturbance already experienced. Due to the location of the flats affected it was expected that there would be some noise in the area, however the levels of disturbance currently experienced was not reasonable.
Mr Kevin Hastings, a local resident, advised members that the demographic of the area had changed with more families now living locally.
Mrs Angela Milligan, a local resident, explained that residents did have to get up early for work and due to the layout of the area any noise created from the premises was amplified causing significant disturbance.
Ms Eames confirmed that the DPS, Mr Ciula, had met with Mr Acker twice to discuss noise emanating from the premises. Pre-consultations when submitting the application had taken place with the Licensing Authority and the Police to obtain advice with regards to the variation to the licence. She also drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the fact that the applicant had invested £300,000 in upgrading the premises. The application had been made in good faith and during the process endeavours had been made to actively engage with local residents who had not raised these concerns previously. The removal of certain conditions did not mean that the applicant would change the nature of the premises and it was only an exercise in updating the licence. The updating of the conditions provided an opportunity for both parties to improve the current situation. She added that there could be no consumption of alcohol outside the premises after 21.30 hours and that her client could accept a last entry condition of 23.00 if the application was granted. She also proposed that a limit could also be placed on the number of customers who could smoke outside the premises.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and the points raised by all parties, including the detailed submissions from the applicant and the written and oral submissions from the local residents. In determining the matter the Sub-Committee considered the amended and additional conditions proposed by the applicant, however it was felt these did not overcome the key issue of the extension in hours. Based on the representations received from local residents it was not believed that the conditions offered would alleviate the current noise disturbance experienced locally and indeed the extension in hours would exacerbate the problems.
This was not an application within a cumulative impact area but that simply meant that there was no policy to refuse the application. The application, even as amended, had to be considered on its individual merits. It was acknowledged that there had been serious problems with a previous operator of the premises but the current operator had been in place since 2011. Despite an assertion that there had been no problems with the current operator, the application led to 17 local residents objecting to the application, a number of whom attended the hearing and spoke eloquently about their concerns. They stressed that the immediate area was predominantly residential with five blocks of flats and they explained the issues that they did have with the current operation, including noise escape, customers smoking and gathering on the street outside the premises and problems with dispersal of customers. There was also evidence of customers urinating and vomiting outside the premises. Whilst it was acknowledged that some of those problems might be caused by customers from the nearby Greencoat Boy Public House, there was evidence that some of the problems were caused by customers of the Slug and Lettuce.
Photographs had been produced to the Sub-Committee which clearly showed the propensity for customers to gather outside the Slug and Lettuce. A number of local residents clearly expressed the view that they could just about tolerate the nuisance cause to them by the current operation but that they were very concerned about any application to extend the hours for licensable activities. They thought that this was acknowledged by the applicant proposing to have additional security staff after midnight. There was also concern that customers from the Greencoat Boy would simply leave those premises when they closed and would then move across the road to the Slug and Lettuce. Ultimately, the concern was that the operator simply did not have the means to control how customers behaved outside the premises and how they dispersed once they had left the premises. The new set of proposed conditions was laudable and a number of them would have been welcomed by the Sub-Committee but they did not overcome the substantial issues and concerns that had been raised by the local residents. The Sub-Committee was therefore of the opinion that the extended hours applied for on Thursday and Friday evenings be rejected. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the application to extend the hours and amend conditions was linked, at least in part, and whilst some of the proposed conditions might have been acceptable variations to existing conditions the sub-committee considered that it would be unfair on the applicant to refuse the extension in hours but impose further restrictive conditions on the licence, and it therefore refused the application in its entirety. In doing so the sub-committee noted that proposals to remove a number of conditions had been dropped during the hearing and thought that it would be more appropriate to consider proposals to amend the conditions as a whole through the mechanism of a further application, in light of the decision on the hours it had made today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2. |
Performance of Live Music – Indoors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Performance of Dance – Indoors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Anything of a Similar Description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance - Indoors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5. |
Late Night Refreshment - Indoors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6. |
Sales of Retail by Alcohol – On and Off sales
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7. |
Hours Premises Are Open to the Public
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. |
Conditions Being Varied, Added or Removed
The applicant proposes to remove all conditions in Annex 2 and Annex 3 to the current premises licence 15/05243/LIPVM and replace them with the proposed conditions below. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Condition |
Proposed Variation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
Supporting documents: