The meeting was scheduled to consider four applications for new alcohol licences. One of the applications was to change the terms of an existing licence to remove a members club restriction. Two of the applications were for new licences in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone, where Westminster Council normally refuses permission for new pubs and restaurants.

15-17 Mercer Street, London

The meeting was scheduled to consider an application by Longmartin Properties Ltd and B&T Seven Dials Ltd for a new alcohol licence for 15-17 Mercer Street. The new licence would replace an existing licence held by Crazy Bear that restricted alcohol sales to members of a private club. The application proposed that the premises operate as a bar, where alcohol is sold to people seated and served by waiter/waitress service only. The applicants proposed the following hours for licensable activities:

• Sale of alcohol: Monday to Saturday 10:00 - 01:00, Sunday 12:00 - 00:30.
• Late Night Refreshment: Monday to Saturday 23:00 - 01:00, Sunday 23:00 - 00:30.
• Recorded Music: Monday to Saturday 10:00 - 01:00, Sunday 12:00 - 00:30.

The applicants also proposed the same hours as non-standard timings on New Year's Eve, New Year's Day and Sundays before bank holidays. The Council's Licensing Authority and Environmental Health Service were scheduled to object to the application because of concerns about the impact on the licensing objectives of preventing public nuisance and crime and disorder. The report pack included objections from four other people:

• A representative of the Covent Garden Community Association raised concerns that the application is for a bar licence, rather than a restaurant where the sale of alcohol is ancillary to a table meal, and the proposed hours are outside the core hours defined by the Council for this type of premises. They suggested that it would be difficult for the applicant to argue that the premises can operate to these hours while supporting the licensing objective. The objector pointed out that the premises has a 25-year history of public nuisance issues relating to noise from inside the premises and noise caused by customers congregating outside, arriving and leaving. The objector recognised that the applicant plans to do work on the building to address noise escape, but said that this work had not yet been undertaken.
• A resident of 14 Shelton Street objected to the application because of concerns about public nuisance, crime and disorder, public safety and the protection of children from harm.
• A resident of 15 Mercer Street objected because of their concern about the potential for noise, smells and damage to their property. They also objected to the removal of the members' club requirement from the licence, and requested a new condition saying that The licensable activities authorised by this licence shall only be take place whilst the licence is held by \[ ].
• A representative of the Seven Dials Housing Co-Op objected to the application because of concerns about the control of customers, noise, smells and damage to property. They requested a restriction on the hours to 12am, and a condition saying that No fumes, steam or odours shall be admitted from the premises so as to cause a nuisance to any persons living or carrying on business in the area where the premises are situated.

175 Edgware Road

The meeting was scheduled to consider an application from Mr Seifalla Abdelmoateleb for a new licence for a vegan fast food restaurant at 175 Edgware Road. The applicant originally requested permission for late night refreshment both indoors and outdoors from 23:00 to 02:00, but later amended this to 23:00 - 23:30 Sunday to Thursday and 23:00 - 00:00 Friday and Saturday, and indoors only. Westminster Council's Environmental Health Service were scheduled to object to the original hours because of concerns about the impact on the licensing objectives of preventing public nuisance and crime and disorder. The report pack includes objections from two other people:

• A representative of the Hyde Park Estate Association objected to the original hours because of concerns about crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The objection noted that the application form contains little information about the business, like how many customers it will serve.
• A representative of Marylebone Ward objected to the application because of concerns about crime and disorder, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. They said that This location has recently been an issue with regard to anti social behaviour and Further there are flats above this premises. After the applicant amended the proposed hours, the objector withdrew their objection.

Le Duke, 76 Duke Street

The meeting was scheduled to consider an application from Double Three Hospitality Ltd for a new licence for Le Duke restaurant. The new licence would replace the existing licence. The application proposed the following hours for licensable activities:

• Sale of alcohol: Monday to Thursday 09:00 - 23:30, Friday and Saturday 09:00 - 00:00, Sunday 09:00 - 22:30
• Late Night Refreshment: Monday to Thursday 23:00 - 23:30, Friday and Saturday 23:00 - 00:00
• Recorded Music: Monday to Thursday 23:00 - 23:30, Friday and Saturday 23:00 - 00:00

The applicants also proposed the same hours as non-standard timings on New Year's Eve, New Year's Day and Sundays before bank holidays. The Council's Environmental Health Service objected to the application because the applicants did not clearly define the premises as a restaurant. The report pack included objections from four other people:

• A resident of Brown Hart Gardens objected to the application because they thought the hours were too late.
• Another resident of Brown Hart Gardens objected to the application, saying that granting it would cause public nuisance, and serious deterioration of residential amenity. They said that The premises is in a densely populated residential area and noise from the restaurant would cause problems for their family and neighbours. The objector also asked whether the applicant's proposed Operational Management Plan could be shared with the public.
• A resident of Binney Street objected to the application because they were concerned about noise from deliveries and refuse collections, and they thought the proposed hours meant the premises was more like a nightclub than a restaurant.
• A resident of Balderton Flats objected to the application because they thought the hours were too late and because The area being a highly populated residential area.

Basement and Ground Floor, 27 Old Compton Street

The meeting was scheduled to consider an application from C&B LS Limited to vary the terms of an existing premises licence for 27 Old Compton Street. The applicant wanted to increase the capacity of the premises from 20 to 50, and extend the licensed area to include the basement. They also wanted to remove and amend a number of conditions on the existing licence, including the removal of a condition that the supply of alcohol is ancillary to a table meal. They proposed to replace this with a condition that alcohol can only be served without a table meal after 10pm. The applicant stated in the application that they would operate the premises as a high end specialist wine bar with food available. The applicant proposed the following hours for licensable activities:

• Sale of alcohol: Monday to Saturday 10:00 - 00:00, Sunday 12:00 - 23:30
• Late Night Refreshment: Monday to Thursday 23:00 - 00:30, Friday and Saturday 23:00 - 00:30, Sunday 23:00 - 00:00

Westminster Council's Licensing Authority were scheduled to object to the application, because the premises is located in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone. They asked for clarification on a number of points in the application, including:

• Whether the basement area will be for seated patrons only, or whether customers will be allowed to drink standing up.
• How the increase in capacity will not contribute to cumulative impact in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone.
• Whether the applicant has a dispersal policy for customers leaving the premises.
• What provisions will be in place to mitigate noise and nuisance from the premises.

The report pack included an objection from the Soho Society who said that they are very concerned with the ever increasing negative impact on residents of the huge number of licensed premises in Soho. They said that:

People are giving up on Soho as their main place of residence ... For those that remain, people living in social housing and people unable to sell or lease their flats have to put up with the increasing environmental noise at night as it is neither a simple nor affordable option for them simply to ‘just move’. There is evidence that it impacts the quality of life, health and mental health, sometimes seriously.

They included a number of statements from Soho residents who said they were forced to move out of the area because of the noise. They also included evidence from a sleep survey, and analysis by the Metropolitan Police about levels of crime. The Soho Society requested that the application be refused.