Agenda item

35 St Luke’s Road, W11

17/05815/LITENN (Temporary Event Notice)

Proposal: The sale by retail of alcohol (off)

Event Period:      12.00 on 27^th August to 22.00 on 28^th August 2017

Times when licensable activities will take place: 

                             12:00 to 22:00 on 27^th August 2017

12:00 to 22:00 on 28^th August 2017

Decision:

The Sub-Committee initially heard from Mr Dweifel, the Premises User.  He stated that it was his intention to sell beer and soft drinks from 35 St Luke’s Road (he lives upstairs) from midday to 22:00 on 27^th and 28^th August.  He believed his neighbours did not object to what he was proposing to do.  He added that he planned to have a friend assisting him who is licensed by the Security Industry Authority (‘SIA’).

The Sub-Committee was addressed by PC Lewis on behalf of Metropolitan Police.  He advised Members that the Police maintained their representation as they had a policy against residential premises operating temporary bars during the Notting Hill Carnival.  The Police considered the premises to be in a high risk area and was located close to two sound systems which drew large crowds.  PC Lewis emphasised that the Carnival presented a huge operational challenge for the Police with approximately one million people being in the area every year.  There had been more than 450 arrests at the event in 2016, many of which were associated with the consumption of alcohol.  There had been 15 serious assaults, 4 of which were life threatening.  Due to the level of the crowds, it could be very difficult for the Police to reach incidents which took place.  Stewards were used with limited powers which increased the risk.

PC Lewis commented that alcohol should be sold responsibly.  The Police had concerns regarding unlicensed residential premises creating makeshift bars at the front with a lack of training on the part of the sellers.  There had been insufficient information provided by the Premises User about the nature of the operation.  Would alcohol be sold to underage people?  How would the Premises User ensure that customers were not intoxicated?  Would super-strength alcohol be sold and would alcohol be sold in polycarbonate vessels?  Glass vessels had historically been used as weapons and missiles.  He also questioned how disorder would be prevented and where toilets would be available.  Obstruction was caused by customers buying alcohol and standing there whilst consuming it. 

PC Lewis acknowledged that the Premises User was now offering to have someone assist him who is licensed by the SIA.  However, it would be extremely difficult to oversee what was taking place at the premises at all times and as the premises were not licensed, no conditions could be introduced.  The Premises User would have to keep to undertakings.  PC Lewis informed the Sub-Committee that this was the first temporary event notice or application submitted by Mr Dweifel.  Mr Dweifel had not in the Police’s opinion demonstrated an understanding of the risks of selling alcohol, particularly at the Carnival.

The Sub-Committee asked PC Lewis whether the Police’s concerns would be lessened if Mr Dweifel stopped selling alcohol at 19:00.  PC Lewis had mentioned that licensed alcohol outlets stopped selling alcohol at the Carnival at that time.  PC Lewis replied that it would not lessen his concerns if Mr Dweifel stopped selling alcohol at 19:00.

Mr Nevitt for Environmental Health explained the pressures on the area during the Carnival.  These included 1000 plus people being in the area for the Killerwatt sound system (outside 47-49 St Luke’s Road) and 1000 people an hour entering from Westbourne Park underground station.  There was large scale crowd congestion and no public toilets were provided in the locality.  Another licensed sound system was located at Leamington Road Villas.

Mr Nevitt advised that he attended meetings with local residents who expressed concerns about Notting Hill Carnival.  These related to noise, not being able to get out of their properties and the public urinating in their gardens.  Mr Nevitt believed it was an issue that St Luke’s Road is not located on the official Carnival route as away from the procession, there was no reason for people to leave the area and they would stay there to consume food or alcohol. 

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Nevitt whether Mr Dweifel’s offer to have a friend working with him who is SIA licensed lessened his concerns.  He replied that the fact was that the sale of alcohol was a contributor to one of the biggest issues that residents complained about.  It was likely to be a heavily congested area and would challenge Police resources.  He was firmly of the view that even if the temporary event notice was amended, there would still be issues.  The Council would have to rely on undertakings which would be difficult to enforce.

Mr Dweifel was given the opportunity to respond to the comments of PC Lewis and Mr Nevitt.  He informed the Sub-Committee that he was willing to offer his toilet to customers.  He was asked how many cans of beer he expected to sell and replied that he was hoping to sell approximately 100 a day.

The Sub-Committee, in reaching a decision, noted the Police’s and Environmental Health’s strong reservations about the proposals set out in the Temporary Event Notice.  Members had explored with the Responsible Authorities whether there were any amendments to the Notice which would have lessened their concerns and it had been clear that there were not.  The Sub-Committee did not have confidence that any of the licensing objectives, whether it was the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance or the protection of children from harm, would be promoted if the Notice was allowed to proceed. 

The Sub-Committee shared the concerns of the experienced officers, PC Lewis and Mr Nevitt that the sale of alcohol at the unlicensed premises had the capacity to increase issues at this heavily congested location during the Carnival.  The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises User was intending to have a SIA licensed individual working with him and that he was offering to provide a toilet.  However, Mr Dweifel had never applied to sell alcohol before and the Members’ perception was similar to that of the Police’s that he did not appear to demonstrate an understanding of the risks of selling alcohol, particularly at the Carnival. In any event, the concerns raised by the Police and Environmental Health could not be fully addressed by simply having an SIA licensed individual working with the premises user. That would obviously lessen the risks involved but would not overcome the problems that would be associated by selling alcohol to persons at this particular location. It had the potential to further fuel disorder at the Carnival and to add considerably to the nuisance that was being caused to the local residents.