CITY OF WESTMINSTER

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.3

THURSDAY 16 AUGUST 2001

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

At a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held in the Council Chamber,

Council House, Marylebone Road NW1 on Thursday 16 August at 9.30am.

PRESENT: Councillors Frances Blois

Kevin Gardner
Barbara Grahame

1. MEMBERSHIP

1.1 There were no changes in membership.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

2.1 There were no declarations of interest

3. CAFE FRED, 15A, ARGYLL STREET, W1

3.1 The Sub-Committee considered the report of the

Director of Planning and Transportation introduced
by Ms. Sarah Day of the Licensing Business Unit.
This concerned an application submitted by Mr.
Paul Young for the renewal of the night café
licence for the year commencing 1 November
2000 in respect of Café Fred, 15a, Argyll Street,
W1. The licence operates on each of the days
from Sunday to Saturday with permitted hours
from midnight to 5am the day following. The
application had originally been presented to a
meeting on 25 April 2001 to be determined by way
of written representation but the Sub-Committee
referred this to an oral hearing.

3.2 The Planning Officer has reported that while no formal A3

planning permission had been granted for the site, it appeared
that there had been a long history of use as a restaurant/café,
which was not subject to planning controls. The council would,
therefore, have no planning powers to prevent the late night
operation of the premises. The premises benefitted from a
Justices On-Licence with a Supper hours Certificate but this
related to the seated restaurant at 15 Argyll Street rather than
 the take away area at 15a Argyll Street. The premises were
situated within the Central Activities Zone and the Soho Stress
Area.

3.3 No adverse comments have been received from the

Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority, the Licensing Inspectorate or the
Environmental Health Officer. On 21 March, 2001, the
Licensing Inspectorate had issued an unsatisfactory ‘ During
Performance’ inspection report citing the failure to display the
licence, a partially blocked escape route, lighting on the escape
route not working, a fire extinguisher not fixed to the wall and
three seals missing from it. On 25 April 2001, a re-visit was
carried out and, as all issues arising from the previous visit had
been addressed, a satisfactory ‘During Performance’ Inspection
report was issued.

3.4 No adverse comments had been received from the Ward

Councillors and an application received from the Soho Society
had been withdrawn. The District Surveyor confirmed that he
had no objection to the renewal of the licence and
recommended that the following special condition be included in
any licence that might be issued:

- The number of persons accommodated shall

not exceed three (staff only)

3.5 The application was presented by Mr. Toby Hole of Field,

Fisher Waterhouse. He stated that there had been some
disagreement over what part of the building was the restaurant
and what part was the night café. He stated that the irregularities
reported by the Licensing Inspectorate had occurred at the
restaurant rather than the Night café and, therefore, were
irrelevant to these proceedings. He conceded that the failure to
display the licence occurred in the night café but the others
occurred in the restaurant. The premises had been in
possession of a night café licence since 1997 during which time
there had been no breaches of the conditions and the licence
had been renewed each year.

3.6 Mr. Wehbe managed the premises and had been in post for 4
years. He was present at the premises on 6 days a week and he
had a letter of authorisation from the owner. He was not present
on 21 March 2001 when the premises were visited by the
Licensing Inspectorate. However, when he had been made
aware of what had happened, he took immediate remedial
action. The licence had not been on display because it had
fallen off the wall and had been placed on a table. It has now
been put into a new frame and has been placed on the wall in a
 prominent position in accordance with the advice of the
Licensing Inspector. Mr. Wehbe stated that he inspects the
premises every day to ensure that all conditions of his licence
are complied with. He had been inexperienced with fire
extinguishers when the first inspection had been made but he
had now familiarised himself with the necessary requirements.
In response to questions from Councillors, Mr. Wehbe stated
that entrance was gained to the premises from the street.

3.7 The confusion over which premises were which arose again. Mr.
Hole stated that the restaurant had a liquor licence and this
referred to number 15a. If the Night café licence were to be
issued to number 15a then the owners would have to go back to
court to get the liquor licence changed. Mr. Hole referred to an
ordnance survey map which showed number 15 to be the night
café and number 15a to be the restaurant but officers stated that
this was at variance with the plans held by the Licensing
Business Unit. Further discussion continued over this point but
Mr. Hole maintained that the breaches revealed during the visit
by the Licensing Inspectors on 21 March 2001 referred to the
restaurant rather than to the night café and were therefore
irrelevant.

At 09.52 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew and re-convened at 10.11 hours

to announce the decision.

This is an application by Mr Paul Young for renewal of the Night Cafe Licence
in respect of premises known as Café Fred, 15A Argyll Street, London W1.

The Sub-Committee has carefully considered the representations made by

and on behalf of the applicant and notes that the objection by the Soho
Society was withdrawn on 8 July 2001. There are no other objections to this
application.

The Sub-Committee has had regard to the policy guidelines approved by the
Planning and Transportation Committee on 28 March 2000 as amended by
the Planning and Licensing Committee on 20 June 2000. It notes that the
premises are situated in the Central Activities Zone and within the West End
Stress Area, designated by the Council as an area where residential amenity
is under severe pressure. The surrounding area is described by the District
Surveyor as one consisting of mixed commercial and residential usage. There
is no policy presumption against this renewal application, even though the
premises are licensed to operate well beyond 1am.

This application was submitted for consideration by the Sub-Committee

because of concerns expressed about an inspection of the premises on 21
March 2001. At that time, a licensing inspector noted that no licence was
displayed, escape routes were partially blocked, lights in the escape route
were not working, fire extinguishers were not fixed to the wall and three seals
were missing on the fire extinguishers.
A further inspection of the premises on 25 April 2001 revealed that all matters
had been rectified. However, it also seems that most of the contraventions
reported actually occurred in the neighbouring part of the Café which is not
actually licensed as a night café. However, those premises are in the same
ownership.

There is always an overriding need to protect residential amenity. The Sub-

Committee notes the contraventions reported on 21 March 2001 but also
notes that the licensing inspector has not actually recommended refusal of the
licence. Moreover, his observations relate to matters which, though important
in terms of public safety, do not have a direct impact in terms of nuisance that
may be caused to residents in the vicinity of the premises.

The Sub-Committee also notes that no concerns or objections have been

lodged by the Metropolitan Police or the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority and that no adverse observations have been made by the
Environmental Health Officer. No objections or submissions have been lodged
by the ward Councillors.

The Sub-Committee is concerned about the contraventions on 21 March

2001. Although they were rectified, and although they related to the restaurant
operation, they should not have been allowed to occur in the first place. Mr
Young does have ultimate responsibility for the running of his premises and it
must be fully understood that measures must be in place at all times to ensure
that licensed premises are properly run in accordance with all the conditions
and regulations. On this occasion, however the Sub-Committee is not minded
to refuse renewal. Consequently,

THE DECISION IS:

That the application by Mr Paul Young for renewal of the Night Cafe licence in
respect of the take-away premises known as Café Fred, (thought to be 15A),
Argyll Street, W1 be granted until 31 October 2001 subject to the standard
conditions and the following special conditions.

I. The premises may be kept open for the purpose of this licence from
midnight until 5am on each of the days Sunday to Saturday.
The number of persons accommodated at any one time shall not
exceed 3 (staff only)

It will be open to anyone to lodge objection to any application made for

renewal of the licence by 31 October 2001 or the date four weeks after the
renewal application is advertised, whichever is the later.
4. 9, ADAM STREET, LONDON WC2

4.1 The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Director of

Planning and Transportation introduced by Ms. Claire Hayes of
the Licensing Business Unit concerning an application by Mr.
James Minter for a new annual public entertainment licence to
be issued in respect of the premises known 9 Adam Street,
London WC2. The applicant also seeks an extension of hours
from 11pm on the days Monday to Saturday to 3am on the day
following and from 11pm on Sunday to 1am on the day following
in respect of the basement and 3 levels.

4.2 The planning officer has reported that the authorised use of the
basement is as a private members club and there are no
restrictions on the hours of opening. The premises benefit from
a provisional Justices On-Licence and are located within the
Central Activities Zone but not within a stress area. The area
was not deemed to be predominantly residential in nature and
there was no policy presumption against the granting of this
application.

4.3 No adverse comments have been received from the

Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority or the Cleansing department. The Licensing
Inspectorate has advised that there has been no reason for it’s
officers to enter the premises as they are used as a private
members club so no comments have been offered in respect of
the application. The Environmental Health Department reported
that extensive works were being carried out on the premises and
that a visit would be made immediately prior to the hearing to
assess how this was progressing. As the application was for the
basement and sub-basement levels, no noise breakout was
envisaged, although this would depend on the music
amplification system to be used. A report on an environmental
noise survey undertaken on 27 July 2001 concluded that any
additional activity after 1am in Adam Street might have an
impact on the noise environment and subsequently the residents
in the area.

4.4 Adverse comments have been made by both Ward Councillors

and objections have been received from 34 objectors. The
District Surveyor has advised that he has no objections to the
grant of a provisional licence but has requested that the
following special condition be attached to any licence that might
be granted:
 - The number of persons accommodated at the
premises, shall not exceed:-
- Second basement: - Gallery 67
- Bar 190
- Dining Room 76
- Private Room 12

- Third basement - Rehearsal Room 120

4.5 Ms. Hayes called Ms. Gabrielle Halcrow, Technical Noise Officer
from the Council’s Environmental Health Department, who
confirmed that she had carried out the noise survey referred to
in paragraph 4.3 above. There had been background noise from
plant and air-conditioning units in both Adam Street and John
Adam Street. Ambient noise levels were affected by people
parking cars and by pedestrians heading towards The Strand.
These tended to reduce considerably after midnight and there
was a substantial drop after 1am. The survey concluded that the
sound of car horns, the slamming of car doors and loud voices
would be likely to cause more disturbance to residents here than
constant plant noise or background noise from The Strand.

4.6 In response to questions from Mr. Stephen Walsh representing

the objectors, Ms Halcrow stated that she was present in the
area up to 2am and had witnessed a drop in pedestrian
numbers after 1am. She also confirmed the written findings that
loud voices of people in the street would be expected to cause
disturbance to residents in this area.

4.7 Ms. Hayes then introduced Mr. Ian Watson, Environmental

Health Enforcement Officer, who had prepared a report dated 16
August 2001 concerning a meeting he had had with the
applicant on 14 August 2001. The report appeared in the order
papers circulated by the Licensing Business Unit immediately
prior to the hearing. The meeting had been arranged to discuss
the progress of the works being carried out and related issues.
He had also met Ms. Christine Bond from the Royal Society of
Arts and discussed her objections to the application. Mr. Watson
had written his report that morning, immediately prior to the
commencement of the hearing. He had concluded inter alia that
the provision of toilets would support an accommodation figure
of 350 people. He had made certain other observations
concerning party walls, ventilation, kitchen safety, means of
escape in case of fire and the possibility of noise breakout. He
had recommended the installation of a noise limiter to the sound
system. No report had been sought from an acoustic expert but
Mr. Watson had spoken to a noise technician concerning noise
transmission through walls. This could be investigated if the
 Sub-Committee so requested but it had not been done so far.
Councillors asked questions concerning the provision of toilets
and were informed that these existed on 2 of the levels. It was
also noted that the District Surveyor had recommended a total
accommodation figure of 465 while the Environmental Health
Department was seeking a lower figure of 350.

4.8 In response to questions from Mr. Andrew Muir representing the

applicants, Ms Hayes confirmed that over 40 objections had
been received to the application but 9 of these had been
withdrawn following a conciliation meeting. 2 objectors did not
respond to the council’s letter asking whether they wished to
proceed with their objection and the letters had been left in the
bundle to be considered at this hearing. Mr. Muir stated that one
of these letters was from Mr. Horan of the Journal of Bone and
Joint Surgery and he understood that Mr. Horan was “happy to
withdraw his objection.” Ms. Hayes also confirmed that there
was a low level of residential occupancy in the area. In response
to questions from Mr. Walsh, Ms. Hayes confirmed once more
the number of objections received and those that subsequently
withdrew after the conciliation meeting. She confirmed that Little
Adelphi was situated within a 100 metre radius of the applicant
premises. At Mr. Muir’s request, the letter from Mr. Horam was
read out and Mr. Muir suggested that the wording indicated that
it was not necessarily an objection and should not be treated as
syuch.

4.9 Mr. Muir then introduced the application. The freehold had been
purchased by the Minter family 7 years ago. Included in the
property was “The Green Room,” a private club for theatrical
and ancillary staff, which had been operating since 1954. The
Green Room operated a licensed bar until 1am from Monday to
Wednesday, until 3am from Thursday to Saturday and until 1am
on Sunday. The Green Room had a self-imposed capacity of
150 and while it had been full on some occasions, it had never
reached it’s full capacity. Mr. Muir noted that some of the people
who were now objecting to the current application had once
been members. However, no complaint had ever been made
about noise and nuisance caused by members arriving at or
leaving the Green Room. The Green Room had no controls over
the operation of their liquor licence other than those, which were
self-imposed. The imposition of the statutory controls under the
licence would guarantee that the premises were well-operated.

4.10 Under club rules, members leaving the premises will be directed
only towards The Strand. Door staff would ensure that this
particular rule was adhered to by members and their guests and
any breaches of club rules would result in expulsion. Notices to
this effect would also be displayed prominently throughout the
club premises. The number of vehicles generated by people
 visiting and leaving the club would be reduced significantly by
the agreement entered into with BCCP for the provision of
private hire vehicles, which would be required to enter and exit
Adam Street via The Strand. The proprietors were well aware
that car parking was a problem in the area and members would
be requested not to bring their cars. Every member would be
provided with his/her own personal swipe card to gain access.
This would include the member’s photograph, thereby ensuring
that there would be no exchange of membership cards.

4.11 Mr. Muir then introduced Mr. Richard Johnston, the General
Manager, who was a very experienced international operator at
the very highest level of the licensed trade. Mr. Minter was the
principal project co-ordinator. Mr. Johnston stated that the upper
part of the building consisted of serviced offices, owned and
operated by the same company. In the licensed area, the
second level consisted of a bar and top flight restaurant, while
the 3rd level was available for dancing. Mr. Johnston believed
that many of the objections arose from the use of the word
‘disco’ in some of the preliminary paperwork but this was not
what had been intended. Mr. Minter wrote to all the people who
had objected to the application and invited them to a
presentation at the premises on 28 February. Of the 15 who
attended, several indicated their intention to withdraw their initial
complaints. Mr. Johnston did not believe that the premises
would lead to a loss of amenity. He felt that his clientele would
be more likely to visit the Savoy rather than a night club.

4.12. Mr. Johnston drew attention to a conciliation letter written by Mr.

Minter dated 7 March (Annex J, page 86 of the agenda) in which
he offered to accept conditions to ensure the main fears
expressed by the objectors were taken into account. He then
referred to the facilities at the premises as set out at Annex N on
page 113. There was no mention of a night club or a disco. He
stated that the premises would cater for professional people
who’s current working hours were not 9-5 and who might want to
drink, dance and have a meal after they have finished work. Mr.
Johnston then referred to the menu on page 115, which was not
considered to be cheap. Membership of the club was not cheap
either so there was no chance of an unruly or rowdy clientele.
Mr. Minter had taken the examination for the National Licensees
Entertainment Certificate and had attained the highest pass
mark ever recorded. Ms. Bristow and Mr. Johnston had also
obtained this certificate. The Ward Councillors had also been
invited to the conciliation meeting on 28 February but neither
had chosen to attend. Mr. Johnston suggested that the Sub-
Committee might like to grant the licence for a period of less
than a year in order to assess how the premises were being
operated.
4.13 Mr. Muir then introduced Mr. James Minter, Managing Director of the
company. Mr. Minter stated that he had done everything
possible to keep the residents in the picture and he had every
available measure to alleviate their concerns. He felt that the
use of the word ‘disco’ had given the wrong impression and he
hoped that his premises would enhance the lives of the
residents rather than ruin it. He had tried to arrange a meeting
with Councillor Hyams but had been unable to do so. The Green
Room had caused no problems for the residents or the Police.
There would be a Committee of 30 people who would determine
the makeup of the club. There would be a membership fee of
£250 to the first 250 people to join and then this would rise to
£450 per annum. Mr. Minter had been in the Royal Navy up to 3
years ago. The building above the club premises had been
refurbished to provide a quality serviced offices for well-to-do
clientele. Originally, Mr. Minter wanted the Green Room to stay
as it was but it was being charged a very low rent and the only
way to ensure that these premises brought in more money was
for him to take over the management himself. Many of those
who rented the serviced offices were freelance workers who
frequently worked until 2am. They paid a great deal of money for
the use of these offices and the company would be ill-advised to
upset their tenants by opening a noisy club in the basement. Mr.
Minter was convinced that the presence of the club would not
have a detrimental effect on the amenity of local residents. The
Police had confirmed that they had no record of any trouble
emanating from the Green Room. Mr. Minter could understand
why the residents had been upset but he was confident that their
misgivings were unfounded. He referred to letters received from
Mr. Horram and Mr. Fletcher withdrawing their objections. He
had employed experts when setting up every aspect of Adam
Street from the architect to the restaurant consultant. Mr. Minter
believed he was offering a quality product.

4.14 In response to questions from Mr. Walsh, Mr. Minter stated that
the restaurant and bar area would be open in the daytime and
evening and the dance area would operate during the evening.
Music would be middle of the road, ie Abba or other 70’s dance
music. There would be no ‘Garage’ or any form of ‘rave’music.
Mr. Minter referred to the letter he wrote on 20 February 2001
which appeared at Annex I pages 82-84 on the agenda. Here,
he had described the club as “a quiet bolt hole during the day
and at night members and their guests will have a bar and
restaurant for their exclusive use.” He referred to page 84,
paragraph 2 where it explained why he was applying for the
licence. This was a legal technicality in order to keep the club
operating on the same basis as it had for the preceding 50
years. The Green Room was a registered charity, which enabled
 it to stay open until 3am. In order for the present club to do
likewise, a music and dancing licence was required. Mr. Minter
agreed that his club was a commercial entity and would be run
for profit. He conceded that anyone could apply for membership
but emphasised that they might not be accepted. The Green
Room sought to be an actors club at which all sorts of people
concerned with the theatre could relax after a performance.
Mr.Walsh noted that there had been no mention of dancing in
the club’s prospectus. He also noted that the Green Room had
an annual membership fee of £23, while the new establishment
was a profit-making proprietory club. Mr. Minter explained that
he needed a public entertainment licence in order to
successfully obtain a special hours certificate. Mr. Walsh stated
that he did not believe this was the real reason for the
application. He noted that £12,000 was earmarked to be spent
on a music system and DJ and Mr. Minter agreed that the
provision of music would be a significant element of the new
establishment and that this would be provided in what used to
be the rehearsal room until 3am. He maintained that there would
be no disturbance whatever caused to local residents. The
rehearsal room was three floors below ground level and by the
time patrons had climbed up to the ground floor, Mr. Minter
considered that they would have calmed down. There would
then be a taxi service available to take them home. Mr. Walsh
remained unconvinced and believed that people leaving the
premises would be loud and unruly. Mr. Minter stated that
people leaving these premises had not caused any disturbance
to the Little Adelphi residents for the last 50 years and he did not
see why they should start now. Again, Mr. Walsh was not
convinced by Mr. Minter’s statement, citing the inevitability of
noise because of additional capacity, the difficulty in enforcing a
standard departure route away from the Little Adelphi. The
exchange continued and Mr. Minter was unable to accept a
condition that would prohibit entry after 11pm as people tended
to arrive between midnight and 2am.

4.15 Mr. Muir re-examined and, in response to his questions, Mr.

Minter stated that the front entrance to the premises was 25
yards from The Strand. Also, his sister lived above the premises
and did not oppose dancing taking place there. When the plans
for refurbishment were first drawn up in July 2000 they included
a clearly identified dancing area. At this point, Mr. Walsh stated
that he had not inferred that there had been any deviousness
involved with the application, he only wished to establish that the
premises would be “music and dancing premises” rather than
“dancing premises.” Mr. John Langlois, an objector queried how
those leaving the premises would get home at that hour. He was
informed that a taxi service would be provided by the firm
mentioned earlier.
4.16 In response to a question from Councillors as to how he thought
his club would enhance the lives of residents as he had claimed
earlier, Mr. Minter indicated that The Strand had once been a
“very grand” place but now there were very few “nice places.”
Covent Garden had become a tourist enclave and ,as such, was
devoid of anywhere decent to go. At 9 Adam Street, Mr Minter
wanted to create a high quality establishment offering music,
dancing and a high-class restaurant. Mr. Minter denied that the
clientele would consist mainly of young people stating that his
oldest member so far was 62 years old. Mr. Walsh then
expressed concern by the possible use of the premises “by
other people.” The residents feared that the premises could be
hired out commercially to independent promoters who would
admit non-club members, undesirables and drug dealers. Mr.
Minter assured the objectors that this would never happen. Mr.
Minter drew attention to paragraph 10, page 128 of the agenda
which set out the circumstances in which members could book
the gallery, the private Dining Room and The Rehearsal Room
for private events. However, Mr. Walsh was more interested in
the second part of that passage which stated “The management
will occasionally hire the entire club to house a function or event
during which time no member shall have access to the club.

4.17 Mr. Minter stated that the whole of the club would not be let and
any private letting would only occur during the day on Saturdays
and Sundays. It would be possible for individual club members
to book a room during the evening but a licensee would always
be present at the event and a prior list of guests would be
required. The club would be closed before 5pm during the day
on Saturdays and Sundays. It was anticipated that this would
not occur more than twice a month. In response to further
questions from Mr. Walsh, Mr. Minter confirmed that club
members could hire rooms for private functions until 3am on any
night of the week. Mr. Minter was reluctant to accept an
undertaking restricting admission to “members and guests” as
he did not see why it was necessary. The premises were a
private members club anyway but he particularly wanted to
admit members guests. The requirement for a music and
dancing licence was a legal technicality, although Mr. Minter
conceded that private parties might need the use of a music and
dancing licence. The residents were concerned that the club,
once licensed, might change it’s complexion from a private
members club to one which admits the general public and lets
it’s accommodation to outside promoters.

4.18 Mr. Muir introduced Mr. Derek Landen, who served as secretary
of the Green Room from September 1998 until it closed in July
2001. The club had a self-imposed capacity of 150 people. It
was open from Monday through to Saturday and was closed,
again by choice, on Sunday unless there was a special event.
 The Grren Room was primarily an actors club with 75% of its
membership coming from the theatrical profession. The bar was
very well utilised, especially later in the week. people would
come in after shows to wind down. The club was open until 3am
on Fridays and Saturdays but members tended to leave at
different times. There was no mass exodus at closing time. He
did not know how many members, if any, arrived and left by car.
Many left on foot, took night buses or booked mini-cabs. In
those days, mini-cabs did not honk their horns. The drivers
pressed the buzzer at the front door to announce their presence.

4.19 Mr. Landen had never received any complaints about any part of
the operation of the premises, even though members tended to
leave in various directions rather than head towards The Strand
as was now proposed. He regarded the present proposal to be
different from that of the Green Room. On Thursdays, Fridays
and Saturdays there could be upwards of 100 people in the club,
occasionally reaching the 150 limit. There was no music except
for special occasions and even then, it had to be sanctioned by
the general Committee and the Secretary. On average, there
was music every 6 to 8 weeks or so. By 3am on Fridays and
Saturdays, there were never more than 40 people. Attention was
drawn to a complaint made by the RSA concerning the mis-use
of an adjoining stair well. Some members used to sit out there,
smoke, drink and converse noisily causing disturbance late at
night. Mr. Landen confirmed that this had taken place and the
club management had put a stop to it by speaking to the
members responsible and by erecting notices throughout the
premises asking for the practice to cease. The Green Room had
a mature clientele with ages ranging from 50 to 92. Level 2 was
the most used part of the club with a small bar, a dining room
and a snooker room. Club registration was granted in 1957

4.20 In response to questions from Councillors, Mr. Landen stated

that generally, people just sat in the bar and socialised.
Occasionally there would be functions such as book launches or
film “wrap” parties. Music would be permitted on those
occasions and would be played in the dining room area. The
third level was never used.

4.21 Mr. Muir then introduced Mr. David Chambers, former head of
Entertainment Licensing at the Greater London Council and the
City of Westminster and now representing the applicant as a
Licensing Consultant. Mr. Chambers had been asked by Mr.
Minter to examine the practicabilities of the application. His
prime concern was to protect the amenity of the residents and to
prevent noise pollution. He had been impressed with Mr. Minters
declared intention not to upset the residents. He knew the area
well from his experience with the City of Westminster and he
was well aware of the Council’s policy guidelines. He had met
 with council officers and established that there had been no
noise breakout. He had then met with representatives of the
Metropolitan Police Service who had informed him that there
appeared to be a good system in place and that there was never
any queue. Mr. Chambers believed that the club was in a good
location in that any noise would by-pass Little Adelphi, as sound
breakout tended to travel in a straight line. Mr. Chambers
confirmed that it was he who had advised Mr. Minter to direct
people leaving towards The Strand to avoid passing Little
Adelphi and to include this provision in the rules of the club,
making any breach the subject of a penalty.

4.22 The operation had not changed since this instruction had been
given. The premises would not attract the unwanted attention of
unlicensed mini-cabs by engaging the services of a dedicated
taxi firm. They would be prohibited from sounding their horns
and would enter Adam Street from The Strand. It was
emphasised that after the underground closed, people leaving
the club would have no other reason to turn into John Adam
Street. Finally, Mr. Chambers stated that he expected people to
leave the premises gradually over a period rather that en masse
at closing time. This would cause less problems.

4.23 In response to questions from Mr. Walsh about the British

Entertainment Licensing Institute course, Mr. Chambers
confirmed that he had been involved with this. The examination
consisted of 50 questions with a pass mark of 65%. It was
extremely rare to have a candidate achieve a 100% pass mark.
Most people who passed tended to “scrape through.” Mr.
Chambers considered that this application for a public
entertainment licence was not a new departure for the area.
Although the area was quiet after 1am, the premises had
previously been operated as a club. His main concern was that
people leaving the establishment did not disturb the residents of
Little Adelphi. He was confident that these residents would not
be disturbed unless a “full-blooded fight” erupted and , in view of
the nature of the clientele, this was extremely unlikely. If there
had been problems, Mr. Chambers would expect people to
contact either the Police or the noise team and, since there had
been no complaints, mr. Chambers concluded that there had
been no noise. Mr. Walsh contested this conclusion stating that
people did not always complain and just because there had
been no complaints did not mean there had been no noise.
There was a further exchange between Mr. Chambers and Mr.
Walsh during which they failed to reach an agreement on noise
from people leaving the establishment disturbing the residents of
Little Adelphi and taxis leaving the area having picked up
passengers. Mr. Walsh also cast doubt on the ability of the club
to prevent people from leaving the premises via John Adam
Street rather than The Strand. He maintained that it would not
 be possible to physically stop them. Mr. Chambers agreed that,
if the premises were open to the public, then this might be the
case. But this was a private members club and the
circumstances were completely different.
4.24 Mr. Walsh then referred to the Council’s policy regarding the
central Activities Zone. Mr. Muir objected that this was not a
question for Mr. Chambers to answer but he chose to respond
anyway. The Council’s policy concerning stress areas had been
developed over a long period of time. Many policy options had
been explored before the Council had reached the present
stage, where the Central Activities Zone was the preferred
location for this sort of establishment. There was no policy
presumption against the granting of this application. At this
stage, Mr. Muir produced a photograph of the premises which
demonstrated it’s location in relation to John Adam Street.

RESOLVED:

That, as the Sub-Committee had been sitting for over three and
a quarter hours, it was agreed to continue sitting until the
business on the agenda had been concluded.

At 13.02 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew for lunch and reconvened at

13.49 hours to resume the hearing.

4.25 Mr. Johnston, General Manager was re-called to clarify the

position regarding the monitoring of the behaviour of members
and their guests, especially upon leaving the premises after
closure. He stated that duty managers would see customers off
the premises at reception level and , while they were saying
goodnight, they would remind members to leave quietly and to
leave in the direction of The Strand. The contracted taxi firm-
PCCP – would exit Adam Street via The Strand rather than to
make a circuit of Robert Street. They would not go beyond 9
Adam Street and would do a U –Turn to go back the way they
came. Taxis in that area tended to do that anyway and Mr.
Johnston saw no difficulty in incorporating a condition to this
effect into the contract. Mr. Johnston confirmed that if the
premises were to be hired out either in part or in it’s entirety,
then this would only be to a member.

4.26 In response to Mr. Walsh, Mr. Johnston confirmed that any

member could hire the premises for their own private function
and invite whoever they chose. The function area could be hired
by a member any time of the week but any problems would be
the member’s liability. The management would go to great
lengths to that a member understood the implications of his or
her booking. One or more of the management team would be
present to reinforce the conditions and club rules. In response to
 questions from Councillors, who expressed doubt as to whether
club rules could be enforced upon the public highway, Mr.
Johnston stated that it was in the interests of members to
behave in a manner that was consistent with the good name of
the club. Mr. Muir noted that Boodles had the same modus
operandi, as did several of the clubs in St. James. Mr. Johnston
confirmed that there was a corporate membership of £400 per
annum. For this, corporate members could arrange their own
functions, as could any other member. Mr. Johnston envisaged
corporate members hiring parts of the premises to arrange
breakfasts, lunches and presentations in the bar area, which
had a high quality décor. However, the bar/restaurant area
would not be hired out if this impinged upon the enjoyment of
other members.

4.27. The Chairman expressed the fear that, once the public
entertainment licence was granted, the management could then
open the premises to the general public and disregard the
membership aspect completely. Mr. Johnston assured her that
the proprietors had no intention of using the establishment for
public entertainment although they did need a public
entertainment licence. Mr. Panto suggested that an undertaking
could be given by the club’s owners that they would only admit
members and their guests.

4.28. Mr. Walsh then called Mr. Bill Aldridge of the Little Adelphi
Residents Association to give evidence on behalf of the
objectors. Mr. Aldridge had lived in Little Adelphi for the past 5
years and he stated that this was a high class residential area,
which lay within the Adelphi Conservation Area. It had been built
by the Adam brothers and the Royal Society of Arts was one of
its original occupants. He estimated that there were currently
194 residences within the Adelphi conservation area. There
were single yellow lines in John Adam Street as well as
residents parking bays. These tended to be used by theatre
patrons during the evening when parking restrictions expired.
Mr. Aldridge confirmed that John Adam Street was frequently
used as a route to Charing Cross Station. This could be
approached either by way of The Strand or Villiers Street. Up to
11pm, this area tended to be very busy because of through
traffic but between midnight and 1am there was occasional
noise but not a great deal. He was occasionally aware of street
noise at the rear of Little Adelphi. He took an interest in such
things since he liked to be in a position to inform the Police in
the event of crime or urination in the streets. He was conscious
of noise in the area and he had been woken up every few weeks
or so by isolated incidents. He was not aware that there had
been any specific problems arising from the existence of the
Green Room, although he did have concerns about the size and
nature of the proposed operation. He only once had concerns
 over the operation of the Green Room when a fire door was left
open during a party.

4.29. He did not feel that he would be disturbed by pedestrians

leaving the premises and walking up Adam Street towards The
Strand but his flat was at the rear of the building. It was possible
that those living at the front on John Adam Street might be
disturbed by this. Mr. Aldridge believed that any vehicles being
moved from John Adam Street after 3am might well cause a
disturbance to those resident at the front of Little Adelphi. Mr.
Aldridge did not feel that taxis making U-turns in Adam Street
and exiting towards The Strand was a realistic option. After
6.30pm, parking restrictions were relaxed so that there was
parking on both sides of Adam Street and John Adam Street.
This would leave insufficient room for taxi drivers to make a U-
turn making it necessary for them to either go around the block
or to use the tunnels under York Buildings and exit at the
embankment.

4.30. Mr. Aldridge had met with the residents after the conciliation
meeting. This took place at the Residents Association AGM on
12 March at which there had been a report of the conciliation
meeting while residents gave details of their concerns. It was
agreed by all of the 32 people present that all reasonable steps
should be taken to ensure that the amenity around Little Adelphi
should be protected as it was 100% residential.

4.31. In response to questions from Mr. Muir, Mr. Aldridge confirmed

that he believed the arrangement whereby club members would
be steered towards The Strand was impracticable. Furthermore,
he did not think it would be very fair on Mr. Minter to grant the
licence for a trial period since he was convinced that the trial
would be unsuccessful and he would have to close down again.
There were occasional events at the RSA but these rarely went
on after midnight.

4.32. Mr. Walsh then introduced Mr. William Miller who had been a
resident of the Little Adelphi for 5 years. He had objected to the
application and had attended the conciliation meeting on 20
February. Mr. Minter had given assurances that there would be
no noise and urination in the streets caused by members of his
club. He was also told that ‘disco’ was not a fair representation
of the entertainment to be provided to members. However, Mr.
Miller was alarmed to learn that Mr. Minter was planning to
spend £12,000 on sound equipment, especially so when he had
been informed earlier that dancing would not be a large part of
the operation. He lived at the rear of the Little Adelphi and he
had been aware of vehicle noise and urination in the gardens.
He had also been disturbed on occasion by events at the RSA
as well as by isolated disturbances at 2 and 3 in the morning. It
 had been difficult to pin down exactly where these people had
come from. Mr. Miller believed that the new establishment would
encourage more people to come into the area, which would, in
turn, be detrimental to the environment. He noted that the
Green Room had an annual membership of £23 while 9 Adam
Street would be charging £450. In view of the size of the new
membership fee, Mr. Miller felt that members would be inclined
to visit the premises often to get their money’s worth. Mr Muir
reminded Mr. Miller of the fact that dancing was only a small part
of the operation, that people would not necessarily be eating in
the restaurant at 3am every night, that the activities of people
leaving could be controlled and that the décor and environment
of the club were of a very high quality but Mr. Miller did not
waiver from his evidence.

4.33 In response to questions from Councillors, Mr. Miller stated that there
were no problems when the Green Room closed at 3am
because the numbers involved were much smaller. The
atmosphere in the Green Room was different, too. For a start
there was no music and people are less noisy when they have
not been drinking and they are less hyped up when they have
not been dancing.

4.34. Mr. Walsh then introduced Mr. Graham Guthrie who had resided
on the 5th floor in the front of the Little Adelphi since May 1999.
He had been unable to attend the conciliation meeting and had
decided to pursue his objection. He did not doubt Mr. Minter’s
intention to run a high class establishment and to control his
members when they left but he had doubts that this could be
enforced. Mr. Guthrie slept with his windows open and noted
that the area was noisy between 11.00pm and 11.30pm when
the pubs closed. The air conditioning units on various buildings
were also noisy. Because of the nature of the surrounding
buildings, noise tended to reverberate around the Adelphi and
Little Adelphi. He had been woken up by taxi noise as well as
the air conditioning systems in delivery vans. However well
intentioned, Mr. Guthrie did not believe that Mr. Minter would be
able to prevent taxi noise neither did he believe that Mr. Minter
would be able to insist that his members used the dedicated taxi
service. He was sure that some people would call their own
taxis. Black cabs tend to hover around and they are noisy. He
had never been woken up or disturbed in any way by people
leaving the Green Room.

4.35 Mr. Walsh introduced Ms. Christine Bond representing the RSA
which owned 5 inter-connecting properties along John Adam
Street. The applicants had the right of access across RSA
property. Because of the location of the RSA buildings, Ms.
Bond had been consulted by the applicant over various issues
including Rights of way, contractors and planning. The problems
 with the stair well, which linked the Adam Street building with the
RSA premises in John Adam Street, had been an ongoing
source of aggravation with the Green Room when it had been
managed by Mr. Landen’s predecessor. Members used to open
the fire door and sit on the steps, blocking the stairway, leaving
litter and making noise, which disturbed the RSA occupants. Ms
Bond also recalled difficulties during a “new member” evening
when people kept opening the fire door in spite of frequent
requests from the RSA that it be kept shut. The RSA had a
public entertainment licence and a supper hours certificate. In
general events concluded at 11pm although weddings
sometimes went on until after that time. Ms. Bond did not doubt
Mr. Minter’s integrity but she believed that he would experience
difficulty in controlling the activities of his members after they
had left his premises. By way of contrast, she cited the
arrangements that the RSA made with its corporate customers
where there were formal contracts concerning the behaviour.
Large PLC’s comprised 80/90% of the RSA’s corporate
customers while a smaller percentage of business involved
weddings where the clientele was younger. Ms. Bond’s objection
to the application involved health and safety issues, refuse
collection, the use of the fire escape and concerns over the use
of the stair well. If the Council’s conditions were complied with, it
was possible that the premises could be operated without undue
problems but she doubted whether Mr. Minter could control
people leaving.

4.36 In response to questions from councillors, Ms. Bond stated that

if there was a behaviour problem with people who had made a
private booking at the RSA, the ultimate sanction would be to
close the event down. The RSA had a good relationship with
local residents. She believed that an establishment with a large
clientele, open to 3am would be problematic. People would go
there merely to drink for longer.

4.37 Mr. John Langlois then spoke on behalf of his objection. He was
a Guernsey resident and not always present at his flat in Little
Adelphi, which he bought three years ago, originally for his son.
He bore no animosity towards Mr. Minter and did not attend the
conciliation meeting. He was concerned that the new premises
would exacerbate an already unpleasant situation in John Adam
Street involving late night revellers, people vomiting and
urinating in the streets as well as noise caused by ventilation
systems. His flat was immediately below that of Mr. Guthrie and
was frequently disturbed by noise from people in the street.
There had been disturbances in the past arising from events at
the RSA and if this application were to be granted, the premises
would draw more people into this quiet enclave, which was
becoming increasingly residential.
4.38 Mr. Walsh then made his closing statement. He believed that
what was “on offer” here was a good restaurant, music and
dancing, all the ingredients for a “good night out.” The residents
could not be blamed for concluding, therefore, that customers
would leave noisily, in a boisterous and vocal manner. The
management had been trying to convince everyone that this
would be an “expanded Green Room” but this operation would
be completely different. The Green Room had been a genuine
members club, there had been no regular public functions i.e.
one per month and they never had or needed a public
entertainment licence. This establishment would be double the
size and capacity.

4.39 The management were reluctant to accept a condition

preventing any further admission after 11pm. The objectors
would be disturbed by noise made by people leaving the
establishment late at night and the proposed arrangements for
ensuring that both taxis and pedestrians left the premises in the
direction of The Strand were unenforceable. Mr. Walsh also
expressed concern over arrangements for the premises to be
booked for private events by members. He did not see how
members could be accountable if rules were not obeyed by his
guests. There was no basis for control to prevent potential
disturbance and this potential was significant.

4.40 Mr.Muir then made a closing statement on behalf of the

applicant. He referred to the evidence given by Mr. Landen
concerning the Green Room. This had not been controlled
during the entire period it had been open and, during that period,
the people who left the club late at night caused no disturbance
to local residents neither did the taxis in which they had left. The
Green Room operated the same terminal hour as the new club
and served actors and associated professions. None of the
statutory bodies had objected to the application. The owner, Mr.
Minter, had spent 10 years in the Royal Navy. The dance area
was situated in the third basement level and it had already been
proved that noise escape from here was most unlikely. The
premises were within the Central Activities Zone but not in a
stress area so there was no policy presumption against granting
the licence. Also, officers had stated quite clearly that the area
was not predominantly residential.

At 15.57 hours, the Sub-Committee withdrew and re-convened at 17.22 hours

to announce the decision.

This is an application by Mr James Minter for a new annual public

entertainment licence in respect of premises known as 9 Adam Street,
London WC2. Mr Minter is also seeking an extension of hours from 11pm on
the days Sunday to Wednesday to 1am on the day following and from 11pm
on Thursday, Friday and Saturday to 3am on the day following. The premises
occupy the ground floor and three basement levels of a four-storey building in
the middle of a terrace.

The Sub-Committee has had regard to the policy guidelines approved by the
Planning and Transportation Committee on 28 March 2000 as amended by
the Planning and Licensing Committee on 20 June 2000 and notes that the
premises are situated in the Central Activities Zone. The premises are not
situated in a recognised stress area. The surrounding area is described by the
District Surveyor as one of mainly commercial properties with some
residential use. Consequently, there is no policy presumption against this
application in respect of that policy provision.

However, Council policy also recognises that some areas of the Central
Activities Zone are still very quiet at night. It is also policy that these areas
should be protected. Indeed, policy suggests that in areas where there is little
late night activity there is a presumption against granting new licences and, in
particular, licences with a terminal hour beyond 1am.

Whilst it is correct to say that the immediate vicinity of the premises is not
entirely residential, the Sub-Committee does note that there is a very
significant residential community close by in the Adelphi Conservation Area. A
large number of those residents have objected to this application on the basis
that the applicant will not be able to control his customers when they leave the
premises in the early hours of the morning.

The Sub-Committee has carefully considered the representations made by

and on behalf of Mr Minter. He is a Director of Adam House Limited, the
company that owns the freehold to the premises. He explained that his
intention was to create a smart, private members' club. There was no intention
of operating a loud and noisy disco. He wants to attract small businesses and
freelance professionals. He made it quite clear that his application was a legal
technicality so as to enable him to keep operating the club as it had been
operating for the past 50 years. It seems that he has not sought registration of
his club with the magistrates' pursuant to the Licensing Act 1964 because,
unlike the Green Room Club which used to occupy the premises, his club was
going to be a profit making enterprise.

This application has been considered on its merits and on the understanding
that only members of the club and their authorised guests will, in fact, actually
be able to use the premises for entertainment purposes.

There have been a significant number of objections to this application.

Concern has been expressed about the possible noise that might be created
when up to 350 people leave the premises at 3am. There have been concerns
about the use of illegal minicabs, parking congestion, car doors slamming,
street urination and the creation of large amounts of refuse.
The fact that 9 Adam Street is actually going to be operated as a profit making
concern is one factor that greatly concerns the Sub-Committee. This will be a
very different operation to the Green Room precisely because there is a
pressure to attract more members so as to increase profit margins. Mr Minter
suggests that the Green Room never caused any problems. Some objectors
point out that this was because the Green Room did not attract a very large
clientele. Mr Minter will want to attract a large clientele and the Sub-
Committee has real doubt as to whether he will be able to adequately control
the behaviour of his customers when they leave the premises.

The area around the Adelphi may not be primarily residential but there is no
doubt that the nature of the area is changing significantly. The residents
describe the area as a "tranquil haven", a "uniquely quiet part of central
London" and as a "quiet conservation area". There are no other premises in
the immediate area with a late night licence.

It was noted that this application was not subject to adverse comment or
observations from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the
Metropolitan Police, the Environmental Health Officer or the Cleansing
Division. None of the objectors appeared to have any concern about the
internal management of the premises themselves, particularly during the day.
Indeed, the Sub-Committee has no reason to believe that the premises
themselves will be otherwise than well run and is confident that the applicant
will take his responsibilities seriously. However, the Sub-Committee is most
concerned to ensure that local residents are not subjected to any disturbance
as a result of the use of the premises for public entertainment purposes. In
this case, the Sub-Committee has concluded that, on balance, the policy in
favour of protecting quiet areas must prevail.

Consequently, THE DECISION IS:

That the application made by Mr James Minter for a new public music and
dancing licence in respect of the premises known as 9 Adam Street, London
WC2 be refused.

5. TERMINATION OF MEETING

5.1 The Meeting ended at 17.29 hours

Signed……………………………………………….Date…………………………