Agenda item

British Sex Shop, 8 Green’s Court, London, W1F 0HH

16/05871/LISEXR

1.

Renewal of a Sexual Entertainment Venue Premises Licence

The application was to renew the sexual entertainment venue premises licence made by Mr Nigel Moon for the sex shop at British Sex Shop, 8 Green’s Court, London, W1F 0HH.

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 Mr Nigel Moon for a renewal of a sexual entertainment venue premises licence in respect of British Sex Shop, 8 Green’s Court, London, W1F 0HH.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and advised that the premises had been licensed since 2011. An objection to the renewal of the licence had been received which related to an increase in noise in the local area. The Sub-Committee noted that the premises was located on the ground floor and the City Inspector comments related to a separate operation in the basement of the premises which had been used as an unlicensed sex shop and subject to enforcement visits. It was confirmed that the premises before the Sub-Committee today was not linked to the premises situated in the basement.

Mr Peacock, representing the applicant, explained that the application was for a renewal of a sex shop licence granted to Mr Moon in 2015. Clarification was provided that the premises located in the basement of the property was completely separate to the premises on the ground floor which was before the Sub-Committee today. No representations had been received from the responsible authorities and the one objection received related to an increase in noise levels outside the premises permitted hours. Mr Peacock highlighted that several of the times provided by the objector when the increase in noise occurred were during the premises permitted hours. It was suggested that the cause of some of the disturbance originated from the premises located in the basement. The applicant denied causing any noise disturbance and confirmed he only operated during the premises operating hours as required by the conditions on the licence. Mr Peacock was of the opinion that if it had been operating outside of its permitted hours the Licensing Authority would have been made aware. Constructive discussions had been held with the objector following which the objector had recognised that the noise levels had reduced. The applicant had also provided the objector with his telephone number in order that they can contact him if any disturbance was caused and he would then be able to take appropriate action.

Mr Moon, the applicant, confirmed that he had seen the letter of objection. He advised that situated in front of the premises was a busy thoroughfare where his employees had been known to smoke. The current staff levels included two part-time staff and one casual member of staff with one present at any given time. None of the staff slept at the shop as described in the objection letter and he personally visited the premises at least three times a week.

Mr Boyega, the manager of the premises, advised that he was present at the shop most mornings and some evenings. He confirmed that he had seen the letter of objection and explained that staff members often talked to the employees of the barber shop opposite. This only ever consisted of one member of staff at a time though and they had all subsequently been informed to smoke further along the thoroughfare in non-residential areas.

The objector addressed the Sub-Committee and stressed that members of staff talking outside the premises were often very loud and this created a disturbance to the residents living opposite. It was conceded however that recently it had become much quieter and they had no other issues with the premises.

Mr Peacock confirmed that staff had been instructed to smoke at the end of the Court away from the local residents. The Chairman advised that the objector would be written to by the Licensing Authority explaining who to call at the Council to make a complaint if noise disturbance persisted.

The objector did assert that people were sleeping in the shop as the front door shutter was often open and closed during the night. Mr Peacock confirmed that no one slept at the premises but it did share a common entrance with the basement premises. The objectors concerns were noted however.

After considering the application the Sub-Committee agreed to renew the sexual entertainment venue licence. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the premises was separate from the basement premises. The main cause for concern raised related to members of staff smoking and talking outside the shop causing noise disturbance to local residents. The objector however had stated this had not been an issue in the last two months following staff being instructed to smoke at the end of the Court away from the residential area. Since this main area of concern had now been addressed and because of a lack of representations from the responsible authorities the Sub-Committee subsequently granted the application. It was agreed with the applicant that in future the licence would specify that the premises was located on the ground floor in order to avoid confusion with any basement premises.

The Licence was renewed subject to the Standard Conditions applicable to licences for sex establishments in Westminster as prescribed by the Council pursuant to Paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.