Report of the Head of Community and Customer Services.

 

This report asks the Sub-Committee to consider an application for a new premises licence following the receipt of representations.

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE: LUX, GADE HOUSE, 46 THE PARADE, HIGH STREET, WATFORD

 

The Chair asked whether there may be any preliminary matters to discuss.  The Licensing Manager explained that Mr Skeens may have a representation about the premises themselves.  Mr Skeens suggested that the Sub-Committee might want to visit the premises concerned as they spoke for themselves.

 

The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider the matter and reconvened shortly afterwards.  The Chair commented that there was a plan of the premises and that a visit would therefore not be necessary.  She asked if there was anything different in respect of the plan.  Mr Skeens explained that there was and that he had also brought photographs of the inside of the premises.  The chair asked whether the revised plan was accurate and Mr Skeens said that it was; but it was not in 3D.  The photographs were then distributed to the Members.  The Chair asked whether the Police had seen the photographs and Mr Skeens explained that he had spoken to them before the hearing.  The chair commented that the photographs would be examined in more detail later and asked if the Police were satisfied with the photographs.  Detective Sergeant Brown asked if she could have a look at the photographs and was provided with copies - after which she commented that they were fine.      

 

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Head of Community and Customer Services setting out details of an application for a new licence at the above premises. 

 

The Licensing Manager introduced the report.  The application was for a new Premises Licence from Hospitality Leisure Consultancy Limited.  The opening hours were as shown on page seven of the report, viz. 11:00 to 01:30 Sunday to Wednesday and 11:00 to 02:30 Thursday to Saturday and with alcohol and licensable activities until half an hour before closing.  The premises was not currently licensed; but had been previously which had lapsed in September 2014.  The Watford Town Centre Residents’ Association had submitted written representations although their representative was unable to attend due to illness.  It was a matter for the Sub-Committee how much weight they applied to that document.  The Licensing Manager explained that the applicant had accepted a representation from Environmental Health to install a sound limiting device (as discussed in paragraph 9.4 of the report).  There were issues of alcohol off-sales late at night and about the hours of operation.  There was a debate around the style of the operation and the Council policy.  He explained that the Licensing Policy set out the hours for the various types of premises.  If it was a restaurant it could be open until 02:00. However, if a bar with alcohol; closing would be required to be earlier. It was for the applicant to demonstrate why the premises would be an exception.  The operation of the premises appeared typical to a nightclub hence the confusion as to style.  He reiterated it was for the applicant to demonstrate why it was an exception and how the premises fulfilled the criteria as a café/restaurant.  It was then open to the Sub-Committee to impose suitable conditions.  He explained that the operating schedule referred to a food menu up to one hour before closing.  The premises would have a minimum of 130 covers out of a 250 people capacity.  With regard to the application for off-sales, there were a number of issues; the premises was located in an area with a Designated Public Place Order in force preventing street drinking, where much work had been undertaken to prevent the consumption of alcohol in the street and allowing this application would undermine those resources.   

 

Mr Skeens informed the Sub-Committee that the application for off-sales was being withdrawn.  He asked the Licensing Manager to advise the Committee of the capacity of the premises under the previous licence when it operated as Modello.  The Licensing Manager advised that this was 530 people.  Mr Skeens said that the report made reference to the Human Rights Act and asked about the right of the premises occupier to the quiet enjoyment of their property through having a licence.  The Licensing Manager said that this was an arguable point and that there was a distinction between an existing licence and an application for a new licence.  The Solicitor said that this was correct.  The Chair commented that the Sub-Committee would be able assess this and reaffirmed that this was a new application.

 

Mr Skeens asked the Licensing Manager to turn to paragraph 10.4 of the Report.  He made reference to the statement therein ‘features more commonly found in night-clubs and late-night bars’ and asking whether conditions such as electronic identification fuelled the appearance of a nightclub.  The Licensing Manager said that this could be a combination of both and that the Sub-Committee needed clarification on this point.  Mr Skeens asked if there was anything else that gave the appearance of a night club and the Licensing Manager gave examples of door supervisors and the Scan Net identification system.   Mr Skeens asked whether they were right about the impact of conditions such as electronic identification and the Licensing Manager replied that they were.  The Solicitor asked whether the applicant had offered the conditions at his own behest and Mr Skeens reported that he had.  The applicant had been trying to assist and be courteous to the Police by offering conditions he thought would be helpful.  The appellant had agreed a revised set of proposed conditions with the Police, and these were given to the Sub-Committee together with an amended premises plan that showed a seating area that was to be reserved exclusively for dining in the premises. 

 

Detective Sergeant Brown presented the representation on behalf of Hertfordshire Constabulary and read Appendix 3 to the Report.  She emphasised that alcohol sales should cease at 01:00 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday with closing at 02:00.  She said that all the new proposals were agreed apart from the hours.

 

The Chair asked whether the Police agreed with the new conditions.  Detective Sergeant Brown said that they did and had received them yesterday.  She requested two amendments to the conditions.  Firstly, with regard to number 31; that this included ‘Monday’ in the relevant days as this was busy in respect of public order – Mr Skeens agreed to this.  Secondly, with regard to number 37; that there should be three door supervisors after 21:00 hours.  It was agreed that the condition would read that ‘after 21:00 hours the Designated Premises Supervisor shall ensure there is one door supervisor on duty and a ratio of at least one door supervisor for every 75 customers’.  It was also agreed that condition 56 would be placed after condition 37 as they were related items. 

 

The Chair asked whether the Police were content with alcohol being sold at the premises on Thursday, Friday and Saturday until 02:00.  Detective Sergeant Brown said that they were not and their representation stood. 

 

Councillor Crout asked what would the impact be on the town from the evidence put forward and the police resources available locally and nationally.  Detective Sergeant Brown explained that there were no additional police resources on a Monday evening to deal with the Night Time Economy.  She said that on a Friday and Saturday resources were deployed from across the county to deal with night time economy issues in Watford.  Councillor Crout asked whether the resources were sufficient.  Detective Sergeant Brown said that this was difficult to say as much depended on the circumstances.  She gave an example of an incident three weeks ago where a large number of police personnel were unavailable in the town centre following eleven arrests; just one incident could have a significant impact on resources.  She then outlined the use of resources in enforcing dispersal orders.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Silver, Detective Sergeant Brown explained that there was a lot of crime between 02:00 and 04:00 – although night time economy resources only policed until 03:00.

 

Mr Skeens asked whether more police officers would be deployed if the licence was granted.  Detective Sergeant Brown explained that the local superintendent had decided that numbers would increase to one sergeant and 15 constables (an increase of two officers).  Mr Skeens asked that if the licence was granted until 02:00; would police anticipate problems having regard to the former licence for Modello.  Detective Sergeant Brown said that it would be wrong to draw a contrast as this was a new premises.  Mr Skeens commented that Modello had a larger capacity and opened later and asked whether there had been any problems.  Detective Sergeant Brown said that nothing stood out.

 

The Chair asked whether the Licensing Manager would like to make representations on behalf of the licensing authority.  He replied that these stood as printed in appendix 4 of the report.

 

Mr Skeens asked whether the Licensing Manager had any representations about the proposed licence before 01:00.  The Licensing Manager said that he did not.  Mr Skeens asked the Chair whether his presentation should therefore deal with matters after 01:00.  The Chair advised that it would be best if he would focus on that time but he was able to discuss matters as he wished.

 

Mr Skeens outlined his client’s application by referring to the licensing authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy.  The application sought to further policy LP3 by being family-friendly.  Mr Campbell was previously a director of Modello which had not caused any crime or disorder concerns, or raised licensing complaints, and his exemplary record meant he was asked to consult by other companies.  The style of the premises would mean that:

 

·         The premises would be family-friendly with entertainment for over-25s.

·         There would be space for 250 people, less than for Modello, but with 130 covers.  An area in the heart of the restaurant as indicated on an updated plan submitted to the Sub-Committee showed an area that would be reserved exclusively for dining, although the expectation would be the majority of the premises would be used for dining.

·         The premises would aid dispersal by including complimentary taxis for some customers, and reimbursing others for any car park charges in the nearby Gade car park.

·         There would be a “grab and go” selection of food during the day.

·         The applicant met the requirements of page 10 of the licensing policy by having new and innovative entertainment, although that was difficult to achieve.

·         The premises would have a bar, but to prevent it being a night-club it would have a licence condition prohibiting it from having a dance floor.

·         The premises would be offering a full food menu until an hour before closing time, and this would be required by condition 2 of the licence. 

 

Mr Skeens outlined the practical impact of some of the other proposed conditions to the Sub-Committee.

 

Mr Skeens referred to the Police’s representations about selling alcohol until 02:00 hours.  They had been in discussion with the police for six months and considered the proposed operating procedures complied with policies LP7 and LP8 of the Statement of Licensing Policy. 

 

Mr Skeens explained that the extra hour between 01:00 and 02:00 hours made the premises commercially viable.  He said that if capacity was reduced to 250 there had to be a way of making it affordable.  He suggested that if the premises closed at 01:00 people would not attend after 23:00 in the evening.  So as to provide appropriate facilities, they were asking for a 02:00 finish. He explained that there were policies to help people leave and that they would not be treated like cattle.  He said that the premises would not attract people who were likely to misbehave.  He reaffirmed that people could leave using a complementary taxi service and parking.  Concentrating on this one hour; he said that these were fantastic premises with a reliable owner who would be attracting responsible customers.  If the Council was encouraging people to come to Watford; companies would not invest unless commercially viable.  He hoped that the Sub-Committee would take in to account the facilities and track record of Mr Campbell at Modello where there had been no complaints.  Furthermore, the new premises were more sophisticated than previously.  He suggested that the reasons for the licensing policy had been catered for in the application.  He said that the proposal was a sophisticated plan and properly thought through.  He concluded by saying that the one hour was very important; that all issues of policy had been dealt with, there would be no crime and disorder and no public nuisance.  Mr Campbell was a man with an excellent record. 

                                                                                                        

The Chair asked whether the Licensing Manager wanted to outline the Licensing Authority representations.  The Licensing Manager said that he did not need to amplify the representations but would like to ask some questions of Mr Skeens.  He referred Mr Skeens to page 30 of the presentation and asked what the times for the tables to be moved from the veranda/terraced area were.  Mr Skeens explained that the area would be used for smoking as it was not enclosed and in the daytime people would be sitting outside.   The Licensing Manager asked what type of entertainment would be provided at the venue.  Mr Skeens explained that this would be aimed at attracting the over 25’s.  There would be acoustic music two to three times a week and pre-recorded music would be chosen for its style.  Also, there might be a small band playing softer swing music.  The Licensing Manager asked whether there was an intention to play house style music.  Mr Skeens said there would be nothing to attract the young.  The Licensing Manager asked how many covers there had been in the Modello premises.  Although it had a licensed capacity of 530 people, this had been based on a previous incarnation as a Chicago Rock Café when it was a nightclub with a dance floor.  Mr Skeens explained that there had been 80 covers.  The Licensing Manager commented that in the plan of the new premises there were 59 seats not reserved for diners.  Mr Skeens said that this part of the premises would be used as a conference area during the day and for birthday parties in the evening.  The Licensing Manager suggested that these seats would therefore not be exclusively for diners.  Mr Skeens said that there would be meals served by a waitress.  The Licensing Manager proposed that there could be a scenario late at night when the unreserved area was used for consuming alcohol only.  Mr Skeens said that this could be the case but they did not want to be rigid that people must or must not eat.  However, meals would be served all day and all night and people would be encouraged to have food.  He said that there was an element of the ‘TGI Fridays’ concept in the premises; having a small bar surrounded by diners - but taken to a new level with this application.  The Licensing Manager asked Mr Skeens to clarify whether alcohol could only be served when with food.  Mr Skeens said that alcohol could be served without food in specific areas; people could have a drink in this excellent venue. 

 

Councillor Silver made reference to the applicant wanting the extra hour for financial reasons and selling more food being economical; he asked whether there would be a process in place to encourage people to dine rather than just having a drink.  Mr Skeens said that this would absolutely be the case and that other areas would be reserved for food.  He made reference to condition 3 to support this and said that the applicant wanted to have an increase from the minimum covers.

 

The Chair asked Mr Skeens to clarify that there would be a maximum capacity of 250 people with 130 covers.  Mr Skeens said that the 130 covers figure was a minimum and they would like more than that.  For example, the covers may increase to 155.  The Chair asked that, in such circumstances, what the other 95 people would be doing.  Mr Skeens said people would be standing, perhaps waiting for a table or with friends, and that in any event it wasn’t expected that the premises would always be full to capacity.  He explained that they wanted to grow the meal area (shown in pink on the plan) and that more furniture could be brought in to the premises.  He asserted that the covers number was a minimum.  The Chair commented that this did not answer her question and asked again what the people would be doing.  Mr Skeens said that with music playing, some people may dance - but not in the sophisticated areas.  He commented that he had noted in the application papers that there was a feeling that the premises may be like a night club.  He explained that in the area behind the bar people would also be eating. The applicant would be happy to have the area shown in the bottom left of the plan for eating as well.  He suggested that this could be reserved for diners - although not a full table meal.  The Chair asked what the void areas on the plan were used for.  Mr Skeens said that these were not used for licensable activities; rather as a staff room and manager’s office for example.

 

Councillor Silver asked for clarity as to the areas on the plan that would be reserved - other than for private hire.  Mr Skeens reaffirmed that the sections on the bottom left of the plan would be reserved.

 

The Chair asked whether the applicant was considering holding a ‘student night’ on Mondays.  Mr Skeens explained that the Licensing Manager had previously suggested that this might not be necessarily appropriate; but the applicant would not rule it out.  However, a table meal would still be required.  The Chair commented that the menu may be too expensive for students and the premises might be more of a nightclub.  Mr Skeens suggested that this was a somewhat negative viewpoint from which to start and that what was being proposed was to help students; and give a discount for meals.  He asserted that they were trying to break new ground.  The Chair said that the applicant proposed films, recorded music, music and dancing and live music as entertainment and commented that she was curious about the facilities.  Mr Skeens said that these would be the same as on the previous licence for Modello.  There could be old black and white films showing or a swing band playing.  This was not essential but they would like them to be available. However, the premises would not be a cinema.  He added that there would also be recorded music and live entertainment; such as a three piece jazz band.  He emphasised that these would all be ancillary features and would not be licensable unless there was a display.  The Chair asked where these activities would take in the premises.  Mr Skeens pointed this out on the plan; adjacent to the public address system.

 

Councillor Silver asked, with reference to the live music, whether the applicant would be targeting less invasive music for people having a meal.  Mr Skeens said that the music would complement a table meal and not be at a volume that would be inconsistent with a restaurant.

 

The Chair asked at what time children would be in the premises.  Mr Skeens said that they would not be inside after 21:00.  The Chair asked whether the applicant had applied for a pavement licence; Mr Skeens said that he had not as yet.  The Chair made reference to condition 30, asking whether tables and chairs would be removed from outside areas in accordance with the time specified.  Mr Skeens said that they would follow the policy as laid out.  The Licensing Manager reassured the Sub-Committee that the hours were satisfactory. In response to a question from the Chair, the Licensing Manager explained that the smoking area was in the curtilage of the premises.  The Chair asked whether any proposed pavement licence would be outside of the curtilage.  Mr Skeens said it would be two metres outside this.  The Chair asked how many people would be allowed in the smoking area; Mr Skeens explained that there would be a maximum of 15 in accordance with condition 27.

 

In response to a question from the Chair about the application of paragraph 3 of  licensing policy LP3, Mr Skeens said that they were asking for a new premises licence and not a variation to an existing Licence; consequently the policy would apply to future applications.  The Chair commented that this could be read either way and that Mr Skeens had quoted the Modello operation on a number of occasions.  She suggested that a strict interpretation should be applied to the licensing policy.  Mr Skeens said that one always had to look at the reasons for a policy.  He made reference to a previous case where these were to prevent crime and disorder.  He explained that the applicant could outline how crime and disorder would not occur in this case; therefore the licensing policy had been complied with and there was an exception.  He added that they were applying for fewer hours than Modello.  He suggested that the Sub-Committee, in considering changing from 01:00 to 02:00, needed to look at the reasons for the policy and whether he had dealt with these issues.  He emphasised that Watford wanted to reduce crime and disorder and public nuisance and suggested that his submission had dealt with the reasons; and they did not just comply with them but improved upon them.  He asserted that their policies exceeded Watford’s; hence the operation of the premises could appear like a nightclub.  In fact, the conditions were over and above what were required for a nightclub.  He said that one could not have a policy in a vacuum and repeated that they satisfied each of the stated reasons and did not fall foul.  He suggested that they had sophisticated measures to prevent crime and disorder and public nuisance.  He commented that their policies translated in to conditions that fully complied with Watford’s licensing policy.  He concluded by saying that the premises did not interfere with Watford’s aspirations but enhanced them.

 

The Chair made reference to licensing policy LP3; explaining that tackling violent crime was a priority across Hertfordshire and forming part of the local Community Safety Partnership’s activities.  She asked whether Mr Skeens considered 250 people coming out of the premises after 02:00, with a further 200 from other nearby premises, would not lead to problems - recognising everyone would have been drinking.  Mr Skeens said that the premises next door would close later.  He reassured the Sub-Committee that people would not all leave the premises at the same time because they were having meals.  He said that the applicant would operate a wind-down policy; people would have two hours in which they could leave - with some leaving at midnight.  He explained that the premises had a dispersal policy; such as with the pre-ordering of taxis for example.  The Chair asked how taxis would get to the premises.  Mr Skeens said that customers would walk to the taxis and that receipts would be reimbursed.  With regard to meals over £50, the premises would reserve taxis for these customers.  He anticipated that people would turn left or right out of the premises - to Sainsbury’s and also past the bridge.  Councillor Crout asked why the service road at the rear would not be used.  Mr Campbell said that they had been considering this; it was the best option and they were to discuss the matter with the Council.

 

The Chair outlined possible problems with dispersal and the prevalence for violent crime at night.  Mr Skeens suggested that the reasons for this had to be considered.  He asked why people in Watford could not behave well.  He said that how they were treated inside the premises had an impact.  Also, if they were going to taxis they would be less likely to be violent.  He suggested that having eaten would also assist.  He drew an analogy with rugby events where there were no problems with alcohol.

 

The Chair explained that there had never been an occasion when the Scan Net identification system was used to allow access to a restaurant in Watford; and was therefore a little concerned why this condition was required for the premises.  Mr Skeens said that this was not what the applicant necessarily wanted but he had taken account of Police views on the matter.  He explained that the system was effective and acted as a deterrent; although it was unusual for a restaurant to have it.  He said that this was one of the ways the applicant was trying to assist; Mr Campbell was seeking to educate and have a good clientele in the bar/restaurant.

 

The Chair commented that she had a problem that the premises was simply a bar/restaurant and wondered whether the applicant was trying to get around the licensing policy.  Mr Skeens said that they embraced the policy.  He asserted that they should be an exception as the applicant would run the premises in a way that would not result in crime and disorder.  He repeated that the applicant had previously run the local Pubwatch and would make use of the Scan Net system.  He said that they fulfilled the licensing policy and should be an exception.  He explained that he had taken the Sub-Committee through the introduction to the licensing policy and hoped this helped outline what the policy was trying to achieve; hence clarifying why the applicant complied with it.  He said that the conditions demonstrated how the premises would operate; and it would be a high class operator.  He explained that when looking at the policy definitions, the applicant had an innovative premises that met the policy requirements.  He said that the Sub-Committee was entitled to approach the matter from a negative perspective but he hoped they appreciated the applicant’s record.  He explained that families would be invited to the venue and people would be treated in a refined way with nice people inside. He asked how he could convince the Sub-Committee that its fears were not justified.  He proposed that it was worth granting the licence; if not successful the Licensing Committee could take it away - the policy outlined this.  He said that the applicant had taken steps to show he could be trusted.  The Chair asked why, in these circumstances, the police and licensing authority were not convinced.  Mr Skeens said that the licensing authority was coming at the matter from a policy perspective and that the applicant had met with them.  He commented that it was difficult to prove a negative and that there would be no crime at the premises.  He repeated that there had been no problems at Modello.  He said that the applicant was trying to give the Sub-Committee reassurance.  He said it was right there were objections, such as from Mr Young, and that these were brought before the Sub-Committee.  He stressed that it was highly likely that the premises would be different and that people would behave.  He recommended that the Sub-Committee give the venue a chance.

 

Councillor Crout commented that the Sub-Committee might be taking a risk.  Mr Skeens suggested that the Sub-Committee should do everything to improve the town centre and drew an analogy with a Marks and Spencer store in Westminster, London in which a murder had been committed.  The Chair commented that the government allowed towns to consider their own issues.  She made reference to a previous answer by Mr Skeens, in relation to people not attending the venue if it closed at 01:00, and suggested that the people would in any event have already left.  Mr Skeens said that he had meant that people would not attend the venue because they would go somewhere else; they would not necessarily be certain about their plans.  He suggested that if they had a chance, people would go somewhere with later hours.  He said that attitudes to drinking were changing; with violent crime associated with alcohol and drink driving reducing.  He said that people were going out later; and not as early as some operators wanted - although they would also cater for people going out straight from work.  He suggested that the prices were too high for people who wanted to get drunk quickly.  He said that because of the style of the premises people would leave; and there would be wind- down music to assist with this.  He suggested that food did have a psychological effect.  He said that as it was a food led environment, people would be attracted to eat in the reserved area.  They believed that if people went to the premises because of the different approaches being offered, they would stay inside and this would avoid people being out on the parade.  He asked the Sub-Committee to take a gamble and he hoped they would look at the operation carefully.  He suggested that the Sub-Committee should want to try and let the applicant make the premises work; particularly with the range of conditions being applied. 

 

The Chair asked about the take away aspect of the business.  Mr Skeens said that if people did not finish meals they could take food away and that was all.  There would not be a take-away menu.

 

Councillor Crout commented that the application was complex and perplexing.  He was not convinced that people would be getting sophistication and that it appeared that the applicant was seeking every opportunity to make money – not that that was a bad thing.  Mr Skeens said that in a nightclub the last hour would be negligible in terms of sales.  He suggested that people would not continually drink until closing.  The applicant’s prices were too high for people just wanting to drink.  He asked how many drunks came out of TGI Friday’s; he suggested none - and the applicant’s premises would be this type of operation.  It was a commercial venture yet the applicant had borne a raft of expenses; such as reducing capacity.  He said that in some ways the applicant was a ‘jack of all trades’ but possibly a master of all of them.  He repeated that the 02:00 finish was necessary for the premises to be commercially viable.  He said that the premises was a high class restaurant; for example, quality beef was provided that was locally sourced - and with all types of beef burgers being sold. 

 

Councillor Silver said that he was not convinced that evidence had been offered for a need as a late restaurant; if people came in earlier they would have plenty of time to eat.  He asked whether to make the premises commercially viable it was necessary that people just purchased alcohol.  Mr Skeens said that there were several factors; if people who had finished a meal wanted to go to the bar this was important.  He suggested that there had to be a ‘mix of things’ for people to come to the premises.  He added that if the finish was brought forward to 02:00, the last entry could be moved to 12:30 and people would then be leaving earlier; and they would consider that.

 

The Licensing Manager asked what customers would be doing if they were not eating.  He said that there was nothing stopping diners going to the bar after dining; he suggested that this could be a condition on the licence.  Mr Skeens said that there would be a waiter service and that people who were not in the reserved area could be eating elsewhere.  He questioned why people just drinking was considered socially wrong.  He said that people would be more likely to order drinks from a waitress and not go to the bar.  Furthermore, preventing people going to the bar could cause a flash point.  The Licensing Officer commented that the waitress service was only in the reserved area. Mr Skeens said that champagne bottles were not a major source of injuries to cause concern.  The Licensing Manager commented that before 12 midnight there was no requirement for any waitress service and that the closest condition was number 25; where tables had to be cleared regularly.  Mr Skeens said that the applicant would be quite happy to have a condition requiring a waitress service all of the time. 

 

The Licensing Manager made reference to condition 39, outlining that there was flexibility in the use of the Scan Net system - with Police agreeing the times of use with the applicant.  Councillor Crout asked why the Police felt that the Scan Net system was required in a restaurant.  Detective Sergeant Brown explained that the premises would form part of the night time economy as it would be open after 12 midnight and all other night time economy premises had the system.  Consequently, if the premises did not have Scan Net, it would be open to miscreants, who could not get in to the other premises, to gain access.  She said that police would be happy to be guided by the Sub-Committee as to the times when it should be operable.  She clarified that as other restaurants in the town were not open after midnight; they did not have the system. 

 

In response to a question from Detective Sergeant Brown, Mr Skeens said that Mr Campbell had been the area manager for Modello for six months.  Detective Sergeant Brown commented that Mr Campbell had also been responsible for 15 other sites and asked what level of input he had had in to Modello.  Mr Campbell informed the Sub-Committee that he had been at the premises on a daily basis and used it as a base as he lived locally; as a result he saw how it operated.  He added that there were only three Modello sites in the country and that most of his time was invested in Watford.  Detective Sergeant Brown asked whether the applicant had done any research around how viable restaurants that closed before midnight and with no extra hours were.  Mr Skeens said that Mr Campbell had conducted research and had found that some restaurants were struggling.  He repeated that the applicant could not operate the premises solely as a restaurant; although he had not conducted empirical research.  Detective Sergeant Brown said that following a meeting with the Environmental Health Officer, the applicant had agreed to play music at a conversation level and asked whether this was still the case.  Mr Skeens said they had agreed to have a sound limiter and they would work with Environmental Health in setting the level.  Detective Sergeant Brown asked whether the void areas in the premises would be used for dancing as there was no dance floor.  Mr Skeens said that they would not and that in any event this would require a variation to the licence.  Detective Sergeant Brown commented that cloakrooms could experience crime and disorder when people did not have tickets to collect items, potentially causing confrontations.  Mr Skeens explained that it would be a condition that the cloakroom must have an attendant; and they would be tasked with giving back coats.  He added that there would also be someone supervising whilst the premises was open.

 

The Chair asked Mr Skeens to summarise his submission to the Sub-Committee.  Mr Skeens said that the applicant was providing something the licensing policy wanted - if the licence was refused this would make Watford less attractive.  Mr Campbell was a local man investing money himself and with vast experience; he was a best placed individual with an impeccable CV.  He said that the premises was a fabulous facility not available anywhere else in Watford.  He made reference to a restaurant in Frithsden, Hertfordshire and said that much research had been conducted in to the Watford premises.  He hoped the Sub-Committee thought it was a positive venture.  He explained that the applicant would continue to work to minimise crime and disorder and that Watford had a good reputation for being family-friendly.  He proposed that the venture might be regarded as an experiment or a gamble; and that it was worth taking a gamble on the premises.  He suggested that the premises fulfilled the licensing policy and the reasons for it; and that the law said that a policy was enhanced by granting exceptions.  He hoped that the Sub-Committee had enough information to recognise that it was worth taking a gamble with the premises.  He also hoped that the reserved restaurant would lead to more people having meals.  He said that the premises was neither a noisy pub nor an overbearing nightclub.  He stressed that the applicant would comply with the conditions and that he could be prosecuted or the licence reviewed if he did not.  He added that Mr Cambell would not want to be up before the Sub-Committee again.  He said that the premises would be better than Modello and that the applicant would be in control of all aspects of the business.  He urged the Sub-Committee to take a bold step and give the premises a chance; and hoped that they felt that there was no likelihood of problems.  He asked the Sub-Committee to read the entire brochure (presentation) and stated that this was a testament to Mr Campbell.  He emphasised that Mr Campbell had cooperated and had delivered on conditions. He concluded by saying that he hoped Watford could see the benefits of the premises - and it was a worthwhile venture; and the Sub-Committee saw it in that light.

 

The Sub-Committee retired to consider their decision.

 

On the Sub-Committee’s return, the Chair announced the decision.          

                                                                       

                   After the Sub-Committee announced its’ decision Mr Skeens made a further submission that the conditions had been agreed with the Police and offered on the basis that the licence would be granted until 02:00 hours.  Condition 3 would be a very expensive burden on the applicant if the premises closed at 02:00 hours and sought permission for that condition to be removed, and for condition 44 to be amended to remove reference to the areas shaded in pink.  This was agreed.

 

RESOLVED

Having listened to the evidence of the police and the applicant, and taking into account the representations of the interested parties and the licensing authority, the licence is granted subject to the following conditions:

 

(1)    Opening hours: 

         Sunday to Wednesday   11:00 to 01:30

         Thursday to Saturday      11:00 to 02:00

 

        

         Sales of alcohol               11:00 to 01:00

 

         Other licensable activities

         Sunday to Wednesday   11:00 to 01:00

         Thursday to Saturday      11:00 to 02:00

 

         Late night refreshment

         Sunday to Wednesday   11:00 to 01:00

         Thursday to Saturday      11:00 to 02:00

 

(2)   Those conditions agreed with the police and headed Lux – Draft conditions for Licensing Sub-Committee Hearing on 02/07/15 and as supplied to the Sub-Committee at the Hearing.

 

(3)   A condition requiring waiter service for alcohol sales to be available. 

(4)   Condition 3 be deleted and condition 44 amended to remove reference to the area shown as pink on the licensed plan.

 

In reaching this decision the Sub-Committee has taken in to account the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, The Secretary of State’s Guidance of March 2015 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2013-18.  The Sub-Committee is of the view that the hours proposed by the applicant would affect the staggered dispersal from the town which would be detrimental to policing in Watford and undermine the Prevention of Crime and Disorder objective of the Licensing Act.

 

 

               

Chair

Licensing Sub-Committee

 

 

 

 

The meeting started at 10.30 a.m.

adjourned at 10.35 a.m.

reconvened at 10.36 p.m.

adjourned at 1.50 p.m.

reconvened at 3.10 p.m.

ended at 3.30 p.m.