Transcript

Football State University. Yahoo! A good morning, welcome to your meeting of West Register City Council's Licensing Subcommittee do Society of Miami House . Online. Oh, resident only. Okay. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you very much. My name is Councillor Addis Toki and I'm chairing this meeting today. Item 1, we are considering two applications for the Annual Office 6 Establishment License under the Local Government Act 1982 in respect of SAFIRE, formerly Benitiwar and Nightclub for Carly Suru Street, London, W1D 3BJ. I confirm I have no declarations of interest in this item. I'm joined by Councillor Judith Soudan and Councillor Louise Haynes. Can I please ask you to introduce yourself and advise whether you have any declarations of interest to make? Good morning. I'm Councillor Louise Haynes. I represent St James's ward and I have no declarations. We are joined by our Legal Advisor, the Committee of Research, and the Presenting Officer. The procedure for the meeting. The Presenting Officer will give a brief outline of the application and objections. I don't know if you're asking me, but I can hear very little of what you're saying and I cannot make out whether a question is being asked or a statement is being made or if my name has come up. Mr. Resident, when it's your turn to speak, we will invite you to speak. Apologies if you can't hear very well. I won't be able to hear. I won't be able to hear when you ask me. I'm getting about a quarter of the sounds and many of them unintelligible. Do you need a better connection? Perhaps you could try putting some headphones in. I beg your pardon, can we dial in again or what are we going to do? Because this is absolutely hopeless. Could you try perhaps using some headphones? I don't have any headphones. I've got a telephone. I put it to my ear. Right. I can try to dial in again. You can try to dial in again if you would like to do that. But we will continue with the meeting? Yes, and we will continue with the meeting in the meanwhile. Fine. As long as I can hear what you're saying, it'll be no problem to me at all. Thank you. I'll come back in on the telephone. Yes. There will be a recording available online which you can re-watch if you do miss anything while you're attempting to re-dial in. That's something. Okay, thank you. So the applicant with 11th authority and other parties will present their submission for a few maximum of 10 minutes. My colleagues and I will ask each party any questions you may have at the end of each of the party's submission. I'll then ask our legal advisor to deal with any questions he may have. Summing up. Each party will then be permitted to give a brief summing up of about a maximum of five minutes each. I would like to remind the party that the members have read all the papers including any additional papers submitted, so there is no need to repeat their contents. I now start the meeting by asking the presenting officer to outline the application. Ruksem. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. The Council has received two applications for the renewal of the Sex Establishment Licence under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2009 for the premises known as Sapphire, formerly Vanity Bar and Nightclub, for Carlisle Street, London, W1D3BJ. The premises is situated within the West End Ward and falls within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone. The application has been made by Vanity Licence Limited, represented today by Sarah Louise Taylor of Keystone Law. With her are Manpal Sinclair, Director of Vanity Licence Limited, Steve Wilmot, Operations Director, and Zoltan Yerges, Manager and DPS at Sapphire. The applicant, Vanity Licence Limited, seeks to renew their sex establishment licences to continue to operate the premises as a sexual entertainment venue. The licences permit relevant entertainment. Full details of the application can be seen at pages 2 to 3 of the report bundle. A representation was made by the Licensing Authority, represented by Mr James Hayes, the Environmental Health Service, represented by Anil Drehen and the Metropolitan Police Service, who are not in attendance today. Of the interested parties, we have in attendance today Marina Tempia from the Soho Society with Richard Brown of the Licensing Advice Project. We also have an interested party potentially joining us online if he returns. That's all from me, Chair, unless you have any further questions at this stage. Sure. One thing we have to clear is, is this company Sapphire or the company is Vanity? So the Sapphire is the trading name and Vanity was what they were known, what they were called previously. The company is Vanity Licence Limited. So still the company is Vanity Licence? Yes. So they are the applicant? They are the applicant. And just the trading name is Sapphire now. Thank you very much. Now we are moving to the applicant, represented by Sarah Lewis. Yes, sir. Good morning, Chair and community members. Thank you. And Chair, just before I begin, I'm conscious that I've got two applications and I'll explain the reasons for that in a moment. I wondered if you wanted me to address the 2023 renewal first and then ask questions and then go to interested parties and then for me to move on to the 2024 one. Or if you wanted me to address one after the other and then do the questions. No, you can start 2023. 23. And then I'll let you know when I've come to the end of that submission then, Chair. Thank you. So just to give some background on this Chair and committee members, we're in front of you today after a previous renewal in 2022. You'll be aware from my written submissions that I've put here before this hearing, just to give some background that premises was subject to a summary review in December 2022. There was a hearing from the inspector that in January 2023 and the alcohol licence at that point was not revoked as requested, but additional conditions were added. So the premises was able to trade for a period of time. And they volunteered a period of closure to overhaul the management team at that point. And I'll address you on that in a moment. But the reason we're in front of you today, Chair, is the renewal hearing which took place in 2023. The licence was refused. That was then appealed to the magistrates' courts and later to the Crown Court as well. Again, it's in the background of the documents. Mr Hayes will also back on this, I hope. The reasons why the appeal has been compromised and that is the reason why we're in front of you today. So I really, Chair today, want to give the committee some comfort about the applicant. It is the same company as before, but I'll explain to you all of the steps that have been taken in the intervening periods and the reason why we've settled the appeal and why we're in front of you today. And so to begin, I'm joined by Mr Clare, who's the sole director of Vanity Licence Limited. I'm also joined by Steve Wilmot, who is the operations director and Mr Neages, who is the DPS and the general manager at the premises. So following the summer review chair, Mr Clare opted to close the premises for an extended period of time. During that time, he appointed a new management team. It was very clear following the previous proceedings that that was necessary. We've also got conditions on both the alcohol licence now and on the current SEV licence, which we agree with the licensing authority, which prohibit that previous management team from having any involvement in the running of the premises at all. So it's a completely new management team. They are now running the day to day operation of this premises. Mr Wilmot is a very experienced operator. He's operated various sexual entertainment venues, but also late night venues across London for many, many years. He's been appointed by Mr Clare to take over the day to day operations. And Mr Neages of DPS and the general manager, and he works in to Mr Wilmot. So Mr Clare's involved, but he's sort of taken a step back. He is the owner now and you've got a management team that are very experienced and are dealing with the day to day. So just to give some reassurance before we follow the big end committee that the previous people that were involved in the management are no longer involved. You've got a completely different crew, if you will. And now just turning to the actual renewal application and the things that we've done since that previous refusal, we've got the overall management team. And we've got a new set of documents, policies and procedures that have been implemented, and they've actually been conditioned now both on the alcohol license and on the SEV license. And we've agreed that those conditions with the licensing authority too. We've also appointed chair a performer manager and a customer welfare officer by the name of Andrea Tilecki. So Andrea historically was a performer and she's seen the venue, how it operates, the things that go on. She's now got the responsibility for both the performers and also the customer welfare at the premises as well. So that's another appointment to strengthen that management team. We've also agreed a condition chair with the licensing authority that goes onto the SEV license. That that management structure has to remain. So even if it's not those people, you will always have that structure and that level of responsibility of an operations director, a performer manager and a customer welfare officer, and also a general manager who may also be the DPS on the alcohol license as well. And just taking on board the various issues that came up previously chair and some things and learnings throughout the appeal process, we've implemented a mechanism to show when relevant entertainment is taking place at the premises. And again, that's been conditioned on the SEV license at the moment. In its current form, it is a light which says on air so that when customers are in private booth lights turned on at the start of a performance, and that signifies to everybody to door staff, anybody watching the CCTV, the authorities, if they visit that at that point relevant entertainment is happening. And therefore there are certain conditions that apply when relevant entertainment is taking place. And you'll see chair at pages 105 to 111 of the agenda pack that you've got a full set there of conditions that we've agreed with the licensing authority as part of the settlement. of that appeal. I know that you've read them before, so I won't sort of talk through which of them because there are 60 of them. But hopefully when you're deliberating, it's useful for you to have a look through those. And hopefully that gives you some results that what is on the alcohol license is now on the SEV license. And we've agreed with the licensing authority that these are the steps that are necessary in order for that SEV license to continue. And in order for this company to be able to hold that license and for Mr. Clair to be deemed suitable to be able to operate premises too. And you'll see chair on page 110 of your agenda pack that we've conditioned also the documents that are to be maintained. So again, they must always be in place. They may be reviewed from time to time. We may have learnings as the premises trades over time. But you've got those documents that have been conditioned again to give you that reassurance that they will always be in place. And so that's it in terms of the management team and what's been changed. What we've also done is employed a consultant by the name of Mr Bamber, who's been before this committee before. He's an ex-police officer, very, very experienced ex-police officer, very used to dealing with SEV venues. And Mr Bamber has been retained to do both overt and covert visits at the premises because really committee members, the only way that we could test compliance and actually prove to a committee that we're able to comply with the conditions was to have somebody in there in covert form to be able to demonstrate that. So you'll see in the agenda pack, there's a sample of reports that have been submitted by Mr Bamber. He goes in each year and he does an annual risk assessment chair. So Mr Bamber identifies all of the risks and then he does an overt visit to go through all of those and he provides his findings, which is in the agenda pack. But you've also got separately from that covert officers. Now, these are not known to the operators. Their visits are not arranged with the operators. They're arranged by lawyers and by Mr Bamber. So there's that separation and any reports that are provided by Mr Bamber following a covert visit are provided after 31 days when the CCTV for that period is expired, just to make sure that there's no risk of the operators being able to identify the covert officers. So again, you've got a sample chair of those reports in the agenda pack and again, hopefully that gives you some comfort along with our agreement with the licensing authority that people have been in. They've seen compliance with the conditions. There haven't been any breaches since those unfortunate incidents in 2022 and effectively this is a reformed premises. We've also chair agreed to condition with the licensing authority that CCTV dip sampling will be carried out as well because that's another line of defense to make sure that this continue compliance as well. So again, to give you reassurance that is now conditioned on the SCV license to. And regardless of what I've just told you chair, obviously, we've got representations from various people. We've got some from responsible authorities and we've got some from other interested parties, which I must address. And so to begin with the licensing authority, bear in mind the 2023 renewal. This is quite a historic representation that's been made now at this point where we're in a very different position than we were at that point. So that representation is based on the history of the premises and suitability of the license holder at that point, which with the things that were going on, we would have expected. We wouldn't really have expected anything else. And what I would say to you now is obviously we're two years down the line away from that. The licensing authorities have the time to be able to assess the operator. City inspectors have visited often, particularly throughout the appeal period to test compliance and to talk to the operators about various conditions. So what I would say chair in terms of the licensing authority submission that the applicant was not suitable at that time. Things have moved on and you'll hear from from the licensing authority in that respect as well. And we also had a representation from the Metropolitan Police along the same line suitability of the applicant. And again, the same applies and they're not here today. I did invite the police to withdraw their representation, but not done. But I just thought I would address you on that. But this is now historical information that that representation is based upon. And then in terms of other interested parties, there were seven representations in total. There were various issues, but I can summarize them in sort of bullet points as unsuitability, which I've already addressed you on. And obviously time has now moved on and we've reached agreement with the licensing authority on the appeal. And we deem that Mr. Clare is suitable to operate the premises and to hold the license. And the representations also mentioned various noise complaints, particularly music noise and noise from guests. Now, I can address you in a couple of ways on that. But I think, first of all, you've got some records of residential meetings which take place on a quarterly basis. That's conditioned on the licenses as well. Generally, they're not too well attended. And sometimes sometimes they are attended. But you will see from from the notes in that that generally issues are discussed very briefly. All that residents don't really attend and we don't share with the twenty twenty three application, have a representation from environmental health to say that they've been any noise complaints per se. But that's not to discount what the residents say. Obviously, we've got to address it. And since that application was made, Mr. Wilmot's started work at the premises. He was appointed in September twenty twenty three. Mr. Wilmot and Mr. Neoges have done lots of work with local residents. Local residents have been given direct contact numbers for both parties. So if there are any issues, they've got that direct contact. And certainly since that point, you'll see from from the agenda pack and for the minutes of the residents meetings, no issues have been raised. So again, I'd suggest that that's now historic. And there are throughout representations, various allegations of crime and disorder. Again, we didn't in the Metropolitan Police representation get any specifics of crime and disorder associated with premises. But the allegation is there. And what I would say, Chair, is again, it's historic. But we've also got the benefit of having security outside the premises. So it does operate late. It is in a busy area. And the operators have had experience of their security staff being asked by all the premises to go and help with things that are going on in the area. And the way that Carlisle Street is laid out is a cul-de-sac and you've got an alleyway at the end where a hotel is located. And so we would say it's beneficial to have security staff out there in the later hours just to make sure that one, it's a deterrent for anybody who might try and commit a crime. But also, too, we haven't got any specific allegations or anything substantiated by the police to say that the security staff have been problematic and all the customers either. And another issue, Chair, that's raised in the 2023 representations is the Nags Head, which is the applicant's other premises in Tower Hamlets. Now, we've maintained throughout these proceedings and also the Tower Hamlets proceedings, because that licence is subject to appeal, that these are two separate boroughs, two separate premises and two separate companies which operate them. That decision in relation to the Nags Head is currently under appeal and therefore not yet determined. So I'll ask you to put that to one side, please. Another issue, Chair, that's raised in the representations is that the security is from an external agency. There's various comments about who the security staff work for. And it's common practice, Chair, that they are employed by a central security company and they will do background checks. They will check compliance with SIA requirements. They'll check badges. They'll look at documents. And I'd submit, Chair, it's always safer to have an experienced security company that you then take your security staff from rather than employing them directly. But I need to address you on that. And then just the last few points to share on the representations. We've got locality and suitability of location, which I'll come to in a moment because I want to talk about Dr Hadfield report, which is in the agenda papers. But just to talk about pedicabs. Now, this was addressed throughout the appeal. It was it was an issue that was raised on the twenty twenty three renewal. Get my date right. It was also something that was brought up throughout the review proceedings as well. Now, as part of the appeal, I had served a page from Westminster's own website, which acknowledges that pedicabs are an issue across the borough. And when we got today, one of the magistrates called to appeal, licensing authority's stance was that it was the touching breaches that were the issue at that point. It was not the everything else noise, the pennycabs, et cetera. And so again, although that's there, I think it's generally accepted now at this point that pennycabs have been an issue or a wide and they're not specifically an issue at Sapphire. They're also addressed in Dr Hadfield's report, so that's at page 141, chair of the agenda pack. And Dr Hadfield states at point paragraph 4.9 of his report that pennycabs are an issue in the area and they operate around the area. So I'd ask you again to just count that in terms of it being a Sapphire specific issue. And then my last two points chair on all the representations. Again, we've got the issue of alleged noise from staff outside the premises. This is not a premises where performers are allowed to go out between performances, gather outside, smoke, drink outside, et cetera. And it's security staff that are outside and they're obviously managing people coming in and out. And it's not the case that you've got groups of performers that are standing on the table because we're mindful of the fact that we've got residents involved. So I wanted to address you on that chair. And then last but not least, we've got a complaint. And the way the representation is phrased, it seems to me that it's from the proprietors of the hotel, which you can see on the screen is at the end with that figure. That's it on the front of that building and the current operators are not aware of any issues being raised by the operators of the hotel. So what I'd suggest from our conversations is that the issues that have been raised by the hotel management are probably relating to the previous management team that are now prohibited from having any involvement in this premises. And there's been no suggestion since that time, chair, that there's been any problems in terms of the operators of the hotel. So again, whilst we acknowledge it, I would ask you to attribute that to the previous management team and not the current management team that's sitting in front of you today. And just on locality as well, because that's a general point and I've set out the legislation. It's in the agenda pack, but it's also in my written submissions. We're looking at discretionary grounds, if you will. The first is on suitability. And I'd submit to you that because of what's happened with the appeal and a series of compliant trading that's been tested both by the licensing authority and by our own independent consultant and by the management team, that Mr Clare is not suitable and that the applicant company is not suitable to hold the license. In terms of locality, chair, I've submitted Dr Hadfield's report, which you may have seen in the agenda pack. And it's at 117 to 1176. So it's quite a chunky report. And I know that you've read that before. And that report was commissioned for the SCV renewal in 2023. Now, Dr Hadfield is an expert that's been utilised by Westminster City Council. It's your own expert, if you will. Dr Hadfield determines that not only is Carlisle Street suitable, but the council's own policy also confirms that it's a suitable location. There is a cap within the SCV policy of up to 25 SCV premises and we're not anywhere near that at this point. So we wouldn't submit based on Westminster's own policy and also based on Dr Hadfield's report that Carlisle Street is a suitable location. And that concludes, I think, my submissions on 2023. Do you want me to stop there and then we address 2024 separately? Probably separately you can do 2024. Shall we continue? If it helps, my submissions are going to be identical on both. I'm not sure if you want to hear me 10 minutes twice. I think that's it. If they have this opportunity, you will get the same opportunity as well. We're in the same position to our representation as involved at a time. I think it'd be easier for us to summarise that in one go. Shall I do the same? OK, so I'll carry on with 2024 and then I'll sum up on both. And then, yeah, OK, perfect. So the 2024 renewal, obviously we were in this position because we've got effectively the refused renewal appealed and therefore the licence was still active, but held in the ethers because of the appeal. The 2023 renewal went in in December 2023 and then before the appeal was settled. We got 2020 or in it all, which is the last one that we're hearing today. So that's the reason why. So during that application consultation chair, we received representations from the licensing authority. We didn't get the police this time around. We did get environmental help and for interested parties, but some of those repeat the previous representations that were made. So just to address your first chair on everything I said previously about the operation, the policies, etc. The conditions obviously all applies to the 2024 renewal and the licensing authority did make a representation. But at that point, again, we weren't at the point of agreeing conditions and settling in the appeal. So that representation has now been updated and Mr Hayes will address you on that. In terms of environmental health and the licensing authorities representation in terms of the capacity, there were various visits by city inspectors during the appeal period, which we understand why, because they need to go and check compliance and they're also gathering their evidence for the appeal. And it did get to a point where we felt that the premises had been signed off for reopening in May 2023 and it finally reopened in June 2023. So at that point, we had police licensing and environmental health who did a visit to the premises, checked everything over, location of cameras for CCTV policies, procedures, layout, etc. All of that was checked and signed off by various offices of the council. And it was deemed that the premises was suitable to open again. And there were various visits, particularly December 2023, gearing up for the magistrates court hearing where officers would visit. They would speak to staff, they'd speak to security staff. Now, we can understand why they did that. But I had some slight concerns as time went on that there was a constant sort of looking for things that might be wrong, which I understand because of the history of the premises. But we felt it was necessary at that point that we sit down with the licensing authority and we addressed it because at the end of the day, this premises operates within the borough. And Westminster is the regulator, so the operators have got to be able to work in partnership with the officers, be that licensing police or environmental health. And so we did have a meeting and I put some documents into the agenda pack. You will see an initial letter that came in in June 2024 from Alan Kittredge. This was an issue about fire extinguishers and it was a misunderstanding. They had been inspected and we were able to rectify that. But following that, I requested a meeting which I attended with Mr. Clare and with Mr. Wilmot as well. So Mr. Hayes was there also. So we were able to sit down and talk about the operation of the premises. We didn't at that point discuss any compromise of the appeal, but it was really just to get on an even footing in terms of being able to work together because we've got staff at the premises who are apprehensive about the possibility of losing their jobs if the appeal was lost. You know, this is an employer of a number of people that have got families and responsibilities and they're able to work around childcare, etc. So understandably from the staff's point of view, you know, they were fearful that if the appeal didn't go the way that we hoped it would do, that they would potentially lose their job. So we raised with the authorities at that meeting that there was a certain level of anxiety amongst staff, not because they felt they were doing anything wrong or trying to hide anything. But we wanted to reach an understanding with the authority that we weren't trying to breach conditions. There was no benefit to doing that. But there would just seem to be this underlying thing of every time we were visited, there was something else that was raised. So the operators have accommodated that as far as possible. One of the things that has been raised since is about the capacity of the premises. Now it's 89 in total and that's conditioned on the SEV license. It's never been a problem before. It was never raised at the time that the premises was signed off for reopening. And there's been this request for a daily log to be or an hourly log to be maintained in terms of SIA staff monitoring capacities, etc. Now there was a visit and that's been referred to in the licensing authority representation and in the environmental health representation about clickers and being able to monitor the capacities. Now I've listened to a recording of that visit and the operators were able to confirm the capacity figures to officers at that time. Now the requesters come in for a daily log condition and an hourly log condition to be implemented so that door staff on an hourly basis to recording the capacities across the floors. Now we would say, although we're not completely adverse to having a condition, it's never been raised as an issue before. Generally, the premises does not reach capacity at all. It's very small because of the layout as well, chair. It's quite easy to see across the floors how many people are there at any one time. So in terms of you considering the representations from licensing and environmental health about clickers and hourly logs, I would suggest it's not proportionate to implement another condition because it hasn't been an issue before. But I'm in your hands. And if you're minded to do so, what I would ask is that you consider not necessarily an hourly log. And my concern on that is if officers, for example, visit on a busy Saturday night and the log is due to be completed at 11pm, officers turn up at 10.55 and the management team or the security dealing with them. Technically, if we're at one minute past 11 and that log is not done, we're in breach. And so I'd suggest we don't think it's necessary to implement that. But if you are minded to, then I've got some wording, which is a daily log is to be maintained by SIA door security to ensure that any capacity limits set for the basement, ground floor and first floor are recorded and can be properly monitored. Information regarding the capacity will be given to an authorised officer or police officer on request. So that just removes that hourly requirement, which is a little too onerous for the chair for us to be able to guarantee that we can comply with. It's not that we don't want to. I just don't want to settle up for something that could be a technical breach straight away. And then just back to partnership working as well, we had the meeting on the 23rd of September 2024. We had at that point rectified the issues in terms of the fire equipment and we confirmed that it had been tested. We then get the issue of the clickers at that meeting. We'd asked if we could arrange a reinspection with officers at that point and we were told that we wouldn't rearrange it. We would come when you least expect us, which again gives that impression of our officers trying to catch us out. We don't want to have that impression. We want to work in partnership with the officers. But I felt it was important that we got that across to the licensing authority that, again, it's not in our advantage to breach conditions and that we wanted to work in partnership with them. And hopefully we've now reached a point where we can. And then just to finish off, Chair, the interested party representations on the 2024 renewal, they repeat a lot of the things that were in the 2023 representation. Some of those representations are copy and pasted. But again, they relate to public nuisance and to locality and the suitability of the locality as well. In terms of public nuisance, you've got environmental health here on the 2024 renewal. There haven't been any substantiated noise complaints either. So you've got the minutes from the residence meeting and you can see that when they are attended, issues have been dealt with. The residents have a direct contact number for Mr Wilmot as well, so are able to get in touch. And they've acknowledged that there has been an improvement in the representation since Mr Neages and Mr Wilmot were appointed. We want to work with them. We want to accommodate them. There's a condition on the license that we'll have quarterly residence meetings. Again, it's not anybody's intention to not work with the residents. There's also throughout the representations, allegations of loud music. And because of the style of the premises, it's not a loud music venue. So a lot of customers will pay for performance time. But in actual fact, what happens is they sit down and they will have a chat with the performers. And so this is not a nightclub, thankfully. And it's not the kind of premises where there is loud music because it's the kind of premises where it needs to lend itself to have a conversation chair. And it may be, I don't know, but it may be that that loud music is coming from other venues because this is the middle of Soho at the end of the day. So there's no suggestion that it is definitely coming from Sapphire. So to finish off in terms of locality again, I won't repeat what's in my written submissions, but I'll refer again to Dr Hadfield's report and to the Council's own SEV policy. It does determine that this is a suitable location. We are well within the numbers and we've got historic operation of this premises. It's been repeatedly renewed until it wasn't for other reasons. So that concludes my submission chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You mentioned the customer welfare. Andrea is customer welfare officer or something. Is this position work before or is it a new, newly created position? It's a new position since the premises reopened in June 2023. And so as part of the overhaul of the management team, it was identified that there should be a performer manager. That's more of a direct contact day to day with the performance, but also customer welfare as well. The allegations previously chair, although they weren't proven by the Met Police, were that customers had been spiked and that they'd been thefts. And unfortunately, the summary review was launched on that basis, but it was found I've referred to it in my written submission. So this is not new information. It was found by the committee themselves that the police unfortunately hadn't scrutinized the evidence. But despite of any of that, we still took that on board and we've implemented this management team. But we just felt they needed to be that go to between performers, customers and having a dedicated member to look after them. How do you train your new management team? How do we train them? Yeah. So that so everybody is trained right at the start and then they're refreshed every six months. Steve, do you want to speak on that? Yeah, I mean, we've got like full training policy. Everyone before, you know, no matter what position they have before they set foot on the floor, they're given like full training, which is normally done by myself or sometimes done by Sultan. We go through several different categories, everything signed off and then every six months we will do refreshes on that. What is the total number of staff you have currently? Well, we divide the staff into so we have like performers who were there on a self-employed basis. We have SIA staff and then we have the management and bar staff. All together, how many are? We can have on a busy night up to somewhere between like 10 and 20 staff. OK. So you mentioned about the capacity. So it's confirmed capacity is 89, is it? It is. Yeah, that's because that's on the SCV license chair. So historically, this premises operated as a nightclub, which had a high capacity. But because of the style of operation and the layout as an SCV, it's been determined that 89 is the same capacity. So you mentioned this is not a nightclub. It's definitely not a nightclub chair. But still you are using the nightclub in your company name. In which company name chair? The applicant? The applicant, yeah. Well, the SCV license has been in this company name for all the time it's been in effect. But it's definitely not a nightclub. It's got an 89 capacity on the SCV license. So it's not able to be to be a pretty quiet nightclub chair. So you mentioned about the incident meetings. I have seen a couple of meetings you have already organized. And this is a condition, isn't it? It is. It's a condition. Did you invite to the Soho Society in any of your meetings? Yes, you did. Yeah, they're invited via email in advance. There's one which goes to admin at Soho Society. And there's also one which goes to Timlet's Soho Society. So these are continuing future events? Every quarterly meeting. Quarterly meeting we're continuing. Christian? Yes. So your staff aren't directly employed then? The VAR staff are chair in the management team. But the performers are self-employed. But regardless of that, they're all trained in the same way. So they're not, nobody's allowed to work until they've had the training. So your VAR staff are more permanent staff? They are. Yeah. And that's standard practice across SCBs that they perform. It's a bit like the VAR staff counsellor. The performers are self-employed. The security staff are all seconded out, if you will, or contracted by a security company. And then we've got our core management team and VAR staff who are employed by the company. So you secures the staff at, although there's a social security company, do you get the same staff regularly at your? We do, yeah. We do, yeah. We have four of five different SIA officers who will alternate over the weekly period. Oh, yes. You mentioned the performers there, they're self-employed. How many would you get kind of on average per night? I mean, how many performers would there be at any one time? It can, it depends on the night of the week, but it will, it could go from four or five up and up to like maybe like 10 or 12. And do they, do they perform on a stage or are they, you mentioned booths? I mean, how, how does this work? So you've got a stage at ground floor level counsellor, and then you've got booths at basement level. So they're the VIP booths if you will. So kind of one client and one performer. And then do you have security cameras in those? Yes. We have security cameras everywhere throughout the premises, which were, I think when they reopened, were signed off by the police, has been like happy with the position of everything. And then as a, as an extra measure, there's a security guard who's always present, who monitors those performances. And then one of the staff, normally myself, will also be monitoring those performances on CCTV. I mean, you've got strict conditions about what can happen in those booths, but they are, you know, nobody would know if there weren't cameras. It's a very much kind of belt and braces approach that, you know, we kind of, we've got someone who's actually physically present there. And we've got someone who's monitoring all the performances on CCTV. So you said the girls are self-employed. So how do they, do they get tips? I mean, from these, if they go into a booth with a, with a kind of customer, do they get a tip from the customer or how, how, how does it work out? But then they are remunerated. Well, there's a standard, there's a standard payment. Right. Which for, for, for. For each night. Yeah. Oh, I see. Okay. But do they accept tips and do they get tips as well? Are you tipping normal? Um, occasionally. I'm asking. Yeah. Occasionally. Occasionally. Yeah. Sorry, Councillor. Just, just to clarify this, there's a procedure for payment as well. Just again, because that's where it's got the potential to go wrong. So, uh, previous steps are, there's a form. Everybody's made aware of the price before they commit to the performance. Um, door staff are there to supervise everything. Phones are taken away, put away during the performance, et cetera. So there's no filming or anything else that could lead to, to problems. Um, and there's a camera, a CCTV camera located where each payment will be taken. So it's clear if there's ever any discrepancy or any allegations, because people do sometimes. Um, just to make sure that that's on camera so that we've got a backup, if you will, of, of what payments been made and what time. So there's, yeah, there's one specific pay point. Mm. Yeah. Analog is kept to those as well. Good. And I think, um, it's good that there's, there are regular meetings. I mean, let's go back to why we're here because residents have, um, complained and there are, you know, issues. Um, but you have these meetings. Um, how, how do the local councils, um, attend? I, I saw that Paul Fisher was supposed to go one evening, but he didn't turn up. So no, they regularly invited all the local council. Yeah. I mean, um, so we've got a list of, I think it's about, um, 12, um, people that are invited. Um, so in that we've got, um, someone from the, from Westminster police. I think there's three, uh, different, uh, councillors on there. Uh, like I said, there's, there's, there's two, um, invites that go out to, um, Soho society. Uh, and then there's individual ones that go to, um, the, the, the main kind of local residents. Are there, um, other meetings in the, in the, in the club? They're at the venue every, every time. Are people given the opportunity to join on teams, for example, like we're doing today, just to make it easier for people to attend if they want to? Or is it only an in person? No, we do it as an, as an in person. If you're doing on teams, this just makes it easier. You don't get, you get such low attendance. I just wonder whether that might be an idea. There is a notice as well, councillor, and I can vouch for this because I've, I've seen it when I visit and I always take a photo. There's a big notice is put on the front of the premises to advertise, uh, the time of the residents meeting as well. Personally, I think potentially the reasons why it's now not so well attended are one, there are fewer issues, I would hope. But two, residents have been told that there's a direct contact number for, for Mr Wilmite. And he's been very open of, I think you've even said to them, call me at four in the morning if you want to. Yeah. Yeah. I must admit, I do, as, as the local councillor sitting on these meetings, that's something I've always asked for, as is in the conditions, a direct delivery number, not just an answer machine. It's got to be a voice at the end of, you know, something you can talk. Yeah, it's, it's my personal mobile phone and I'm assured to more if, even if there's an incident like at three o'clock, four o'clock in the morning, if I'm not able to respond to it straight away, it will be the first thing that I do the following morning is to, to address any concerns. But it's really good, you know, it's so frustrating if you just get an answer phone. Yeah. You know, you've got a problem and you can't get through to the person who's in charge. So, you know, councillor, it's, it's not in the operator's interest not doing it. We don't want to end up in a situation that we ended up in before because it's been a journey to get before you today. So there's, there's absolutely no benefits in breaching the conditions. There's no point in not accommodating residents. There's no point in creating noise because the fact is we come back before you every year. And even if it doesn't come up on a renewal, it will come up in another way. We've also got the alcohol license as well. So, you know, there's two routes of enforcement. So it's, it's not in the operator's interest not to engage or to cause problems. And we're very aware of that, sadly. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anything else? The questions later. That's fine. Thank you very much. Now I am moving to our licensing authority. James. Thank you. Good morning everyone. James Hayes. Thank you. I shouldn't get to. Yeah. Yeah. So student. Tower representation on behalf of the licensing authority are available at pages 203, 256 and 257 of your committee report. You'll see that that evolved over time. So this particular application and these hearings are two years in the making essentially, which is quite a unique situation that we do refuse and we have had appeals of those decisions previously. But we haven't then had a lot of scenarios where that decision was appealed to allow more time essentially for the operator to continue trading with, which is a lawful process. And it's built within the regulation, which allows that mechanism to unfold. And in that time, our focus has remained the suitability of the license holder. I don't think that Mr. Clare would dispute that the circumstances which brought us here in the first instance were things that he would encourage or that he would condone. So I know that there's some issues around some of the other information which was challenged, but certainly that the non-compliance in relation to the DSCV conditions and in particular the no contact conditions, which they're specifically to protect welfare and the welfare of the reformers on the premises and are important to us, weren't being complied with at the time. And he needed to ensure that the steps were taken to rectify that and ensure not only was it rectified, but it was rectified in a sustainable way going forward to ensure that we had confidence that the premises could be run suitably and he be able to demonstrate himself as a suitable license holder. In terms of the 2023 submissions, so you will see there that we raised some concerns with regards to a visit and pedicabs as well. Again, Mrs. Taylor's done a really good job of summarising that there. There are issues with pedicabs in the vicinity. The premises do have some specific responsibilities though with regards to managing the issues caused by pedicabs, which are conditions now of the license, both the premises license and the DSCV license as well. So we hope again they'll go along the way to addressing those concerns that we had back in 2023. 2024, you will see that our city inspectors carried out a number of visits and I appreciate we've had some comments about how those visits were conducted. We, of course, we take that sort of feedback online. We don't want to be accused of doing anything which is in accordance with our code of conduct and our enforcement protocols. I guess they also have to be taken into consideration in the context that at the stage that those visits were being conducted, two layers of decision makers, both the previous licensing subcommittee, but also a district judge upon appeal of the magistrates court had said that the license holder wasn't suitable. So as much as we would want to be partnership working and things like that, I don't think it would be fair to say that the approach was completely warranted. Again, as I say, where we have to take that feedback and partnership working is, of course, a key element when it comes to enforcement and then going forward. We will certainly take that back into consideration. One thing that was notable, though, was that of all of the issues that were identified in 2024, they were certainly less serious than those issues that have been identified in 2022. So that certainly around things like that fire equipment, the capacity I'll come to in a little bit because Ms. Taylor's raised that as a condition certainly less serious. If those were the only issues that have been identified over the course of the operation, we wouldn't be here because they would be things that we would deal with in an advisory capacity, knowing that they'd be identified. With regards to the specific capacity condition, the officers that visited that night, one of them is from a security background. So she used to work on the doors as an SIA door supervisor. So she's very familiar with the process. So I would be happy to say that even though we've incorporated that as part of our representation, very much again an advisory slash best practice capacity. In the discussion with the management team that we're working on the night, it was more of a discussion in terms of, well, how can you demonstrate that you're complying with these conditions? So rather than say they were compliant, there was certainly no allocation that they're over capacity. It would be more, how would you be able to demonstrate in the future if you were challenged that you were operating in line? So if it wasn't to be put on as a condition, again, Ms. Taylor suggested some wording which we wouldn't be opposed to. But again, it would be a discretionary thing for you to consider if you felt that was a proportionate condition. Now, in terms of the previous two years, it has been a lot of involvement from the licensing authority, both as part of the renewal applications, but also going to appeal hearings, the first at the Magistrates Court and then preparing to have that appeal heard at the Crown Court as well. Throughout that time, one of our key considerations with deciding how, as the local authority, we're going to proceed with that was to do with the operation and conduct of the premises. And as I've said, we got to a point where the issues that were being identified and highlighted became of a much less and less serious nature. So the question for us was and remains, is the license holder suitable to the license in terms of the back and forth properly through the legal teams, but also the licensing authority was actively involved in that was to say, right, if we're not going to say that the license holder is still unsuitable, what measures can we put in place to ensure that going forward absolutely clear what the operating standards are expected? How can they demonstrate that they're continuing with that? And we'd be confident that going forward, the issues that caused the situation in the first place are primarily around the contact and the welfare of the performers, but also some of the environmental impacts as well with regards to noise and nuisance were addressed. So what we came up with was a bundle of 59 conditions in total and 18 essentially bespoke conditions. So the back story with those 59 conditions is that the first bundle were our standard conditions, which we feel are very good and you would have known having sit on these type of hearings previously that have been in place for a long time. They work, they're quite clear, and they set out a really good framework in terms of the standards we expect of operators of SEV premises. We then looked at what the conditions were that were imposed following the review hearing, and I appreciate the Licensing Act, the licensing objectives are slightly different, but we looked at what conditions were imposed through the Licensing Act premises license were also relatable to the carrying on of the relevant entertainment under this licensing regime. And to say, right, let's try and duplicate where possible to make it easier for the license holder to comply, but also that they were specific to the relevant entertainment so that they're appropriate for the condition or for the license as well. And then we took into consideration some of the extra measures that have been imposed or have been volunteered by the license holder as well. So that's sort of the evolution of how those 59 conditions camp up. And as I say that the real emphasis for getting to those conditions was what were the issues? What needs to be done to be addressed? Is it sustainable? And if we're not there, so our city inspectors have got thousands of licensed premises to check. Can we ensure that if we're not there every minute of the day that we've got the extra confidence that they're also carrying out their own proactive checks to ensure compliance with the relevant either conditions or objectives as well? So that was the sort of evolution of those. I won't go through them in detail because there's a lot to go through. But certainly if you wanted to have a look when you've gone back from a welfare perspective, we've put a lot of effort on the welfare of the performers and people visiting the premises. So conditions number 42, number 46, number 47, number 51 and number 55. My submissions are from page number 257. I believe that you've included in part of your submissions as well. But if you were to look at from page 257 of the report, as I say, condition for 42, 46, 47, 51 and 55. Go a long way, we believe, to protecting the welfare of the visiting and working with the premises. We've also put on condition number 42, as I say, so that's very specifically relating to the management of the outside area. And again, the residents will be more than capable of speaking themselves about some of the environmental issues that they are reporting. Again, if we're looking at 42 as well from a local authority perspective, we were happy that that we need some some way to reach driving for what our expectations or what our hope was for the responsible operator to ensure that the impact was minimized. We then have conditions number 52, 53, 54 and 59. And as I say, these are all either requested by us or volunteered by the license holder to say, not only are we expecting things to operate in a certain way, we also want the onus on you to ensure they're operating in a certain way that essentially takes the burden away from us and puts the burden towards the license holder and the cost for the license holder as well. So again, not just to carry out checks that compliance has been achieved, achieved, but also to be able to demonstrate to us by way of reports or documentation that these things have been carried out as well. So yeah, as I say, that that's gone a long way. That's sort of the evolution of where we got to in preparing for the hearing. We got to a point where it felt that it wasn't necessarily proposed that. And in the best interest of anyone to then proceed to a full hearing. So this settlement got to a point where it was the local authority. We were satisfied. And essentially I'd have to update my representation as well to say that in line with the settlement prior to the authority, we as the licensing authority, again, certainly taken into consideration the previous 12 months of compliant operation and no issues have been able to reassess our position, say that we were absolutely right to feel that there was an unsuitable element. It wouldn't reflect that the previous decisions were bad either, because obviously that they've taken into consideration the operation and the information available at the time. So it's certainly not to reflect on those previous decisions. It's just to say, what are we looking at now? Can we have confidence that the license holder has demonstrated themselves to be suitable to hold a license? And so our position would be that we're able to be satisfied at this stage. And as Ms Taylor said, these applications or these licenses are subject to a 12 month renewal anyway. So if over the next 12 months we felt that all of these measures that we've put in place and we've come to over a long period of time with a lot of consideration, aren't being adhered to, then again in 12 months time we might be having a slightly different conversation with a slightly different approach. But based on the information that's available to us today, we're satisfied with the suitability. The management team has been raised as well. You will see that there are very specific conditions with regards to the historic management team. So it's not just that they've volunteered some new people to attend today. That's conditioned as well. So those specific people that we had concerns with and the police had concerns with back in 2022 slash 2023 have left. And they've not only left, but they are by law people to work on the premises anymore either. I haven't gone into a lot around the location and the suitability of the area, only because our position from a policy perspective is that there's been an SUV premises at the premises since 2012. That's when this particular licensing scheme first came into effect. And there haven't been any significant changes for the licensing authority to change our position on that. 2020, 2012, we were satisfied or suitable either based on the locality or the numbers. And we haven't. We haven't changed our position on that. Yeah, that's it for me. As I say, a relatively unique set of circumstances. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is for you. So this is the angle. Okay. So we can continue. So the condition you proposed is accepted by anyone. management of this. Yeah, it was part of the settlement. So in order for the license, because the situation was that the license was refused. That decision was appealed. The Magistrates Court agreed that that was a good decision. So that appeal was dismissed. Meaning that in theory, the decision was that it would be refused. While the appeal process was ongoing, the premises could continue to trade, but the settlement included the reinstatement of the license, including the conditions. So yes, we were satisfied that by imposing all of those conditions, which were agreed by the license funder, we were happy that the license could be reinstated. So you are happy with the suitability of the premises now. This was your concern previously? Oh, completely. Yeah, yeah. I would say completely justified and completely satisfied by the information that was available back in 2022. The difficult culture at the premises appeared to be on one of the lines quite blatantly. But as I say, there have been an evolution over time. And as more information has come, more compliance has been achieved. We couldn't decide. I don't think it would be appropriate to belligerently hold to that view that it's unsuitable and forever unsuitable. Had there not been improvements at the premises and had there not been a response, we wouldn't take a different position. But as I say, because of the ongoing compliance, which has been checked, we were able to change our view now. Thank you very much. Yes, I think you've given a really good count of all the work that's been going on behind the scenes, and it all sounds very good. But I have been just refreshing my memory of the, you know, the kind of people who are, you know, coming against, who are against the operation going ahead. And there are some serious issues that they raise, still noise and, you know, kind of disorderly behaviour in the street. So what, you know, it's still, were there representations were sent on the 20th, the 5th of January. But I just, I just wonder, you know, it doesn't quite accord with what you're saying about, yes, it sounds like they're all wanting to improve and run an orderly business. But from what we're hearing from the complainants is, it's not quite as it sounds. That's often the case, isn't it? We can only see what we can see when we leave with a snapshot. And when we do our visits, the area would be checked in terms of as their noise break out, as their environmental issues that need to be addressed. If we don't see them, we can't necessarily tackle them. It's very different if you live in that vicinity 24-7, 365. So yes, there are always going to be slight differences. We did include conditions specifically to try and prevent that. So whereas before there weren't those express conditions. Same, you know, in terms of the noise and the street management plan. I did check, though, in preparation for this hearing in terms of the noise complaints that we'd received, that we'd been able to investigate. And we didn't have any, and I know that NL will be able to go into more detail. And it's not to say it's not happening. It's just to say that we, on our own reports, haven't received any complaints. So I guess that the feedback again would be that if we don't know, it's hard for us to investigate. We do have a 24-7 noise service. So depending on who was talking, our advice again would be, you've got your residence meeting, which again are imposed by conditions, but also we have a service that we would want to hear those complaints. It would appreciate that on a Saturday night when we're dealing with, say, 60 at a particular time, we might not be able to get to each one. However, at least if we've got a record of that, it's able for us to log in. It's able for us to present that information as well as part of these hearings. But we did look at that, but there wasn't any information for us to be able to present to you as part of the hearing today. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. I've heard you all too. Environmental Health family. Thank you, Chair. I'm Anil Drehan and I work for the Environmental Health Department, for the Environmental Health Consultation Team. We normally work with applicants to devise conditions and so on and so forth. In this case, the lead has been taken by the licensing authority and we. Our style is follows the licensing authority's agreement on conditions as to where we are with the renewal application. In that sense, our original application representation was to support licensing authority and what the city inspectors found as to how the premises was operating. They have agreed a lot of additional conditions, which will address a lot of the issues that were arisen. So I can confirm that we have not received from our records that there has been significant noise issues reported to us. It doesn't mean that these don't occur. So I'm partly here to advise committee and persons affecting our reported service. If that is not used. If that is not used. We cannot follow up on issues that might be arising at the premises. Nevertheless, our city inspectors do monitor the area. even if there's no complaints received or and or visit the premises. The last visit I can see on our records, there was a monitoring visit by our city inspectors. We had a monitored area outside Sapphire Gentlemen's Club to monitor for ASB, antisocial behaviour and a noise and found the area very quiet. That was done at 1.40 in the morning. What was the date? That 8th of February. That was Saturday morning. Friday night going into Saturday morning. So city inspectors, we do monitor. Even if there are no complaints, especially where premises has had a previous history to ensure whether there has been any improvement from what was occurring before. But I do want to reiterate. If there is music noise coming through the building fabric from the premises itself. That needs to be reported to environmental health and city inspectors so that we visit and monitor whether it's coming from the premises or elsewhere. And or decide whether the sound limiter that is in operation needs to be reset. But we've not had such requests or such reports certainly in the last two years that I checked on our records. So I would urge residents who are affected by music. To use the reported function. And we can then decide whether a resetting of the limiter is needed or the noise is coming from elsewhere. Now, it could be that does the premises operate other than under relevant entertainment? Do you ever operate? Because I could see if you if there were days you weren't operating as a under relevant entertainment and you were just operating on a premises license. In those situations, you might play your music louder. But that still shouldn't cause any issues if the sound limiter is correctly set. So so on that basis, I have nothing further to add unless you have any questions for me. Thank you very much. Thank you very interesting issues because the voting system is in place. But if you don't receive any reports from the receiver, then how we can subsidise that this issue is a value issue, of course. Could you tell me about the capacity? Are you with this capacity at 89? Under the relevant entertainment capacity, it is 89. Under the premises license, I think if a robot entertainment was in current now, the capacity can be 175, I believe. So so the 89 isn't mainly a safety capacity is a capacity that enables the premises to operate in a relaxed manner. So so so. I'm not looking for a capacity that is monitored, you know, on an hourly basis or and so on and so on. So where we would normally do that is. And this is like a nightclub where they do over over fill premises and you would then need to monitor your capacity on a, you know, very often basis rather than just rely on an overall capacity. So in this case. So in this case. I'm not looking for a capacity to be monitored, you know. I'm not looking for a capacity to be monitored. But. But. Often. As. As was suggested. One of the conditions. OK. Do you suggest any other conditions? All the conditions you suggested and they suggested has been accepted? Yes. I can't see any other conditions that I could suggest. OK. Thank you very much. Any question? Well, I guess it's kind of a question, but it does sound like what you've just said, that it's beneficial really to the local community that it is a sex. A performance venue rather than a regular nightclub because the capacity would be much larger and the noise probably louder. So that's the fact that it is this kind of venue is is kind of better than it could be. There is evidence that shows nightclubs cause much greater issues than SEV privacy, especially those nightclubs that have turned into SEV privacy. In those areas, it has improved from a public nuisance point of view and ASV point of view. With regards to the pedicabs, that is a Westminster wide issue. I know city inspectors work, try and work with SIA, wear premises up SIA and they encourage SIA staff to take evidence, to take photos, to see whether they're regular pedicab operatives that are causing the problems. And I know in the past where particular pedicabs have been identified as causing the problem, city inspectors have been able to take formal action because they've got evidence against particular operatives. And that has helped to reduce some of the issues caused by pedicabs and one of the conditions agreed is to help how pedicabs are monitored by SIA operating at the premises and I think that will reduce the impact from them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now we are moving to the orientation party. First, I'm going to Richard Brown and so on. I did actually wonder if you might want to hear from the objector online first because I don't know what they're going to say and I don't want to say anything that contradicts. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Is Mr. Heard Matthiessen online now? Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we are hearing you. Please go ahead. Good. I'm no longer muted. I've listened to that on a much better line second time around and heard almost everything that I think I need to hold. There are two questions which you've been considering today. One is, is the license holder suitable? And on that basis, I'm sorry, on that question, I and the other residents, particularly Alice Dugdale and Kevin Price, we attend the meetings from time to time. Alice never does because they're held at a time when she has announced that she will not be available, but Kevin and I go from time to time. And I apologize for not going to the last one, but I broke my hip the night before, so I didn't even send an apology. I'm sorry. The meetings with Steve Wilmot and Soltan are courteous and of very little, very little, very few objections ever discussed because at the moment in the present economic climate, there is very little trade going on. The music is, as has been asserted several times by different witnesses, not loud, and the issues we used to have with security staff and irate punters at the door at all times of the night are negligible to the point of zero. So is the license holder suitable? The residents are not suggesting that the present management team is anything other than very good. That doesn't mean that the license holder doesn't in at any time in the future as people move on change and we don't go back to the bad times before. So the continuation of the license under these managers, no problem. The continuation of the license under any different manager and we may well be back where we were before. That's the end of my evidence on that point. The locality point, I am in a particularly fortunate position that I bought the building in 1986 from Paul Raymond and his agent, and speaking for him, said that the Dolls House Striptease and Nude Review, which had occupied those premises up till October 86, had ceased. It ceased because Paul Raymond no longer thought that that was a suitable part of Soho to carry on that trade. And he sold it and he sold it to me. I changed the use from whatever the SEV was called in those days and put it back to an ordinary restaurant. I then left it to a restaurateur and one occupier after another and sold the freehold, I beg your pardon. One entrepreneur after another has extended and upgraded the license from a bit of music to music and dancing to midnight to one to two to three AM. And that has been at a huge cost to the residents' peace of mind. There are three residential flats immediately above the club and there's now the Soho Residence Hotel at the end of the road, plus many other residents. Several, not many, several other residents in that narrow cul-de-sac. It's well to the north of the 24-hour city and it is an outlier. And I've heard all the evidence from why the local authority decided to include it in its SEV zone of activity, but it is not appropriate. And I would give much longer and more boring evidence if I was asked to on why it doesn't work. But it's sleazy, it's grubby and it demeans the street. And it is very surprising to visitors to find that in otherwise tranquil 18th century street, we've got this sad, sad venue with its apparent gloss. And underneath grime. So on the locality point, I am very assertive and very strongly of the opinion that this is an unsuitable venue on the management point. Perfectly happy with the current circumstances, but terrified of when Steve and Zoltan move on. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Matissem. Thank you. That was helpful, I think, actually, to hear the historical context of someone that's been there since the mid-80s. I'm going to mainly speak about locality. It wasn't part of the Magistrates' Court appeal when it reached the hearing stage, nor part of the Crown Court appeal that focused on suitability. So the objector I'm representing in the Service Society Court was important to attend today to give the committee that perspective from the residents and the business on Carlisle Street. And in fact, no one's saying this, but it wouldn't be sufficient for a committee to say, well, the suitability point has been covered off, so it would be safe to grant. There are those other issues which have been raised and everyone around the table has acknowledged that very, very fairly. So the more recent history is that objections have been submitted to previous renewals on the basis of pedicabs, noise outside and social behaviour dispersal. This is the key point, and that the pedicab problem was specifically due to the presence of this venue here, and that's absolutely key. There's been lots of discussion in the previous renewal hearings about that. Of course, pedicabs are a problem through SOCO, and that's obviously not the applicant's fault. But our position has been that the pedicab problem on Carlisle Street is because the venue is there. And that seems to be proven correct on the expedited review. That, followed by the SDV renewal refusal, when it became clear that although the police didn't make out the allegations about spiking, which led to the expedited review, what that did was turn up all the breaches of conditions which have led to the litigation. And what became clear then was that the presence of pedicabs outside the venue was critical to the incidents. I'm not blaming the license holder. But what happened was that the fronters who had spent eye-watering amounts of money in the venue were then taken elsewhere, often by the pedicabs and scammed. That was what had happened, and the police didn't make out the case about drink spiking, but as I say, upturned the breaches of condition which have led to the litigation. So, the position of residents for many years has been partly that the locality is unsuitable because of this pedicab issue. The question isn't whether SOHO is suitable for SEVs. Clearly it is. The SOHO Society have never objected to an SEV renewal on the basis that it's an SEV. They've only objected in cases like this where there have been problems connected to it to support the residents. And as your officers report states on page 4 when it deals with character, the Allot 1 policy, they say that the car last week is a small culture without through traffic. It's an enclave. And I would ask you please to that assessment from your own officer to Dr Hadfield's report, which I'll come on to later. Anyhow, previous objections have resulted in conditions being added to the licence. They are 39, 40 and 41 on page 12. I think the wording may have been tweaked or set into the Crown Court to feel effectively that the conditions remains the same. In condition 42, James will correct me if I'm wrong, I think that was a condition that was on the premises licence, which is now on the SEV licence as part of the timing of processing of the Crown Court to feel. And looked at in the round, what they do is they say to the licence, look, you need to do everything you can do to control pedicabs outside your venue. Since those conditions have been put on, things improved and got worse and they improved and got worse. And the assessment of the obvious question, of course, is what's the situation now? And my instructions are similar to the objective you spoke to on the plane, that the situation has improved. It's very fair of resonance to acknowledge that the situation of pedicabs isn't how it's been in previous years. But we've been, you know, we've seen this story before. It has improved in the past and then it has declined. So if nothing else comes out of this hearing, we would like to put the licence on our notice. And the good work that they have been doing and we acknowledge that has to continue. Because if we're here this time next year and the situation's deteriorated, I think we'd be a lot more robust in saying, well, look, they've had enough. They've had enough. They've had enough chances now. And what is a little bit concerning to me on that point is that the compliance documentation that's in the paperwork, the compliance reports, risk assessment, they don't cover off those conditions at all, the outside area. They're focused on the adherence to the relevant entertainment conditions inside the venue. There's no mention after all in the compliance reports about these conditions outside the venue, whether they're being compliant with what's happening. Clearly the venue is doing something right. But it would have been nice to see some acceptance of that in the paperwork. And the risk assessment, I'm afraid, is the same. Turning to the Hadfield report. This was, at least the observations were done in the depths of winter two years ago. And crucially when the premises was closed, the premises was not open when Dr Hadfield did his observations. There's no update to that report and he's not here to answer questions. But he does mention pedicabs. And what he says on page 119 is that pedicabs form part of the late night scene with ready business effectively in the area. But the number built is when he comes back to the issue on page 141. And what he says there is that the Carlisle Street end of Dean Street has some pedicabs traveling through. That's the crucial point. That's always been the case. The issue that residents have had is when pedicabs gathered outside the venue. We always said that was because the venue was there and because of the nature of the venue. That seems to be borne out by the expedited review. So that is the crucial nuance that we ask you to consider. With very open affair, the situation has improved. But it can't be allowed to deteriorate again and. The really the reason why this is for Sapphire to to to get a grip on can be seen by Dr Hadfield's analysis of premises in the area. He starts that analysis on page 130. With Carlisle Street, you have to get to page 132 midsection of Dean Street before you even get a 1M license. That's a sober third, which is a performance venue. So the suggestion that was made that one noise might be coming from other venues simply isn't tenable after midnight. Noise on Carlisle Street after midnight is coming from Sapphire. So the situation is improved. The I think it's also important to to acknowledge that it isn't just rustics. There is an objection to the 2023 renewal. Rumor as it appears to be the hotel and their hospitality business is being impinged. We're hearing on a daily basis of the schools of hospitality. And clearly that they thought they were being impinged by the operation of this premises. So. In final analysis for today. Situation is improved. There are conditions on the license and we very much hope that the measures that have been implemented to control the repentant cab issue continue. I'm afraid if they don't and the situation deteriorates, then clearly we're going to be here. So I hope that's taken on. Thank you. Probably. Do you have any question? Well, I guess it's kind of if I put it as a question. Do you think the situation would improve when the mayor finally gets around to licensing the pedicabs? They will be licensed. That has been the decision. I thought you were going to ask me when the mayor gets around to the announcements recently. Would have been a difficult question for us. It's to be hoped so. And look, this is, we've sat here before with this thing and we all acknowledge it's a problem for everybody. And he's very fairly, it's a problem for the club as well, which it has been. And for residents. And the council has done, as you know, lots of work around this. The Kay Kin, when she was a council in Northspot, she was an MP, done lots of work around it, which has been great. Members of St James's. Slow down, slow down. And hopefully it will. The time will tell. But I think, I would imagine everyone around the table would, would, hopefully. Thank you. Yeah. Are you a minute? You can really just have a... Yeah. I just wanted to raise two points. I was going to raise one about the locality and Richard has said it. It's a quiet area and it is quiet later. So the noise and the pedicabs are waiting there because of that club. If the club wasn't there, there's no reason for them to be there. So that, that is definitely true. And that is happening. And if the reason, and just to the point about the residence meeting, we are invited. We started to go very early on. And then we realised that really it's a resident conversation with the owners. And obviously if there's any issues that come up out of that, they can contact us. We know them very well and they do contact us. Thank you very much. Before summing up earlier, I'll give you the floor to address some issues that have been raised. So... Would you like me to do that in my summing up chair? Okay, that's fine. Then we can go for summing up. I'm happy to answer any. If you've got questions for me out of their submissions, I'm happy to answer or I can cover it in my summing up. Thank you. Thank you. Anything I'll give you. Yes. Just two free questions. So just to confirm, you're happy with all the conditions in Annex 2? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And can you just repeat so I can write down the conditional clickers in case the committee's minded to impose it? I can, but I'm going to ask that you don't impose it, but I will read out the wording for you. The wording was a daily log is to be maintained by SIA door security to ensure that any capacity limit set for the basement, ground floor and first floor are recorded and can be properly monitored. Full stop. Information regarding the capacity will be given to an authorised officer or police officer on request. Perfect. Interesting. And. Yeah, I think that's a great thing for me. Yeah, good luck. Thank you very much. So we are going to summing up fast licensing authority and if you give us a comment. No, I just want to reinforce the fact that we have not rushed into anything in terms of getting to where we are today. It has been a long, very engaged process from us from the license holder from everyone else involved as well. So our finishing point today reflects a lot of hard work that has gone into a scenario where we were absolutely right to object in the first instance. We've done a lot of work to try and improve everything to get to a point where we feel that if you are minded to grab these two applications today, that we can have confidence that they'll be run responsibly, that they'll be run compliantly and the environmental impact will be reduced. I didn't know some of the feedback that we received today, but actually from what we're hearing, there's obviously still issues for the premises that they need to address. But it does feel like there have been improvements that have been made. So hopefully that reinforces the work that we have done, the license holders done as well, and the engagement through the premises as well. So we've started off in a position where we felt the license holder was not suitable because of what we've notified. Since we've then evolved work with them, we're now in a position where we were happy to say that all the things that have been agreed, that have been reached, we are willing to say that as we sit here today, we're satisfied that the license holder is suitable and that we don't necessarily maintain a position we believe the license should be refused. It's your decision as well. But the licensing authority is that we've got to a point where we're satisfied that the premises can be run responsibly and that the license holder is suitable. Again, we've got that protection of 12 months where we will be doing our compliance checks with all the work with the premises in order to ensure that they're running compliantly. And if the circumstances were to change, then in 12 months time, we might be here with a slightly different approach. But as it stands, we're satisfied that we no longer have the view that the license holder is suitable. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You asked me whether there was additional conditions I might suggest. I couldn't think of any. However, on what Richard has said, I think I would support his request that the compliance orders include the street management as well as part of the government community. So, in the absence of whatever the mayor does regarding pedicabs, I would urge the operator and their SIA security to ensure they gather the, understand if there is a pedicab playing their music loudly, they make sure they understand, take as much evidence as possible, photos and whatever, and contact our city inspectors because residents might not be there to call in the city inspectors to monitor the weather and use this is being caused. So, I think it's something that the SIA operatives should be advised to contact using the reported function as well. They can also use the reporting function to report any issues they find outside and our city inspectors can then do the appropriate follow-up. So, on the basis that all this is being done and the additional conditions, I concur with my the suitability of the premises. I will add that operator. I will add though that we get pedicab problems outside nightclubs as well. So, if this premises was not operating as an SEV but still can operate under a premises license, I think the pedicab issue would still be then that would still need to be managed in the way that hopefully the premises will now be managed. Thank you very much. Yes, very gentle. Suitability and locality are both discretionary grounds and reasonably wide discretion on that. There's no hierarchy. They're both of equal importance. And as I said at the beginning of my submission, there's a lot in the paperwork about suitability, not so much about locality. And I'd hoped to redress that balance today. And I hope I have done. And I hope that will be taken on board by the license holder. And the good work they have been doing will continue. And it is perhaps worth pointing out that although there's a right to appeal to the magistrate's court and onto the crown court on the suitability ground, there isn't a right to appeal to the magistrate's court on the locality ground. So it is a serious matter for a license holder if they don't get a grip on those sorts of issues. Because if we're back in a year's time, the situation is deteriorated. And you say, well, actually, no, we've changed what you would be entitled to do at that time. We've changed our mind on locality. Use on that basis. That's a big problem for a license holder. So hopefully that is the encouragement or the encouragement that they need to keep up the good work that they've been doing. Mr. Drain's last point about pedicabs outside Lycaps. I mean, yes, of course, I can't say that there are no pedicabs outside Lycaps. Of course there is. But the nuance here is the point I made regarding the expedited review where if you go back and read the evidence on that, it's clear that the pedicabs were outside this venue because of the nature of the venue and how it was being run at that time. That's the nuance of the residents who always wanted to make lit. Of course, we're not saying if the supremacists were to spare all night, the pedicabs would avoid it. But there were reasons why pedicabs were targeting it. We very much hope those issues have been resolved and certainly after the satisfaction of James. Those locality issues do need to be a consideration going through. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is Mr. Takmatissam. Want to say some things in summary? Mr. Please do try to unmute yourself again, if possible. He's still online, I think. Sorry, were you asking me? Yes, I'm asking you, do you have anything else to add? Sorry, I have nothing to add. I reiterate simply that I'm happy with the present management as long as it lasts, which is pretty temporary in Soho, and my objection is today concentrated on locality, and all those points have been made very adequately. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Matissem. Now, yes, somebody. I'll be quick. Thank you to everybody around the table, because I think although the circumstances that have led us here were not great, lessons have been learned, and I think everybody's representation of that's been very fair. You've heard, Chair, that the licence holders work very hard. They've done lots of things, and you've heard from everybody that there have been improvements. So hopefully that gives you sufficient comfort that it is possible. The management team that sits before you today is not the previous management team. The culture of non-compliance that was mentioned during presentations is not in front of you today, and it's not in this licence holder's interest to allow that to continue. Hopefully the fact that they were before you with that position and they've gone to this effort, time and expense, and thankfully being given the time to demonstrate that changes can be made has also given you some comfort that they are able to do that to maintain it. We do come back, Chair, for a yearly renewal. So all of the things that are in place now, all of the things that work, all of the positive things that you've heard have to continue, because the alternative, if they don't, is that we're back before you with questions about pedicabs, noise, incidents, etc. We don't want this to be a nightclub. You don't want this to be a nightclub. It's much better as an SEV than it ever will be as a nightclub. You've got the capacity of 89 on the SEV licence as well. It's well known, it's not new evidence that SEVs attract less issues than nightclubs do, and certainly less disturbance for residents. So it's never the applicant's intention that this will revert back to the pre-2012 days when it was a nightclub. The fact is, Chair, if they don't do all of the things that they've said they would do, if they don't comply with their policies and procedures, if they don't work in partnership with the authorities, when we get those visits, issues will be raised. Just to point on the management team, I'm conscious that we've got a condition that we will always maintain that management structure, but of course there'll be concerns about people moving on. We hope you won't. But if they did, obviously we would have visits, we'd have engagement with the local authority. If for whatever reason part of the management team left, they were replaced by somebody else and it didn't work, we would have a conversation. We'd know pretty quickly that it wasn't working and the reasons why. We'd expect to hear it from the residents, but we'd also expect to hear it from the authorities as well. And I think we're now at a point where we've got that engagement that we can have that discussion. And again, hopefully that gives you some reassurance that it would be addressed if necessary. Just to address you on the capacity condition, you've heard from Mr Drayen and from Mr Hayes that this was not a condition that they're necessarily looking for. It was just a suggestion. I'd suggest to you, Chair, that it was not an issue before. It's not broken. And I'd please ask that you don't try and fix it. I think we've agreed sufficient conditions, hopefully in those annex two documents that you've seen, again, to give you some reassurance. The capacity here is not something of a nightclub that's difficult to monitor. It's quite easy to monitor across the board. So although I've suggested that wording, that was just in case you were minded too. But again, I'm very conscious that its owner is to keep hourly logs. Of course, we have to and it's under fire legislation that we have to keep track of capacity conditions anyway. But I would ask that we only do what's necessary and proportionate and that we don't add yet another condition to what we've already agreed. You've heard from the licensing authority and from environmental health that in terms of suitability, they are happy. And it's not very often we get that kind of endorsement at this kind of hearing. This is quite a unique set of circumstances. And although it's been unfortunate and it's been a very long and difficult and expensive road to get here, the benefit of that is that we're able to demonstrate to you that we can do this and improvements can be made. And you've got compliance logs that show that too. And just to address as well, the reasons about the external compliance at the time the compliance scheme was devised, it was concentrated on the SEV because that's where they've been the breaches. And so that's the reason why in the pro forms you've got the SEV conditions. Obviously, just recently we've updated those and now we've got new conditions that apply to the SEV license. So they'll have to be taken account of in terms of the visits as well. Just to go to some of the comments made, sleazy, grubby, grime, sad venue that have been raised. They've been raised, so I have to address them. Just on locality, the SEV policy deems that it's a suitable area. In terms of numbers, we're well beneath that. We've got a history from 2012. People will have moral objections to SEV venues. That's just a fact of life. We can't dictate everybody's moral compass on that. But what we can't do in this hearing is take account of those matters. They are what they are and people are entitled to their opinion. What I would say, Chair, is that as you walk along Carlisle Street, it's not obvious from the outside what Sapphire is. It's not obvious that it's an SEV venue. It's not obvious what goes in. You can't see it there. There's no threat in terms of locality, in terms of it being near places of religious worship or premises that children go to often. It's just not that kind of area. I'll be really quick. So on the basis of policy chair and locality, I would suggest that it's always been suitable and that it still is a suitable area. And you've also heard that the license holder is now suitable. So I would hope, Chair, that that gives you sufficient comfort that you're able to grant both applications. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there anything else we can do? Just do one last thing. Mr. Drian, I think you mentioned an additional condition about compliance audits. To include the street management as part of the compliance audits. At the moment, compliance audits are for the internal of the machine. But to include the outside area as part of the compliance audits as well. Will the compliance audit based on the SEV conditions? So now they've been updated, that will naturally update to the pro forma will then include checking those conditions as well. The three of the outside area conditions have been on the SEV for a number of years, which isn't why I raised the point that they weren't included. So we are where we are, but it needs to be going to the compliance. As much as they can do, considering there are other venues in the streets as well. I mean, we've got a dedicated member of door staff that manages and I think they've now got to a point with the penny cups where they're reasonably, And you've you've heard that it's improved, so we clearly need to continue that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The hearing is now closed. And the members will retire to make their decision in private session. And we'll come back quarter to one. Thank you. Thank you. I'm giving the verdict. So the name is a little bit confusing to me. So your application is. Vanity Bar and Nightclub. This is the applicant. Vanity Licence Limited is the applicant company. Okay. And known as? Sapphire. Now known as Sapphire. Formerly known as Vanity. So what's the difference? Known as Sapphire. Formerly Vanity Bar and Nightclub. Correct. But the company is still the same name, not formally. Yeah, it's still it's still the same company name, chair. So that that is the same as the previous company. What happened was as part of the management overhaul, it was felt it was better to rename the premises as something else. So it was no longer associated with what Vanity was previously. So the trading name has changed, but the applicant company name is still the same chair. Okay. Right. The committee has been asked to determine two applications for the renewal of a sex establishment license. Sexual entertainment been under the Local Government Act 1982. As amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2009. For the premises known as Sapphire. Formerly Vanity Bar and Nightclub. For Carlisle Street, London W1D3BAJ. Having carefully considered the committee papers and the submission made by all parties. Both orally and in writing. The subcommittee has decided after taking into account all the individual circumstances of this case. And the relevant grounds of refusal under the 1982 Act. The subcommittee has decided to grant the 2023 renewal application. To grant the 2024 renewal application. That the licenses are subject to any relevant mandatory condition. That the existing conditions as stated in Appendix 2 on the license shall remain in full force and effect. And then the additional conditions shall be imposed. The daily log is to be maintained by SIA door security to ensure any capacity limits set. For base and ground floor. And part floor are recorded and can be properly monitored. Information on recorded capacity will be given to an authorized officer or police officer request. This is a summary of the decision reached by the licenses subcommittee. The full result decision will be sent out to all parties in the airports. The April period will commence from the date of receipt of the fully result decision. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time, Mary. Keep up with that. Good work with the local residents. Keep the dialogue going. Yeah, this is evidential anyway. As you have communication with local individuals. Yeah, so happy that we support you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. OK, it's not agreed to. too soon, please. No, I just want to bite. I wasn't doing anything to see if we had to change. Okay, Captain James. Welcome to your meeting of Western Trustee Bukhi Council Lights and South Committee. We are considering an applicant for a new commission's license for NISA, basement and ground court. The 155 LW9. I confirm I have no declarations of interest in this item. I'm joined by councillor Judith Saldan and councillor Louise Helms. Can I please ask you to introduce yourself and advise whether you have any declarations of interest to make? I'm Dr. Judith Saldan and I'm councillor Louise Helms. Thank you. I'm councillor Louise Helms, I represent St. James's ward and I have no declarations to make. Thank you very much. We are joined by our legal advisor, the community officer and the presenting officer. The procedure for the meeting. The presenting officer will give you a brief outline of the application and objections. The applicant, the relevant authority and the other parties will present their submission for after a maximum of 10 minutes. There is no other representation. My colleagues and I will ask each party any questions we may have at the end of each of the parties submission. I will then ask our legal advisor to give you any questions you may have. Each party will then be permitted to give you a brief coming up after a maximum of five minutes each. I would like to remind the parties that the members have read all the papers, including additional papers. So there is no need to repeat their contents. I now start the meeting by asking the presenting officer to outline the application. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. This is an application for a new premises license in respect of the basement and ground floor at 355 Harrow Road, London W93NA. The premises is situated within the Harrow Road ward and does not fall within any special consideration or cumulative impact zone. The application has been made by Smokers Junction Trading Limited, represented today by Mr John Payne of Licensing Lawyers. The applicant seeks the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption off the premises Monday to Sundays. Full details of the application can be seen at page 292 of the report bundle. Representations were initially made by the Metropolitan Police Service, the Environmental Health Service and the Licensing Authority. However, following clarification of the application and agreement of conditions, all three responsible authorities have now withdrawn their representations. We have also received representations from two interested parties, but they are not in attendance today. Unless you have any further questions, that's all from me, Chair. That's fine. Thank you very much. So now I go to the applicants, Mr John Payne. Chair, thank you very much. This is an application for an existing license premises, as you've seen. And the reason behind the application, not necessarily relevant to the grant, but just so you understand why the application has been made, is so that the store can be redeveloped. You've heard reference to NISA being involved in this particular premises. It's not NISA anymore, so I think at the end of last month they changed the co-op. Wholesale Limited is what is now called because it was part of the co-op group. But essentially that organisation wanted to come in and do some refurbishment at these particular premises. But part of their concern were two specific conditions that are on the license at the moment. One condition was to do with self-service. And the second was to do with the floor space or the display area that could be put over to Algarve sales. So an application was prepared really with NISA in mind, not to be the license holder, but to be able to refurbish and invest in this particular store. Interestingly, when we made the application and subsequently we looked at some of the other licensed premises in the areas and we were slightly perplexed, I have to say, by the premises next door, which I understand this spelling outcome. But it doesn't seem to have a license, so we couldn't really take any model from that. So an application was put together and as you've heard, there were consultations and discussions with the police and with the licensing team. And that's resulted in a set of proposed conditions, which I think you have separately provided yesterday to try and make things a little bit clearer. Now, the two objections that have been received, I think, are probably slightly confused by the way that the application is phrased. I think that is the be-all and end-all. And if we'd had more time and there have been some response from those representatives, we may have been able to resolve that. But one of them, as you've probably read, seems to be under the impression this is some sort of smoking crisis. Perhaps we should have changed the name to your friendly local food store or something like that. But Smokers Junction is the name of the company. That's what's training there. But there seems to be some confusion over that. And secondly, the confusion about whether there is a license in place. There is, for this particular premises, there is a big door. So with that in mind, we've put an application together to address those two points. That is the be-all and end-all. And if you look at this in the round, what we are doing is seeking to have a new license with additional conditions way beyond those that are on the existing license in exchange, one might say, for an extra 5% of the display area and the ability for customers to be able to select products and sell rather than have to be handed the products from the shelf. So that is the application before you. As I say, it's been agreed following the discussion of police and wild and health and licensing, but that's an appropriate way forward. I think I have very little to say about the application. I'd like to keep it short and sweet for you. I know you've had a long hair on already, so. There is lots of confusion in-in-in-in during the application timing. This is supposed to be a shadow license for something. Yes. Yeah. So this is not a shadow license. It was a bank's license is probably the way of putting it. There is this license already. The current license is written in the current license. Same language. Yeah. So what was done was a new application was put together for the purposes of NISA, that was what they wanted in terms of an application. There was never any intention that there would be two licenses operating at the same time. one was going to take over from the other providing it was granted obviously if we're not granted the license today then things will just carry on there may be a back out from lisa possibly in terms of the refurbishments already started but they were insistent that in order to refurbish the store which frankly did need some refurbishment they needed to see this greater sales area by five percent just five percent and the ability for customers as happens in the majority of stores to be able to select around movies now just off sale is it yeah also there's no so sorry license have got 15 percent uh that's right so you are asking for 20 percent can you show show the premises please the plans yeah wouldn't mind seeing the outside as well if you have a photograph yeah how did that happen what's on the way that was presented yes that caused me some action is what i have to say the joy is microsoft word formatting i suspect yeah that's the addition that's the addition of documents so you'll see it's a multi-sales type premises not just smoking equipment it's very confusing yeah i think yes if you can show me the alcohol area you were asking yeah it's it's it's on this you know where the outer chair it's just from starting from behind the um counter uh where is the entrance where is the entrance that's it that's it thank you sorry so the entrance is okay so then there's the entrance is there yeah and the alcohol is starts here yeah we're going to have a three meter uh sorry three meter counter um spirits behind the counter um then all the way up to here could be alcohol everything else is going to be groceries and uh country externally so you say behind the counter so that's well you know you know what we're concerned about is people coming in and being able to grab it and take it away stealing it basically yeah so you so what provisions have you made okay um so the spirits are going to be behind the counter behind the counter which is managed by staff okay okay there's a two meter cabinet which is not covered so um that's again accessible by orderly star okay um so everything else is accessible by customers during the licensing hours or the other time we will be locked so from the white vines are going i mean sorry red vines are going to be here white vines are here and the beers and the side is up to here so these are the freezers and all the freezers for chill food and groceries and fish starving um uh so it's soft drinks hot food area so how many meters would be this long five six meter let me see if i can work alone for me so probably would you mean is it the depth of the shock or yes for the alcohol yeah for the alcohol yeah for the alcohol that's all that small roots all right basically about 14 14 meter it's 14 meter long 14 meter and one meter they have the two meter oh you mean the depth yeah so that's for the shelf that's about uh uh four one hundred and we do okay that's enough so that's what we're talking about um and actually made by um nicer uh developer manager and uh he has confirmed that it could be around 19 percent between 19 and 20 19.4 or something that's what he mentioned at that time um our condition was 15 percent so that's why they were telling me to yes if you could thank you for cunning and with the uh name of the company yeah um uh when we took over the shop in 2008 uh it was um it was specialized in i mean mostly cigars um and they were selling a lot of cigars previous people uh they come they were trading us focus junction um so we just wanted to keep the name so that's how we formed the company's focus on trading in general but it's nothing on the sign word saying smoke exemption or anything we are not marketing anything as you can see i mean we were trading as w9 right now we are planning to yeah we think it will be much better for the area rather than independent rather than you having an independent face yeah uh nights i will be contributing more for the community as well condition has been proposed by the responsible authorities like police and by the government and uh licensing authority we accepted those conditions uh that's right yeah you've got this yes which is you have all of those conditions that were agreed just to make things very easy for you so you can see you have all of those conditions that you have to surrender previous or current current license as well question that is how it's going to be inside but can i ask you obviously your franchise will be nicer nisa um will that be the signage oh yeah signage will be nisa yeah yeah but uh sorry can i show you the uh yeah yeah if you'd like yeah that is yeah Oh, OK, well, it's not going to spread out, but yes, that looks nice, yeah, so it's quite clear and yeah, very nice. Licensing department requested for us to display the licensing hours, so we put the licensing hours here, opening hours here, so the customer will know that it's different to the opening hours. And will the doors be, they will open, you know, as somebody approaches, the doors will open? I mean, the only thing I'm concerned about is, you know, we do hear a lot about the stealing of alcohol. You know, I know you've got, you've requested to have CCTV, but will there be any kind of person standing, you know, in that area of the shop to deter those that just want to run in and grab a few bottles of something and run out? That's why we put the alcohol on the inside, and that's one of the reasons it's fairly standard arrangement you have until next to the door. So they can exercise some degree of control. But those that should, if anybody should try and steal alcohol from the end of the shop and then rush out quite clearly, the staff are closer to the door and can take appropriate action. I know, we've all seen the kind of, on TV, what actually happens in these small supermarkets. It's very, you know, scary. Deterrent is the key in this instance, and that's why CCTV signage, that's why the layout of the premises with staff actually present in the entrance and exit acts as a deterrent. I don't know the area particularly well, but I did read one of the, one of the representations you've got. The lady is describing it as an area where there are street drinkers and there are, there is a kind of an element of that kind of atmosphere on the street, you know, you know, it's pretty much all over the place now. I mean, what is it like in that area as regards street drinkers? Are they going to be attracting to your, your store at there, especially in that, oh, you can see that's major hill market, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. I mean, they do hang around there. I know. Yeah. I know. We train our staff and they always try and monitor and if it is street drinkers, we don't serve them. But, and also we don't have, we don't sell strong beers and we don't have license for that. Most of the people drink there having strong beers have seen it so many times. Hmm. So you're allowed to, your, your, your license is saying 5.5, not, it's 6, is it when it's, that's the kind of stronger beers that feel? That's more than like kind of 8, 9. Oh, okay. Those are the. Oh, really? Mainly four different types of beers. I mean, mostly street drinkers drink and that's more than 8%. Yeah. Okay. But there are some, uh, drinks like, um, premium lag, I mean, yeah, it's like 5.9%. That's why we, I mean, initially, uh, requested the council and the police to, uh, allow us to sell up to 6%, which, which doesn't make much in percentage, but it can bring some premium brands like Desparados, which doesn't attract, uh, much street drinkers. Okay. Because I know there's lots of alcohol free lagers and beers now that are very, very acceptable. Uh, I don't know whether you bought, you, you'll be stocking those, but they're becoming increasingly more popular, aren't they? Yeah. Yeah. We do have, uh, that would be the thing to encourage people to have the alcohol free ones. We do have alcohol free gin, we do sell alcohol free, uh, in, uh, beers, wines. Uh, I think that was all I wanted to ask. Okay. Thank you. So, as there are a couple of people's. uh, objected from locally. So do you have any intention to build up some kind of relationship with local people as well? Most of the local people, uh, they are kind of, uh, uh, they know us, but by looking at the, uh, representation, I think they do really, I mean, they don't, they thought it must be the new license application. Probably they, uh, that's why, because most of the people, they are actually good. And people already started complaining, um, because we are shuttered. We are closed for this as well, because of the refill started. And. So you're like, they, they, they're upset because. Because we are, we are not trading at the moment because of, you know. Yeah. They miss you. You're in the local process. Yeah. The property is completely empty now. Yeah. So when, when, when do you hope to, to reopen? We're planning to open on 28th April. Oh, okay. So you're near. Your, your refurbishment is kind of underway. Yes. Signage and everything. It's ready to go. Well, everything has been taken out, but we are still waiting for the, uh, decision to. Yes. So, so the reason that we're here. Yes. Because of that deadline that. Okay. It's imposed essentially because of refurbishment works. Had there been more time, we may have asked from the German to try and negotiate with these two people who've made representations quite clearly, um, mistakenly because they weren't fully aware of what was going on. I'm sure that we could have reached a resolution. But unfortunately, because of that time scale, that's what we've had to go through and pursue this hearing today. Um, but, but clearly it is, uh, two representatives who've slightly misunderstood what we're applying for. We have tried to engage with them already. My firms have already tried to engage with them. Yes. Um, but with bloodline revenue. Yes. Um, but with bloodline revenue. Yes. How many staff do we have on? How many staff do we have on? How many staff do we have on? Uh, we have, we will have a minimum of two. Uh, in the busy time we will have three people. We already, I mean, if the business, uh, if, if the business increases, then we will end up employing more people. Um, on that point, are you going to, I mean, the way forward with lots of supermarkets, I mean, I don't know about the small ones, but they have these self, self checkouts. Do you have any of those? Uh, we are planning to install the bonus one. Yeah. But, uh, not for alcohol. For the most reason. They won't be able to buy the, yeah, the alcohol at the self check out. The main till. Okay. Okay. That's good. Thank you very much. The committee will not announce your decision today. Instead, the hearing is now closed and the members retired to make their decision in the first session. The summary of the decision will be sent to the party by the licensing services. If I brought. The name. Yeah. Apparently we had to announce a decision for the previous application because it was the sex. That was for. Yeah. Yeah. So, so, so unfortunately we can't do that from you. From you. That will be imminent. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.