The Licensing Sub-Committee (1) of Westminster Council met on Wednesday 6 March 2024 to determine four licensing applications. Decisions were made to grant variations for premises licences at 58-60 Lupus Street and Penelopes, Drury House, and a new premises licence at 26-29 Drury Lane. However, an application for a time-limited premises licence at 136 Shaftesbury Avenue was refused.

58-60 Lupus Street, SW1V 3EE

The committee considered an application to vary the premises licence for 58-60 Lupus Street, SW1V 3EE, which operates as a delicatessen. The variation sought to add the retail sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, extend the licensable area to include an outdoor seating area, and remove two existing conditions.

Numerous representations were received from Environmental Health Service (EHS), local ward councillors, and 15 local residents. Concerns raised included potential increases in public nuisance and public safety due to the sale of alcohol for on-site consumption, particularly in the external seating area. Residents living in the block above the premises expressed worries about noise, disturbance, and the potential for the area to become a strip of bars and cafés. There were also concerns about the impact on children, given the proximity of several schools. The EHS also requested further information on proposed capacity and sanitary accommodation, and noted previous instances of non-compliance with licence conditions.

The applicant's agent, Mr Manuel Rocha, argued that the variation would help promote the business and increase revenue, stating that the premises would not become a drinking establishment but would remain a delicatessen. He assured the committee that staff were trained in licensing objectives, and that CCTV and signage would be in place.

During the hearing, the applicant amended the application to remove the request for off-sale of alcohol for the outside seating area and agreed for conditions 10 and 17 to remain on the licence. The committee also heard from Councillor Jim Glen, Ward Councillor for Pimlico North, who echoed residents' concerns about the creep of hours and the lack of engagement from the premises licence holder.

After considering all submissions, the Sub-Committee decided to grant the variation of the premises licence. This included permission for the retail sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises from Monday to Saturday, 10:00 to 20:00, and Sunday, 10:00 to 18:00. Crucially, the consumption of alcohol by customers at tables and chairs outside the premises was prohibited. A number of new conditions were imposed, including that alcohol sales must be ancillary to the main function of the premises as a delicatessen, no more than 15% of the sales area could be used for alcohol display, and the total number of persons permitted inside for alcohol consumption was limited to 15. The committee noted that the premises licence holder had agreed to these conditions and that the Metropolitan Police Service had not objected.

26-29 Drury Lane, WC2B 5RL

A new premises licence was sought for 26-29 Drury Lane, WC2B 5RL, for a British and Italian restaurant with private dining rooms, a bar area, and external seating. Representations were received from the EHS, five local residents (four objecting, one supporting), and the Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA).

Objectors raised concerns about potential increases in public nuisance and public safety due to the sale of alcohol, late-night refreshment, and regulated entertainment. Residents living in nearby Parker Mews and Parker Street expressed worries about increased footfall, noise, and anti-social behaviour, citing existing issues with other licensed premises in the area. They requested restricted hours and conditions, including that alcohol be served only with food and that all licensable activities cease by 11 pm.

The applicant's solicitor, Mr Jack Spiegler, highlighted that the premises were located outside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and that the area did not show high levels of crime or anti-social behaviour. He stated that the applicant had engaged with objectors and proposed numerous conditions to uphold licensing objectives. The applicant's team, including renowned restaurateurs Stevie Parle and Johnny Smith, emphasised their commitment to high-quality food and service.

The EHS maintained their representation due to proposed hours extending beyond core hours on Thursdays. They had no major concerns about the premises itself, which was a shell at the time of the visit, but noted that final capacity would be determined later.

The CGCA confirmed their concerns were primarily related to public nuisance and crime and disorder, specifically regarding noise from patrons arriving and leaving. They were content that regulated entertainment would be confined to the basement but remained concerned about the bar area and requested a capacity limit for it.

After extensive discussion, the Sub-Committee decided to grant the new premises licence. This included permission for live and recorded music, late-night refreshment, and the sale of alcohol for on and off-premises consumption. The opening hours were set from 09:00 to 00:00 Monday to Wednesday, 09:00 to 00:30 on Thursdays to Saturdays, and 09:00 to 23:00 on Sundays. Notably, the sale of alcohol for off-premises consumption was restricted to sealed containers and not permitted after 23:00. A maximum capacity of 280 persons was imposed, and conditions were added regarding CCTV, an incident log, and a Challenge 21 proof of age scheme. External tables and chairs were to be rendered unusable by 23:00 hours.

Penelopes, Drury House, 34-43 Russell Street, WC2B 5HA

The committee considered an application to vary the premises licence for Penelopes, located at Drury House, 34-43 Russell Street, WC2B 5HA. The premises operates as a restaurant within the Amano Hotel. The variation sought to extend terminal hours for licensable activities by 1 hour and 30 minutes daily, and opening hours by 2 hours daily. It also proposed replacing an existing condition with a model condition regarding last entry times.

Representations were received from the EHS, the CGCA (which was later withdrawn), and two local residents. Concerns focused on public nuisance and crime and disorder, with one resident citing previous noise issues and customer behaviour from the venue. Residents expressed worry about increased noise from patrons dispersing into Crown Court, a residential area, and the potential for loitering smokers.

The applicant's solicitor, Mr Marcus Lavell, stated that the premises operated as a fully conditioned restaurant and that the requested extensions would provide greater flexibility and revenue. He confirmed that all conditions had been agreed with the EHS, including a last entry condition and a dispersal policy. He also noted that the CGCA had withdrawn their objection after discussions.

The EHS maintained their representation due to the requested hours extending beyond the council's core hours policy. They confirmed no public safety concerns but noted issues with public nuisance and patron dispersal.

A local resident expressed concerns about noise and disturbance from patrons dispersing into Crown Court, particularly late at night. They also raised issues about deliveries starting early in the morning and the hotel's use of public space for storage.

The Sub-Committee decided to grant the variation application. This included extending the hours for late-night refreshment to 01:00 Monday to Thursday, 01:30 on Fridays and Saturdays, and 00:00 on Sundays. Alcohol sales were permitted until 01:00 Monday to Thursday, 01:30 on Fridays and Saturdays, and 00:00 on Sundays. Opening hours were extended to 01:30 Monday to Thursday, 02:00 on Fridays and Saturdays, and 00:30 on Sundays. A new condition was imposed replacing the previous last entry condition with Model Condition MC15. Numerous other conditions were imposed, including that substantial food must be available, alcohol sales are by waiter/waitress service only and ancillary to a table meal, and that patrons are encouraged to wait inside the premises for taxis. The main entrance on Russell Street and Crown Court would be closed from 23:00 daily, with all patrons exiting via the Amano Hotel lobby.

136 Shaftesbury Avenue, W1D 5EZ

The committee considered an application for a new time-limited premises licence for 136 Shaftesbury Avenue, W1D 5EZ, which operates as a bar. The premises is located within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), meaning there is a policy presumption to refuse applications that do not demonstrate exceptional reasons for granting. The applicant sought a two-year licence on the same terms as the current time-limited licence.

Representations were received from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), EHS, and the Licensing Authority (LA). All cited concerns regarding public nuisance and crime and disorder, and the potential for the application to undermine the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder and adversely affect cumulative impact within the West End CIZ. The MPS specifically stated that the applicant had not demonstrated that they would not add to cumulative impact.

The applicant's solicitor, Mr Alun Thomas, argued that the premises operated as an arts organisation and performance venue, not a nightclub, and that as an existing operation, it would not add to cumulative impact. He stated that the premises needed the bar to raise funds for the restoration of the Grade 2 listed building. He confirmed that the application mirrored the existing licence conditions and hours, and that substantial food would be available.

PC Tom Stewart of the MPS expressed concerns that the premises was operating more like a nightclub, particularly in the basement area, and that this posed a high risk. He highlighted previous breaches of licence conditions, including CCTV and the availability of substantial food, and stated that the MPS was considering reviewing the licence. He requested a refusal of the application in its current form.

The LA echoed the MPS's concerns, stating that the way the basement area was being operated was not conducive to promoting licensing objectives and that the application should be refused as it was a new application. The EHS expressed concern that the applicant had wanted to remove the need for substantial food, changing the nature of the establishment to be drink-led.

After careful consideration, the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application. The committee concluded that the applicant had not provided exceptional reasons to rebut the policy presumption to refuse applications within the West End CIZ. They lacked confidence in the applicant's ability to operate the premises in a way that would promote the licensing objectives, citing breaches of existing licence conditions, particularly regarding CCTV and the provision of substantial food. The committee felt the premises was morphing into a nightclub environment and that granting the licence would undermine the licensing objectives.