Agenda item

London Cocktail Club, Basement, Portland House, 4 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 8QJ

17/00601/LIPV

1.

Exhibition of Films

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

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 The London Cocktail Club Limited for a variation of a premises licence in respect of The London Cocktail Club, Basement, Portland House, 4 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 8QJ.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.

Ms Tricker, representing the applicant, advised the Sub-Committee that the proposals relating to live music had now been withdrawn from the application.

Ms Tricker detailed how the application intended to extend the terminal hour on the licence for all licensable activities and for the opening hours to 01:00 on Thursdays and 02:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. The London Cocktail Club was a brand which currently operated seven premises within London with one opening at the end of March. They opened in the afternoons and traded through the evening and predominantly catered for small groups. The application was not seeking to attract additional people to the premises and the extension in hours only sought to extend the experience for its clientele. Trading had occurred with the proposed hours for a seven month period on the old licence and there was no evidence this had added to the cumulative impact in the area. No noise complaints had been received relating to the premises and the conditions already in place on the licence limited the nature of the operation. It was not sought to change these. Numerous Temporary Event Notices (TENS) had been issued previously and these predominantly allowed the premises to open until 03:00. No complaints or objections had been received regarding these. The Sub-Committee was also informed that a previous change in the licence allowing it to operate as a cocktail bar instead of a champagne bar had not resulted in any negative impact on the local area. The Police had requested the addition of a condition requiring two SIA Security staff on Fridays and Saturdays and the applicant was content to agree with this. There would be a fifteen minute wind down period in operation which already occurred. No consumption of alcohol would be allowed outside the premises and the applicant would accept the adoption of the relevant model condition.

Ms Tricker explained that the operation was well-established and well-run and the applicant had no wish to jeopardise this. It would operate as a cocktail lounge where patrons would experience how cocktails were made. The lounge would be situated in the basement area which had no visible presence from street level. All customers would be greeted by a member of staff and shown to their relevant area. Over 80% of customers pre-booked to enter the premises and it had a capacity of seating for one hundred and seventy. It was highlighted though that the applicant would not want a condition imposed requiring all customers to be seated whilst consuming alcohol as part of the customer experience was allowing them to observe how cocktails were made at the bar. It was confirmed however that seating would be available for all customers. A condition requiring service throughout the premises to be by waiter/waitress service was already in place. Significant support for the application had also been received from local businesses. There were only a small number of residential properties in the immediate vicinity and whilst it was recognised the premises was located in a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) it was based on the outer edge of this area. Lots of public transport options existed nearby. No objections had been received from any local residents and those representations received were all based on policy grounds.

Mr Hopkins, representing the applicant company, explained how the business had grown based on offering an enhanced cocktail experience. A training development programme for staff had been introduced to help develop and retain staff members. Cocktail master classes were offered to customers, usually earlier in the day, and customers would then tend to remain at the premises. In response to a question Mr Hopkins confirmed that the average cost of a cocktail was £10.

Ms Tricker stated that there was empirical evidence that the applicant had traded to the later hours by way of the previous licence for a period of seven months and had not added to the cumulative impact in the area. TENS had been successfully operated on numerous occasions and the licence was already heavily conditioned. A food offer was available, the numbers for taxi services would be available to customers, seating would be provided for all patrons, CCTV was in operation and there would be no off sales of alcohol.

In response to a question over its location in a CIA Ms Hall explained that its customers would be less likely to enter further into this area. It did not act as a feeder bar and its patrons all wanted to remain in the secure environment provided by the premises. This would result in no further impact being generated by the premises.

Mr Hopkins provided details on how the operation was advertised through a dedicated marketing and reservation team. A membership scheme was also in place to which email communications were sent. The type of clientele frequenting the premises was usually in their mid-20s to mid-40s and often worked in the local area.

Ms Bolton, representing Environmental Health, maintained the representation submitted as the increase in the terminal hours applied for was beyond the core hours policy. The increase in the hours had the potential to increase levels of nuisance and disturbance to residents and businesses in the local area. The premises was a drink led cocktail bar which allowed vertical drinking and as it was located in a CIA was therefore contrary to policy CIP1. No potential conditions had been proposed to be added to the licence as it was considered that none would satisfy the concerns raised. It was suggested the application should therefore be rejected. Concern was also expressed over the proposed condition to reduce capacity on Fridays and Saturdays to one hundred and fifty after 00:30 and how this would be achieved. In response to a question Ms Bolton stated that even if residents did not live directly opposite the premises the extended hours would add to the cumulative impact in the area. The application as proposed had the potential for an extra one hundred and fifty people to be leaving the premises, which was situated within a CIA, at 02:00. This would exacerbate the problems already experienced in the area.

PC Bryan Lewis, representing the Metropolitan Police, explained that the representation made was maintained as the application was contrary to policy. It was confirmed however that the premises had not been a source of crime and disorder and proposed conditions had been agreed with the applicant if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.

In terms of the capacity concern raised, Ms Tricker explained the reduction after 00:30 was based on evidence and was achievable. Also with last entry time being the existing terminal hour there would not be additional people leaving and it would allow a filtering out of people during the course of the evening. The licence was appropriately conditioned in terms of the type of operation that could take place. There was empirical evidence that the premises did not cause issues and no complaints or reports of crime and disorder had been received. The London Cocktail Club was a successful style of operation, the lack of objectors and the fact it had traded to 01:00 and 02:00 for seven months without any issues was evidence the application would not add to the cumulative impact in the area.

The Council’s Legal Adviser expressed concern over the term empirical evidence which had been used to support the application. It was recognised that whilst it was not a problem premises this did not relate to the cumulative impact policy which recognised that problems did arise in the entire area. It would therefore be impossible to state that there was evidence that the premises, whilst operating its previous hours, had not added to the cumulative impact in the area. Customers leaving the premises could enter further into the CIA and the question was why would this not add to the cumulative impact?

Mr Tricker replied that customers had informed the applicant that they would prefer to stay at the premises providing those who stayed with a secure environment. No complaints had been received over the dispersal of its customers and there were lots of public transport options available. It was suggested the change in hours contained within the application would assist in the dispersal of customers and ensure there was no additional impact in the CIA.

The Council’s Legal Adviser contended that if all licenced premises situated within the CIA submitted similar applications the result would have to be an increase in the cumulative impact in the area. The Sub-Committee’s attention was also drawn to the previous application made in 2014 which had been considered an exception to policy as it had scaled back its hours to core hours to compensate for an increase in capacity from 100 persons to 200 persons. It was considered that this concession made to appease concerns raised at the time was now being proposed to be included back on the licence therefore reversing the decision previously taken. However, a corresponding reduction in capacity was not being offered apart from a reduction to 150 persons after midnight on Thursdays and after 00.30 on Saturday and Sunday mornings.

Ms Tricker recognised that the history of the premises was important, it was proposed to reduce the capacity of the premises, it was already heavily conditioned and the operating style of the business had proven to be very successful.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application, including the detailed submissions from Miss Tricker, and was of the opinion that the premises did operate in a professional and successful manner. Concern was expressed however that granting the application would create the potential for one hundred and fifty customers to leave the premises at 02:00 in a CIA. The Council’s Licensing Policy position was clear in stating that there was a presumption against granting such applications unless the applicant could clearly demonstrate that the application could be granted as an exception to policy. The members of the Licensing Sub-Committee did not think that the applicants had demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances in relation to their application and felt that it would in all likelihood increase the cumulative impact in the area. Despite the premises being a well-run establishment the Policy did not address this and rather addressed the overall impact such an application would have on the CIA late at night. In this case no evidence had been provided that customers leaving the premises would not enter further into the CIA which would result in the potential for an increase in public nuisance and crime and disorder. The Sub-Committee therefore resolved that the application should be refused.

2.

Performance of Live Music

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

This aspect of the application was withdrawn by the applicant.

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

There was no need to consider this part of the application as it had been withdrawn.

3.

Playing of Recorded Music

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The application was refused for the reasons set out in section 1.

4.

Late Night Refreshment

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The application was refused for the reasons set out in section 1.

5.

Sales By Retail of Alcohol – On Sales

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The application was refused for the reasons set out in section 1.

6.

Hours Premises Are Open to the Public

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The application was refused for the reasons set out in section 1.

7.

Conditions Being Varied, Added or Removed

Condition

Proposed Variation

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

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

The application was refused for the reasons set out in section 1.