Covent Garden London
The heart of London's West End
A Good Night Out!9. APPENDICESAppendix 1 - Adopted Aims and Objectives Appendix 2 - Membership of Working Party Appendix 3 - Correspondence between Chairman and Denis Wilmer Appendix 4 - Action against urinating in public in the Netherlands Appendix 5 - Press Article on Table and Chairs in Old Compton Street Appendix 6 - Metropolitan Police - SOE's Appendix 7 - Examples of Problems Appendix 8 - Guidance Notes Appendix 9 - Correspondence with Better Task Force and Executive Summary of their report Appendix 10 - Entertainment Licensing Bill - Guidance Notes Appendix 11 - Extract from Ealing Justices Licensing Committee Policy statement Appendix 12 - Proposed amendments to UDP Appendix 13 - London Borough of Ealing - Licensing Panel Policy Appendix 14 - Organisations invited to give presentations Map 1 I would like to extend my grateful thanks to all those involved in the development and publication of this report. In particular I would like to thank all the members of the Working Party, past and present for giving their time and advice; those who have made presentations to us; Julie Mansell and her colleague for minuting and servicing the Working Party; and Westminster City Council for providing meeting room space. Especial thanks go to Peter Boizot for his generosity in hosting the launch of the report. Matthew Bennett Chairman 07.09.98 APPENDIX 1 CENTRAL WESTMINSTER POLICE/COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE GROUP LICENSING WORKING GROUP AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 1. To establish the policy of Westminster City Council in relation to the granting of planning consents and various licenses (excluding liquor) and whether the Working Party should lobby for changes. 2. To examine current legislation and conditions imposed by Westminster City Council relating to the conduct of licensed premises and their environs, with a view to establishing whether the law is being correctly applied for the benefit of the community as a whole. 3. To establish what criteria the local Magistrates and Licensing Justices employ when considering applications for licenses and whether the working group should recommend changes. 4. To establish if there is a need for new legislation, bye-laws and conditions to prevent nuisance to the community arising from licensed premises. RATIFIED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES APPENDIX 2 CENTRAL WESTMINSTER POLICE/COMMUNITY CONSULTATIVE GROUP LICENSING WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP LIST Matthew Bennett (Chairman) - Soho Pizzeria Mr. T. Archer - Lamb & Flag Public House Mr. K. Beck - Siddons & Sterling Residents Association Mr. D. Bieda - Meard & Dean St. Residents Association Mr. P. Boizot - PJB Group Ltd. Mr. J. Bos - Covent Garden Community Association Lord Bradford - Porters Restaurant Rt. Hon. Peter Brooke MP - Consultant Member Mr. R. Butler - Soho Society Mr. D. Chambers - WCC - Licensing Mr. B. Evans - Scottish & Newcastle Retail Mr. R. Gadd - WCC - Envrionmental Protection Group Mr. K. Lester - WCC - Noise Team Mrs. A. Lewis - Marylebone Association Mr. P. Mills - WCC - Licensing Inspector Moore - West End Central Division Mr. G. Peat - Old Compton St. Resident Sergeant R. Powell - Charing Cross Division Mrs. M. Richardson - Odhams Walk Residents Association PC. T. Watson - Charing Cross Division EX- MEMBERS Mrs. M. Beck - Siddons & Sterling Residents Association Inspector Brewer - West End Central Division Ms. W. Greenbury - Soho Society Mr. D. Groundsell - WCC - Environmental Protection Group Mrs. B. King - Old Compton St. Resident Mr. B. Luke - Scottish & Newcastle Retail Ms. J. MacLean - Bass Taverns Sergeant M. McShea - Charing Cross Division Mr. P. Reeves - WCC - Environmental Protection Group APPENDIX 4 ACTION AGAINST URINATING IN PUBLIC IN THE NETHERLANDS Utrecht's campaign against "illegal dumping" The City Council of Utrecht, a large regional city in the heart of the country, has taken some drastic action against people urinating in public (UIP). A 2-month trial period in the city centre is aimed at reducing the custom and at highlighting the very adverse effect of UIP on inner-city residents and historic monuments. The Council is working with the Police, bar and restaurant operators and the national food and drink organisation to make pub-crawlers aware of the anti-social aspects of UIP through a campaign to educate and inform. The Janskerk in the old city centre, a fine, listed church building, has been the centre of a number of means of reducing UIP. Three pinkelpalen, specially designed urinals, have been placed in the vicinity of the church to enable men who are 'cut short' to urinate easily, quickly and free-of-charge. The trial area has a large number of bars and restaurants and is a well-known area for a 'night out'. The walls of the old church, with its many dark corners and recesses, have been 'targeted' by men over many years and are now showing serious signs of decay as a result of "acid attacks" in the wee hours. The Council has also installed a spetterplaat in one of the recesses: a stone with a device which sprays the urine back onto the perpetrator's trousers and shoes. Flood-lights with infra-red sensors detect movement and bathe those wishing to spend a penny in light. The Council's cleansing service will wash and disinfect the trial area on a weekly basis. the police in Utrecht has been instructed to target people UIP - anyone caught red-handed, anywhere in Utrecht, will get an instant fine of 60 Guilders (approx. £20). Bar and restaurant operators in the trial area have agreed to allow anyone to use their toilets free-of-charge, even if they are not customers. Research has indicated that areas that stink of urine invite others to UIP. Complaints from residents in the area have finally resulted in tough action. Utrecht's Deputy Mayor, Mr. Kernkamp, launched the 100,000 guilder (approx. £30,000) campaign on 8th August 1997 by explaining that local residents have UIP very high on their list of complaints. The Council continuously receives complaints about the smell of urine and the deteriorative effect on the old city centre. Mr. Kernkamp stated that the campaign is "....worth the money if it results in a decrease in the number of complaints from locals. They (local residents) are the prime reason for the Council's action. Urinating in public is a major problem for our city centre - it is dirty, it harms historic monuments and it changes the sociality of the area; people feel unsafe in a dirty, smelly and dark environment". The Burgomaster said that he expects that the Council will re-introduce public toilets in the future, to replace those that have been closed in the past to save money. The trial project is supported by a host of publicity materials, including beer mats, posters and a leaflet which compares UIP with "dumping chemical waste". The walls of the Janskerk very graphically confirm that this is an entirely appropriate comparison. Source: Cuttings from RD 9/8/97 and Barneveldse Krant 9/8/97. APPENDIX 7 EXAMPLES OF THE PROBLEMS The following case histories have been submitted by individual members of the Working Party:- 1. RE: RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENCE - ENDELL ST. The Application came before the Horseferry Road Magistrates court in November 1995 - and was opposed by Westminster City Council, the Covent Garden Community Association and many local residents. Granting of the licence was refused. On appeal, the Crown Court at Southwark granted the licence to the two applicants - with various restrictions, in March 1996. Since that time the restaurant has been operating as a restaurant, but it appears that the two applicants are in no way involved with the running of the business - and it is felt by local residents that they were used as a 'front' by the proprietor so as to obtain the restaurant liquor licence. 2. RE:RESTAURANT - OLD COMPTON STREET Having for the last few years being a tenant of Old Compton Street, I have had to put up with noise from the said Restaurant. I and other tenants, on many occasions, have been awakened at 2am in the morning and sometimes at 3am in the morning, and it got too much. I obtained video evidence of what was taking place in the Restaurant, and when it went before the Licensing Sub Committee to have their hours extended, I produced the video tape and the Chairman and Members looked at it. As a result of the video evidence the following was imposed:- * No music shall be played. * No singing. * Doors from premises in Compton Street should be kept closed, except for the purpose of access and egress. We now have at long last had this noise ended, which in the main was due to the video evidence produced at the Licensing Sub Committee. 3. INCIDENT EXAMPLE RE: DRINKING OUTSIDE A PUBLIC HOUSE - GARRICK STREET The Public House very often has between 120 and 160 drinkers outside the premises on a hot summer evening (maybe more at times). There is a post box also near the pavement kerb, which drinkers surround and place their drinks on top of the post box. There have been several occasions when the postman has been unable to get to the post box to empty it in the evening, as the drinkers would not move to let him through. The postman has had to call the police to help him get to the post box. Quite often, the drinkers have been abusive. 4. OBJECTIONS RAISED AND RESULTS ACHIEVED BY THE MEARD AND DEAN STREET RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION Bar A Objections: Exceptionally loud music from live musicians on Friday and Saturday evening 11pm - 1am. New Conditions: Extended hours license limited to Fridays & Saturdays; windows to remain closed throughout the year, and front door only opened for reasonable entry and exit, plus at lunchtimes: live music limited to two performers situated away from the windows: doorscreen will be extended during live performances: only dinner jazz and similar type will be played and there will be no percussion instruments: the acoustic levels will be restricted to the levels set in the acoustic report subject to WCC - EHO approval: Subsequent: Following flouting of conditions by other nearby operators, noise levels increased, doors and windows left open. Bar B Objections: Objections made following application to increase number on grounds of loud thumping noise and shop front open until 3.00am. New Conditions: Agreed increase in numbers subject to soundproofing, keeping all windows and doors (except the front door) closed and reducing the noise and shutting the shopfront windows after 11.00pm. Noise levels and soundproofing are to be tested by the Environmental Health Officer in consultation with residents. Residents can still make valid objections until 31 October 1998 (instead of 31 August) if the soundproofing measures are ineffective. Allowed: Only jazz/cabaret appropriate to a restaurant/cafe type operation. Ground floor entertainment is limited to quiet background music only. Live music in basement. Subsequent: Within 6 weeks of the above being agreed, WCC had to serve a noise nuisance notice on the operator. Sporadic problems have continued and residents still await notification of works and therefore EHO inspection. Bar C Objections: Noise nuisance, drunk & disorderly behaviour, street urination & vomiting by patrons, etc. New Conditions: All windows to be permanently locked with secondary glazing to be installed on ground and first floors; doors to rear terrace to be kept permanently locked; acoustic level to be set by WCC - EHO in consultation with residents;customers and staff not to use ------- St. fire exit except in case of emergency; fire exit to be alarmed and not to be used for deliveries; doorman and staff to encourage customers to disperse quickly and quietly and to the best of their abilities to endeavour to stop customers from urinating in the street; maximum numbers limited to 450: no music or announcement after 11pm; Monday - Saturday cleaning of washing of pavement in --------- Street up to No. 7 to commence not before 8am. Subsequent: Windows still left open; front doors left open, amplification levels substantially increased after 9:30pm, fire exit still used, in spite of all above having been raised by the R.A. Bar D Objections: To openable shopfront after 11pm; noise from large numbers drinking on the pavement until 1am; excessive loud thumping music stopping residents from sleeping; timber frame 18c building unsuitable for amplified music. New Conditions: (offered as voluntary undertakings by the Owner); to ensure the music level is reduced after 11pm; to ensure that music played after 11pm is not "thumping house" music; to ensure that the openable shopfront is closed after 11pm and that people drinking stay within the bar; to restrict entry after 11pm to the bar thus ensuring a clientele who are not drunk and disorderly; have a doorman. Subsequent: Within 24 hours of residents complaining that street drinking and drums and bass music continued, and following visits from the WCC Noise Team, the operator has responded by deliberately leaving the frontage open until 1:00am, thus now breaking all undertakings. Bar E Has been a Brasserie (on the ground floor only) for some years, where almost all patrons are seated at chairs and tables. The premises have an openable shopfront with no conditions attached to the planning consent. This is an ex Public House. The lease was sold, and applications made for: (a) tables and chairs on the public footway; (b) a 3am Music & Dance Licence; (c) planning consent for a new staircase and external glazed rear area (the plans indicated that the entire ground and first floors were to become a bar, but no application was made for same in spite of the great intensification of use); (d) an application for consent to alter the licensed area under S20 of the Licensing Act, thus this was not advertised, only relayed to the statutory authorities. The local amenity society did not object to a, and c, and was unaware of d. It withdrew it's objection to b. The Meard & Dean Street RA objected to the planning application on grounds of intensification, and that this was an entirely new application, and on the grounds that all the applications needed to be linked since the outcome would be possible 500 people exiting in the middle of the night. The planning application has yet to be determined. The RA itself contacted the Justices only to find that this application, since it was being dealt with under S20 could not be objected to except by the Local Authority (or the Police or Fire Service). WCC had failed to make any observations. Therefore the RA, together with a Ward Councillor objected as a matter of principle on the grounds that the bar was being increased by about 80-0% and this was therefore an entirely new operation which should never have been dealt with under S29. The Ward Councillor felt that both residents, and their elected representative were, in effect, being denied the right to comment. Neither party was allowed to appear in Court, or to view any of the papers. The RA is now attempting to persuade WCC to agree a late application re the M & D License, especially since the Council's own Environmental Health Department failed to lodge comment within the permitted 28 days timescale thus losing the chance to obtain conditions or reduce the hours. Bar F Is a large bar with a block of flats above it. The flats were built after the bar started operating. Residents experienced severe noise and other problems. Representation failed to ameliorate this situation. Residents were so exercised that one of them bought the common parts of the building from the freeholder in order to try and influence the situation. Residents then started Revocation proceedings, with the support of the Police. Shortly before the hearing sat, the operator (who is a brewery with a multiple type bar operation), withdrew the Licensees and substituted others. Therefore the residents had to withdraw the proceedings after spending £5,000 on legal fees. 5. THREE CASE HISTORIES SUBMITTED BY THE COVENT GARDEN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. A. Very noisy, contemporary bar, situated directly beneath a block of luxury flats and opposite public sector housing. Residents reported that the drunken behaviour and loud music emitted from the premises was untenable. Patrons distributed themselves and their glasses over a wide area, including sitting on cars, doorways etc. Following many complaints, we met with the proprietors and nearby residents and, after serious discussions, the management of the premises did improve. However, we noted, as did the management, that you can not legislate against people's behaviour, once off the premises. We concluded that, although the establishment itself cleaned up its act, the problem of noise and indiscreet behaviour has not been resolved, nor, it would appear, is it likely to be. With complaints still on the increase, we have little choice but to look at legal action, which would entail additional work and would result in the patrons only being allowed to drink within the premises. As much of the ambiance of this establishment is created by its location and outside seating, this could be the only way to curtail the existing problems. However, we are only too aware that any future undertakings or conditions could be easily breached, as the premises know full well that there is no effective enforcement. B. Block of 40 flats overlooking four noisy cafes/restaurants: Complaints about one of the restaurants, which was being operated as a bar, despite only having a restaurant licence, from the (mainly elderly) residents immediately opposite, including 27 sheltered housing units. Complaints since 1994, but worse during hot summer of 1995 and summer of 1996. Some elderly residents had ear infections as a result of having to wear ear-plugs on six or seven nights each week. We approached licensee and manager many times, liaised with police licensing department and local Council's Noise Pollution Team, but to no avail. The severity and the large number of complaints prompted us to take our own action. Visited the bar/restaurant on three occasions anonymously and made test purchases; kept evidence and made detailed statements to the police. This resulted in a caution, but still little improvement in the situation on the street and with regard to noise. Large crowds used to gather outside the premises on the pavement, causing serious noise nuisance to the residents immediately opposite. Later in the evening, loud music emanated from the premises keeping residents awake. 'Restaurant' also appeared to be trading outside licensed hours; liaised with police and made a number of late night visits to monitor closing time. Regular police visits did not have desired effect and complaints continued. We decided to make an application to the Licensing Justices to have the 'restaurant' licence revoked. Liaised with residents and briefed potential witnesses. Carried out home visits to those affected and instructed specialist licensing solicitor to represent us at the revocation hearing. Arranged transport for all witnesses to Court. Application successful, licence revoked; residents very happy and relieved. Licensee appealed against the revocation, was then allowed to keep trading, albeit much quieter and more responsibly. Prepared witnesses for appeal hearing in Crown Court, liaised with solicitor, police and Magistrates Court. Arranged transport for all witnesses and spectators to Crown Court for two day appeal hearing. Appeal was successful, licence reinstated but licensee severely reprimanded. We incurred large bill for legal expenses; now considering ways of specific fund-raising to pay for this unforeseen expense. After the Court hearings, we convened public meeting for residents to meet the licensees of all cafes/restaurants opposite the block, with a view to improve the very tense relationship between residents and businesses and reduce our workload in having to mediate in each complaint. Meeting very successful; residents mellowing a little, licensees having a much better understanding of problems faced by residents and their needs as a Covent Garden community. Follow-up meeting arranged. Noise problems reduced dramatically, behaviour of restaurant staff and patrons much more considerate. No noise complaints received since appeal hearing! C. Elderly lady, living alone in family flat, has severe mobility problems. Troubled day and night by loud noise from air conditioning units and large kitchen extractor fan installed illegally in connection with a large restaurant and public house adjacent to her premises. Loud noise from machinery has led to loss of sleep and health problems; sleeping during the daytime to "catch-up" has led to lack of social contacts and isolation. We visited the premises, surveyed the adjacent premises and have brought to attention of the Council. Have put pressure on Council to deal with the illegal equipment as a matter or urgency. Equipment now partially silenced, but lady has had to be admitted to convalescence home. Have dealt with relevant correspondence with the Council on her behalf and are currently negotiating much improved arrangements for the illegal equipment to be re-sited and further silenced. 6. EXTENSION OF PERMITTED HOURS TO CLUB IN PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL STREETS NEAR PICCADILLY CIRCUS The street in question has almost total residential use above ground floor including two publicly funded schemes of social housing provided by housing associations, private rented flats, privately owned flats and staff accommodation above three pubs. An application was made by new owners to extend the hours of a club until 3.00am from its current closing time of 1.30am. This closing time had been set, some 5/7 years ago, before being an extension from midnight. Local residents opposed the application on the grounds of further erosion of their amenity late at night, supported by the Soho Society. They appeared before the Licensing Sub-Committee of Westminster City Council and put their case and the application was refused. The applicants appealed to the Magistrates Court at Horseferry Road against Westminster's decision and a representative of the residents and Soho Society was asked to attend to restate their evidence. Unfortunately the City Solicitor's Department made a mistake in instructing its counsel not to defend the Sub-Committee's decision and thus the resident representative at the hearing, having been sworn in as a witness, was suddenly put in the position of principal seeking to defend, without notice or papers, the Sub-Committee's decision. (This mistake has now been sorted and assurances given that the City Council is prepared to defend the decision of its Sub-Committee in subsequent court appeals.) The applicants won their appeal to stay open until 3.00am, costs were awarded against the Council and the magistrates in giving his decision observed to the court "well I live in Oxfordshire and as far as I can see if there is a need for such late night premises then I can think of no more appropriate place for them than Soho." Also statements made to the court about how the premises would be run so as to minimise disturbance (e.g. no parking outside the premises, a door supervisor at all times and no "busty" women on the door) were not recorded by the court as undertakings and have not subsequently been adhered to. APPENDIX 8 NOISE AND NUISANCE FROM LICENSED PREMISES A RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBOURS GUIDE INTRODUCTION Many residents in the West End have had bad experiences with licensed premises and either wanted to complain about a new premises or the running of an existing one. Often they don't know how and where to complain, or if they do, find that it is out of time or to the wrong place. In order to try and help local people find their way through a very complex situation, the Central Westminster Police/Community Consultative Group have published this guide, together with a simple standard letter of objection which you can fill out and send to the appropriate authority. Addresses are given on the attached sheet (you may prefer to compose your own based on it). Before going any further, it is important to make clear that this guide is not to encourage you to make false or malicious complaints about a particular premises. If you are found to do so, you will put yourself at risk of being sued and having legal costs awarded against you. However, if you feel your concerns are genuine and you act in good faith, then you are perfectly entitled to make your views known in writing. (It may help your case if you send a copy of your letter to your local amenity group and seek to get their support). Licensing varying types of premises is a complex business because it is governed by different Acts of Parliament passed at different times (some many years ago) and each has its own procedures and rules. Applications for liquor licences are made to the Licensing Justices, a special group of magistrates, who only hear licensing matters. However, some club applications can be made to a general magistrates Court and applications for entertainment and night cafe licences to Westminster City Council. ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT NEW PREMISES OR AN EXISTING ONE. Most of the details below relate to applications for new licenses but if you are concerned about how an existing premises is being run and wish to complain if it is staying open later that you think it should, is noisy or is being run in a disorderly manner, then look at the sections below and work out which licence you think the premises has and send your complaints to the relevant address. You can also send your complaints to the Licensing section of your local Police Station and they will investigate any specific complaints you have. Please remember to sign and date the letter as well as fill in your name and address. NOTICES The main way that you, the public, are consulted about what happens to a building is by a notice posted on it. You may also receive a letter if you are a close neighbour and your amenity society may also be consulted. But, the main method is still the notice, so please read it and do it as soon as it is put up on the premises because it may give precise timescales (often as little as 7 days) for comments and complaints and if you miss these it will be too late! Also note the date of the notice, the correct address of the premises, the name of the applicant and what exactly is being applied for and to which court. This information is vital in making a valid objection. PLANNING PERMISSION If someone is planning to use a property for a new use such as a restaurant or club the first thing they need is planning permission to change the use. (If the property has been used for the same use before no change of use is required.) This is a vital part of the process because once a property has planning permission for its use then it is much more difficult to stop an application for an alcohol licence etc. Applications are handled by Westminster City Council, Department of Environment & Planning, PO Box 240, 64 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QP, Tel. 0171-641-6000. Write direct to them expressing any concerns or objections you have as to the proposed new use of the premises. Do not use the attached letter of objection. 1. NEW RESTAURANT/BAR/PUB/LICENSES The notice on the premises will state that the application is for a 'restaurant' licence, that is to sell alcohol to accompany meals, an 'on licence' (literally a licence to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises regardless of meals), an 'off licence' (to sell alcohol to be used off the premises), a 'provisional' licence while the premises are being built or converted. All these licences are from 11am to 11pm weekdays and 12 noon to 10.30pm on Sundays. (Except an 'off licence' which can sell alcohol earlier, from 8.00am. If you are concerned about any of these licences please complete section A of the attached letter and tick your reasons in section B and add any other comments you have. SEND IT TO: The Clerk to the Licensing Justices. CHANGING THE LICENCE AT PREMISES If the ownership of a premises changes such as when a new company takes over and refurbishes a property, the notice may refer to an application to ' Transfer' the licence from a named individual/s to another/others, or for a 'Protection Order' to protect the existence of a licence at those premises. You can object if you have grounds for opposing the new licensees. If you are concerned about this issue please complete sections A and B of the attached letter in section B. IF IT IS A TRANSFER SEND IT TO: The Clerk to the Licensing Justices. IF IT IS A PROTECTION ORDER SEND IT TO: The Clerk to the Magistrates Court named on the notice. CLUBS Those wishing to run a members only club can apply for a 'registered club' licence to the Magistrates Court or a 'licensed club' to the Licensing Justices. If you have any concerns about clubs please complete sections A and B of the attached letter and send it to EITHER: The Clerk to the Licensing Justices or the Clerk to the Magistrates, as appropriate. EXTENDING THE OPENING HOURS Those running licensed premises often want to be able to stay open later than 11pm and it is the later extensions which cause most noise nuisance to neighbours. The most frequently used is a 'supper hour certificate' which allows a premises serving food to serve alcohol for one extra hour till midnight with half an hour for drinking up time. The other licence is an 'extended hours order' for those who already hold a supper hour certificate and who provide musical entertainment allowing the hours to be extended to 1.00am (not Sundays). If you have concerns about such licenses please complete sections A and B of the attached form and send it to the Clerk to the Licensing Justices. MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCES Music and dancing licences are required for premises such as nightclubs and discotheques but also for premises which have three live musicians or more. the licences are granted by the City Of Westminster who must be satisfied that the premises are properly adapted for the purpose and are safe. Once the applicant has such a licence, they can apply to Licensing Justices for a 'special hours certificate' which can specify hours up to 3.00am. If you have concerns about such licences then please complete sections A and B of the attached letter and send it to Westminster City Council, Licensing Division. NIGHT CAFES These have the greatest potential to cause nuisance because they can be licensed until 5.00am, after that they don't need a licence as it is regarded as morning! Once an applicant has such a licence, they can apply for a licence to serve alcohol. If you have concerns about night cafes you should complete sections A and B of the attached letter and send it to Westminster City Council, Licensing Division. 2. COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WAY AN EXISTING PREMISES IS BEING RUN. If you are concerned about noise, music, disturbance or other matters, first try to take it up with the owner or manager of the premises. A friendly approach in the first instance will often get results and the matter put right. If this does not work, you can always ask again or put your concern more formally in writing (perhaps to the head office, if there is one). If all else fails you make a formal complaint to the body which has given the premises a licence. (This will either be Westminster City Council Licensing Sub-Committee, the Magistrates Court or the Licensing Justices.) For your complaint to be taken seriously it is very important that you:- 1. Address it to the right place 2. Keep clear records of the incident or incidents you are complaining about (eg date, time, place and details) 3. Provide any supportive evidence (eg letters from other complaining, photographs, videos and independent witnesses) If you wish to make a complaint please complete section C of the attached letter. RELEVANT ADDRESSES The Clerk to the Licensing Justices 70 Horseferry Road London SW1P 2AX Tel: 0171 233 2000 The Clerk to the Magistrates Court Bow Street London WC2E 7AS Tel: 0171 379 4713 The Clerk to the Magsitrates Court 21 Great Marlborough Street London W1A 4EY Tel: 0171 287 4525 The Clerk to the Magistrates Court 181 Marylebone Road London NW1 5QJ Tel: 0171 706 1261 The Chairman of the Licensing Sub-Committee Westminster City Council PO Box 240 64 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QP Tel: 0171 641 6000 Your Name--------------------------------------- Your Address------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Date------------------------------------------------- To: Name---------------------------------- Address------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Dear Sir/Madam, (Give here the address you are concerned about & either complete sections A and B or Section C) -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- NEW PREMISES A) I wish to object to the application listed below in respect of the above premises (Tick which applies) The details of the application will be sited on the Premises. i) ( Restaurant licence vii) ( Off Licence ii) ( On licence viii) ( Protection order iii) ( Transfer ix) ( Provisional iv) ( Registered Club x) ( Licensed Club v) ( Night Cafe xi) ( Supper Hour Certificate vi) ( Extended Hours Order xii) ( Special Hour Certificate xiii) ( Near Beer Licence B) I/We object on the following grounds (Tick which applies) a) ( the premises are not structurally suitable for the purpose; b) ( there is a likelihood of nuisance being caused by reason of the conduct, management of situation of the premises of the character of adjacent properties. c) ( the persons concerned or intended to be concerned in the conduct or management of the premises as a night cafe are such that young persons resorting to the premises are likely to be depraved or corrupted. d) ( the premises are not provided with satisfactory means of lighting sanitation and ventilation. e) ( proper precautions against fire on the premises have not been taken. f) ( the application has, within the period of five years immediately preceding the date of the application to the borough Council been convicted of an offence under subsection (3) of this section, section 52 (officers in connection with conduct of night cafes) of this Act; and shall refuse to register or renew the registration of any premises for use as a night cafe if they are satisfied that a disqualification order is for the time being in force under Section 100 of the Act of 1964 or Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Refreshment Houses Act 1964, in respect of the premises or of any person concerned or intended to be concerned in the conduct or management of the premises as a night cafe. g) ( Other (Give details below) (Please continue on a separate piece of paper if necessary) EXISTING PREMISES C) I/We wish to complain about the current use of the above premises on the following grounds. (Tick which applies) ( The Licensee is not complying with the terms of his/her licence. ( The Use is causing unacceptable levels of noise and other nuisance. ( The Licensee is not a fit and proper person to hold the license. ( The permitted hours of opening should be reduced. ( Passage along the public highway outside the premises is seriously obstructed by its patrons. GIVE FURTHER DETAILS OF YOUR COMPLAINT HERE (Please continue on a separate piece of paper if necessary) GIVE DETAILS OF YOUR SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE REMEDY. (Please continue, if necessary, on a separate piece of paper) To substantiate my allegations, I include the following documents: (Please supply only photocopies. Keep originals safe) ( Diary of observations recorded at the time. (If notes were not made at the time, they should have been made as soon as was reasonably practicable and a note should be added stating when and where they were made. they should be signed and dated by you and any other witnesses.) ( Photographs ( Whether there exists any video evidence. ( Statements or letters made by witnesses; give details of the other known complainants and evidence they can give. CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967, s.9; MC ACT 1980. s.102; MC RULES 1981, R.70 This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true. I am aware that my action may result in court proceedings and that a malicious allegation may give rise to an action for damages against me. SIGNED..................................................DATE................................... Yours faithfully, APPENDIX 11 EXTRACT FROM EALING LICENSING COMMITTEE'S POLICY STRATEGY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DECIDING APPLICATIONS In deciding whether to grant or refuse a licence, the Committee will consider the following points: a) whether the premises are structurally safe and managed in such a way as to avoid danger to the general public; b) whether the premises would be likely to generate crime or pose a threat to public order; c) whether liquor on the premises is securely displayed and stored; d) particular attention will be paid to the likely environmental impact of a grant. The Committee does not expect applicants to prove the need for a further retail outlet for liquor, that is to prove that existing outlets are insufficient to meet the demand for liquor. When considering the likely environmental impact of grant the Committee will have regard to all relevant considerations. Clearly the considerations apply with varying force to different categories of licence, off-licences must be treated differently from on-licences, pubs from night-clubs, etc. It would be misleading to attempt an exhaustive list of matters which the Committee will consider relevant but the following are some examples:- * in a residental area, are the premises likely to cause an increase in noise or other nuisance for those who live there? * whether grant would attract undesirable visitors to the area. * in the case of a shopping parade or high street site, would grant mean that the area was so swamped with licensed premises as to undermine its character? * would the concentration of premises in a particular area generate public order or policing problems? * is there sufficient parking or public transport provision for potential patrons? APPENDIX 14 ORGANISATIONS/AGENCIES INVITED TO GIVE PRESENTATIONS/INFORMATION TO THE LICENSING WORKING GROUP Mr. G. Blackwell - WCC City Solicitors Inspector K. Mason - Charing Cross - Clubs & Vice Mr. D. Atkins - Crown Prosecution Service Mr. R. Parncutt - London Fire Brigade Councillor P. Batty - WCC Councillor J. Bull - WCC Councillor K. Gardner - WCC - Licensing Sub-Committee Ms. L. Hyams - Metropolitan Police - Solicitor Councillor A. Bradley - WCC Mr. R. Shedden - Clerk to West Central Division - Licensing Justices Ms. R. Whittaker JP - Metropolitan Police Committee A Good Night Out - Index |
[ Home | About | Advice | Cartoons | Contact | Gallery | Handbook | Links | News | Newsletters | Sponsors ]
We recommend using this site with Firefox plus the Google Toolbar.