Agenda item

Sophie’s Steakhouse, 42-44 Great Windmill Street, London, W1D 7LU

17/09500/LIPV (“The Premises”)

1.

To remove the following condition from the recently granted new premises licence ref: 17/06235/LIPN

‘All bags of persons entering the premises shall be searched by security after 23:00 hours daily’.

There are no other changes to the licence sought.

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 Sophie’s Steakhouse (“The Applicant”) for a variation of a Premises licence in respect of 42-44 Great Windmill Street, London W1D 7LU.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee and confirmed that representations had been made from the Police, Environmental Health and the Soho Society.  She also confirmed that the Premises was located in the Council’s West End cumulative impact area and that additional information received from the Police had been circulated to all parties.

Mr Thomas advised that he had sent in additional information in the form of a report compiled by Mr Adrian Studd (Independent Licensing Consultant) regarding the variation application to include his views on the threat of terrorism in the UK highlighted at paragraphs 12-13 of his report and the response to that threat from paragraph 14 onwards.  The Sub-Committee confirmed that they had not received this document so in the interests of fairness and transparency agreed to adjourn the hearing temporarily to read it’s contents and for all other parties to be given the opportunity to express their comments accordingly.

All parties were invited to make representations to the Sub-Committee in relation to the application.  The parties responded to the Sub-Committee’s questions and were given an opportunity to ask questions of each other.

Mr Thomas, the applicant’s representative, advised that the new licence had only been recently granted for the Premises in August with the following condition ‘All bags of persons entering the premises shall be searched by security after 23:00 hours daily” which the owners considered was unusual to have attached to a restaurant licence.  The Applicant confirmed that there was seating throughout the basement but there was also space for people to dance and that the ground floor area had a bias to being more food led.

Mr Thomas, along with the owners, referred to the layout of the Premises which had a capacity of 800 (400 in the basement and 400 on the ground floor) with 120 being for the restaurant part of the venue on the ground floor.  He confirmed that there would be a cross section of people visiting the Premises and that there would be considerable staff working on the Premises (12-15 waiting staff, 3 door staff, 3 managers and 5 bar staff) and that they were very familiar with managing such large venues.

Mr Thomas advised the Sub-Committee that in his view it was unusual for a restaurant to have such a condition imposed on its licence. It was submitted that compulsory bag searches would give the wrong impression/perception to its customers and that the condition would have a financial impact on the Applicant’s business.  He advised that the Premises would have to have one or two staff dedicated to checking bags and that this would be difficult and awkward to operate especially on the ground floor.  The staff would also have to be SIA registered to perform that specific task.  He further added that it was not considered that there was a high risk of terrorism in restaurant/food led establishments.

Mr Thomas considered that the Sub-Committee had three options before them, namely:

a) to delete the condition in full,

b) have random searches on both floors or

c) keep the existing condition for the Basement only. 

He advised that such a condition was more likely to be placed on a licence for a night club or a specific event such as in Hyde Park, rather than on a restaurant licence.

The Police, Licensing Authority and the Soho Society had maintained their representations on policy grounds and strongly believed that the condition should remain on the licence as no rationale had been given as to why a Premises that had not yet opened should be permitted to remove a condition from its licence having regard to the promotion of the licensing objectives.  The Police highlighted that this Premises had an overall capacity of 800 and that there continued to be a high level threat from terrorism which was highlighted when the licence was granted two months previously – it was submitted that the position had not changed in this respect.  The Police submitted that the threat against terrorism in the Capital was regarded as “Severe” and that in addition to tackling the ongoing terrorism threat, the Police were still having to deal with general crime and disorder associated with gangs, acid attacks, and drug activity. It was stated that the risk to licensed Premises was very high and should not be dismissed.

The Police in submission cast doubt over some of the report’s findings. The Police stated that since Mr Studd left the service five years ago, policing practices and procedures had moved on since that time and it was accurate to state that since the happening of the terrorist attack in Borough Market on the 3 June 2017 the risk to licence premises is higher than ever and, as a consequence, the Police felt that proper safeguards should be put in place by licensed premises holders to minimise any potential risk of attack that would undermine the promotion of the licensing objectives.

It was stated by the Police that licensed Premises should now revise their security arrangement in light, of the severe threat and that the Police encouraged licensed premises to revisit their health and safety training manuals for all staff (to cover terrorist awareness training) and for proper risk assessments of licensed premises to be carried out as a matter of routine. This was important and essential for large scale venues where the customer base is high.

The Sub-Committee were also advised that bag searches were now common place in some licensed establishments and that it was now not, unusual for this type of Premises to be subject to this requirement. The Police maintained the view that the bag search condition imposed on the Licence after 23:00 hours that this would provide the necessary reassurance to members of the public visiting the Premises and was appropriate and proportionate.

The Sub-Committee were also advised by the Police that there were pros and cons for undertaking random searches. It was stated that random searches are not always effective for a variety of reasons, these include, the numbers carried out are not always defined, staff have to be motivated to be able to enforce this robustly and effectively, and that allegations can be made by customers that certain individuals are being targeted which could lead to complaints, Both the Licensing Authority and the Soho Society strongly concurred with the Police evidence.

Mr Thomas raised an issue with regard, to the Council’s public sector equality duty contained under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) and human rights. The Legal Advisor sought clarification from Mr Thomas as to which one of the nine protective characteristics under the 2010 Act he was seeking to rely upon for the purposes of this application but the response given was not entirely clear. It was stated by the Legal Advisor that the Sub-Committee when considering all licensing applications must have regard to its public sector equality duty and human rights (Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (incorporating the European Convention of Human Rights) in accordance with the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee, having heard all the evidence, decided to refuse the application on the grounds of the strong Police evidence, that the condition had not yet been tested as the Premise had not yet opened and because of the very large capacity of 800 of which only 120 was for the restaurant part of the venue.  The Sub-Committee during its determination of the matter considered the potential financial implications for the Applicant’s business, but on balance felt that this was not a fully persuasive argument to allow approval of the application alone as the Sub-Committee had to consider first, and foremost, what impact the removal of the condition would have on the licensing objectives, with, particular emphasis, on both the prevention of public safety and crime and disorder licensing objectives. In all the circumstances and for the reasons given above it was considered appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application.