APPENDIX B

CITY OF WESTMINSTER REVIEW OF STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY 2010 Summary of Edited Responses – (Please see full responses as necessary)

Westminster City Council Statement of Licensing Policy Second review - 2010 Consultation questions based on issues and proposed revisions to the Policy

Dispersal from Stress Areas and Late Night Refreshment

Do you agree that dispersal from the stress area is key to limiting the stress created by cumulative impact?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club – common sense dictates Matthew Bennett- in part but other keys, including drinking on the pavement and more tables and chairs North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society – dispersal is absolutely key South East Bayswater Residents Association – Covent Garden Community Association – the longer and later people remain in the area the greater the impact Metropolitan Police -without such a policy the reductions in crime & disorder would be reversed and more police would be required Licensing Advice Project -Particularly after the tubes have finished running for the night. The tube provides a quick and (fairly) reliable means of dispersal which reduces the potential impact of public nuisance. It also gets people off the streets. After this time, there is an increase in crowds of people searching for and grouping at bus stops, cabs ranks and hailing cabs/pedicabs with the attendant noise from people and vehicles that this entails. Westminster Licensees Association – There is little doubt that fast food premises within the Stress Area may undermine dispersal from the area and we welcome the redirection of responsibility towards those businesses which do not sell alcohol but which clearly contribute to problems and perceptions of residents.

Not generally in agreement

Shaftesbury PLC -Restricting restaurants has no significant effect on dispersal

Jeffrey Green Russell - the much more important issue is what people are doing in the stress area. It is the bad behaviour of which people complain and it is the bad behaviour that should be eradicated

Heart of London Business Alliance The Heart of London Business Alliance strongly supports the need to effectively disperse those visiting the West End. However, dispersal of customers throughout the 24 hours operation of the West End should be promoted through the Licensing Policy, rather than seeking to and non-natural patterns of dispersal and Heart of London Business Alliance has supported range of initiatives, improve dispersal from the West End, particularly later into the night.

The West End has been considerably behind many other major UK cities in investing in and managing its evening and night-time economy. and certainly behind the dispersal of other world entertainment centres .

Therefore, Heart of London Business Alliance recognises the importance of effective dispersal and will work together with agencies to, where appropriate, lobby for more and later buses, trains, tubes and better customer information to ensure that the infrastructure in the future matches the West End‟s world class offer of theatres, cinemas, restaurants, pubs, clubs and bars.

Do you agree that ‘fast food’ premises within the stress area may undermine dispersal ?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club –natural focus for departing revellers North Mayfair Residents Group- if night clubs are considered a “destination” they should not be excluded from this consideration Covent Garden Community Association – any benefit of eating food not felt in the immediate area South East Bayswater Residents Association – Fast food premises not only encourage people to stay in the areas later but also attract people to the Stress Area late at night making matters worse

Matthew Bennett –for reasons given in issues paper Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society – Debris from fast food is a big problem given need to control costs of refuse collection contract and attitude of late night customers Metropolitan Police - These premises draw to customers who have visited bars & pubs. Although mostly well managed, this type of operation does cause crime and disorder within premises and in the near locality. They are also an attraction to criminals to select victims entering and leaving them. Licensing Advice Project -There is a strong evidential basis built up over a number of years for the more restrictive policies in respect of late night refreshment premises which provide hot food/drink to takeaway. The public nuisance concerns are not just noise, rowdiness, fighting etc but also littering. Fast food premises can act as a „honey pot‟ for revellers leaving premises late at night.

Westminster Licensees Association – see above.

Generally not in agreement Councillor Jean Paul Floru -The existing fast food chains will simply sell more with longer queues and more frustration. Also cheap food is vital to allow large numbers of people to sober up. The text is dismissive of this and is not supported by evidence. Should impose strict conditions on clean-up and crowd management and noise on new fast food establishments, without having to stop new entrants Shaftesbury - it is irresponsibly managed takeaways that undermine the licensing objectives

Jeffery Green Russell - the answer entirely depends upon the sort of premises and the sort of customer. Because so many people are being forced out of licensed premises at the same time, fast food premises may assist with dispersal as those queuing for food, or eating food, allow others to use the scarce public transport to disperse, whilst they do those remaining are suitably occupied so that they are not causing trouble whilst waiting for the taxis to return.

Heart of London Business Alliance Food is an important part of an evening or night out for most people in the West End. It is essential that the West End is able to provide the correct mix of businesses and formats and operating hours to meet those expectations during the daily cycle of what is effectively now a 24-hour city.

Fast food premises properly managed, they are a valuable and necessary asset to the World Class reputation of the West End. While there are a vast number of restaurants in the West End, the actual number of takeaways operating after midnight is proportionately very small relative to the number of people using the West End. However the Heart of London Business Alliance would not want to see any notable increase in numbers of fast food venues as the current situation avoids the „clustering‟ of fast food venues which academic research does show can create hotspots for disorder.

In the absence of any statistically significant evidence that fast food premises undermine dispersal, it is therefore not possible for any party to claim absolutely that they do or they don‟t. Heart of London Business Alliance would not therefore, wish to see any reference linking fast food outlets to dispersal problems in the revised Statement of Licensing Policy, as it would be factually incorrect and would leave the licensing authority open to challenge.

If fast food premises are not provided t many people head for food venues expecting them to be open, when finding them closed, then continue to look for other food providers, thereby prolonging their presence in the West End and become frustrated and potentially fractious. What is desirable is the smooth management of the late night experience, , with the correct amount of police / community support officers, capable guardians such as street pastors and transport provision to ensure a first rate user experience, which at the same time minimises people milling around on the street.

Because the statement 1.7 …. The benefits that may be offered in fast food premises by providing toilet facilities and hot drinks for people to sober-up are not considered to outweigh the overall adverse effect of retaining people in the stress area. cannot be empirically evidenced and is a general catchall where each case should be taken on its merits, the Heart of London Business Alliance would not wish to see this wording or wording to this effect in any draft or final Statement of Licensing Policy. While toilet provision in the West End is better than other cities in the UK (there are facilities in Leicester Square, temporary toilets and pop up urinals), it remains poor relative to the numbers of people attracted to this area. This is due to a lack of investment by public agencies responsible for the West End over many years, where investment should have been increased to reflect the number of users and the times at which they are needed by visitors

Therefore, public urination remains a problem. Until such a time when the public funds are invested in to create the world class public conveniences that are required, fast food restaurants, which are well managed, provide safe, staffed and well lit spaces to use the toilet, particularly for women, who are not able to use the pop up urinals and find using the underground toilets in Leicester Square intimidating.

While the night bus system has been improved, though not yet to the levels that are required at peak times (around 3:00 am to 3:30 am), this means there are sometimes queues at key bus stops.. As the last main wave of venues in the West End close at 3 am, after this time there is not enough provisions for people to get food, and it means that many end up at the bus stop, often waiting around for buses for half an hour or more depending on how busy they are, often creating noise.

One solution is to provide more buses, but this may be some way off. Providing food in a controlled environment (security, CCTV etc.) is a logical option for this. By having well- managed premises open until, say, 4 am, it will take the pressure off bus queues, avoid hungry frustrated individuals milling around the West End.

It is therefore the opinion of Heart of London Business Alliance that in the absence of any evidence presented by the Licensing Authority or any other part confirming that the benefits as noted above are outweighed by any perceived problems, it is imperative that all applications within the West End Stress Area (if it is to be maintained) are judged on its merits in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and its Guidance and where exceptions to the policy can be made if evidence is presented in future.

Any statement that puts all fast food restaurants operating later at night into one homogenous group would not only be evidentially incorrect but open to challenge.

Peter Sullivan, Owner Operator West One Foods Ltd - that dispersal from the stress area is key to limiting the stress created by cumulative

We do not for the reasons given below

Whilst understanding that dispersal is a significant concern for the Council many people like to end a night out with some food. If they come across one food outlet that is closed,

they do not disperse; they move on to find another. My restaurants have a large amount of seating and, consequently, more people eat-in than take away. The restaurants provide toilets to the public, which serve to alleviate the serious issue of people urinating in the local area. This becomes especially acute during the late hours when many other establishments are closed. The restaurants provide a safe environment for young people in the area. Our security and staff control customers within the premises, while also ensuring that any customers who are visibly intoxicated or involved in any other criminal activity are dealt with appropriately. The restaurants also benefit from excellent CCTV. I have always co-operated with the police, on various forums on issues as unlicensed minicabs and led to a trial of a minicab rank in Leicester Square which I supported in my restaurants with posters and leafleting by SIA trained doormen. In conjunction with this the restaurants encouraged safe dispersal by providing customers with Council and Police leaflets pinpointing bus stops and illegal cab information.

However despite the best efforts of businesses, the council and the police combined it is still apparent that the lack of licensed cabs and efficient and regular public transport is a major cause for longer dispersal, not the availability of late-night refreshment premises.

My premises have front line staff trained in conflict resolution, security measures, toilet accommodation and seating that other premises serving food after 23:00 may not. Many of these other vendors have queuing late at night, which we recognise can and indeed does lead to crime and disorder. We support the council in their position that this type of premises, often with sales counters on or abutting the street can be flash points and need to be controlled more strictly.

We vehemently do not agree that changing the policy in relation to late-night refreshment premises such as ours makes any significant difference to dispersal from the stress area.

Problems that do give rise to public nuisance and crime and disorder include illegal hot dog vendors and take away venues without security

. My two restaurants have a maximum combined capacity of 300, so the effect on dispersal is negligible. Whilst the number of persons obviously reduces in the earlier hours of the morning, there are still thousands of people on the street, either waiting for the tube to start running or taxis. The provision of supervised and safe refreshment provides a safe haven for these persons, particularly young women.

Tightening the policy will not have any significant impact on dispersal and the underlying reasons for having the policy in the first place. My belief is that it is preferable to have an established, licensed, managed late-night operation, with appropriate security and other safeguards. This minimises the risk of crime, disorder and public nuisance, rather than patrons of nightclubs and similar establishments roaming the streets and using the illegal hotdog and other similar fast food vendors, which they inevitably do.

Bars in performance venues Do you agree that, in general, bars in performance venues should operate only when ancillary to the provision of the entertainment or event?

Generally in agreement

Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club -Sufficient licensed premises already, could lead to misuse and cause other businesses to close Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group – also consider that exceptions in 2.3 should be truly exceptional South East Bayswater Residents Association- Agree with reasons stated that entertainment venues become bars as well and if not careful the main purpose becomes drinking

Metropolitan Police - At present venues of this type cause police very few problems. Any relaxation in the way these premises operate will increase the potential for crime and disorder issues. Premises that are „alcohol led‟ provide one of the highest ratios for crime related incidents whereas theatres, cinemas etc have the lowest.

Covent Garden Community Association – venues can be open late bars should be ancillary

Licensing Advice Project -I am of the view that, as long as appropriate conditions are attached restricting sale of alcohol at all times as ancillary to the use of the premises for plays/films and for the use of patrons attending the play/film etc, then a less restrictive policy than STR1, PB2 and COMB1 should be applied. If the bars in such venues were to operate when there was no provision of entertainment etc, it could impact on the licensing objectives/cumulative impact

Not generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd.

Jeffery Green Russell- If the entertainment or event is taking place, there are likely to be vast numbers of people wanting to be served. Entertainment venues normally have well trained and efficient staff to be able to handle large numbers and therefore even more able to deal with the lesser number who might wish to be in the bar when the performance is not taking place.

Heart of London Business Alliance The sale of alcohol, soft drinks and food (both ancillary to a cultural experience and outside of those hours), as well as the use of spaces for corporate hire where alcohol may be served is a crucial part of most cultural venues‟ business plans; particularly those that are not large mainstream operators (and which add real variety to the borough), couldn‟t operate without the revenue brought in through bar operations.

Although under the Licensing Act 2003 it is not possible for the licensing authority to consider the financial viability of a venue as grounds for granting a licence or variation (it may only consider the four licensing objectives), the Heart of London Business Alliance believes reasonable flexibility in the use of a venue‟s bar will supports the licensing authority in its aim to increase the variety of non-alcohol-led operations within the borough and the West End in particular.

As such, it is the Heart of London Business Alliance‟s view that by preventing a performance venue within the Stress Area from operating a bar facility outside of performance times could jeopardise its sustainability. If concerns are raised by any responsible authority or the public about a proposed licensing application (new or variation), then the Licensing Authority already has the ability to add conditions to a licence to shape the type of functions, physical layout, security which are required and which in turn will influence the type of clientele using the venue and therefore the likely behaviour in and on leaving the premises. Clearly if the venue has had problems before or the licensing authority, then this might of course be a good reason for resisting the application.

It is therefore the Heart of London Business Alliance‟s view that, providing a cultural venue within the Stress Area is run within Licensing Act 2003 (and other relevant legislation) and does not compromise any of the Act‟s four licensing objectives, then it should, with the appropriate conditions, be able to operate its bar in a flexible way.

Westminster Licensees Association – We therefore do not agree that bars in performance venues should be required to operate only when ancillary to the provision of the entertainment or event, but if they choose not to do so then they should be subject to the same degree of control as other bars in the area. Bars in restaurants and drinkers accompanying diners

Do you agree that the definition of restaurant premises should be clarified by the

restrictive conditions attached to them, and that the policy should continue to resist the conversion of restaurants to bars at all times of day within the stress areas?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club

Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group Covent Garden Community Association – some benefit in flexibility to allow drinkers accompanying diners. Should avoid “ any increase in drink only capacity” Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society South East Bayswater Residents Association- most certainly present system works fine any changes would “muddy the water” and make enforcement impossible. Next step would be for premises to become bars

Metropolitan Police - Restaurant premises should have restrictive conditions attached to them relating to the sale of alcohol and the Westminster policy should continue to resist the conversion of restaurants to bars at all times of day within the stress area.

There is an abundance of premises for customers who wish to purchase alcoholic drinks in a bar, pub or club without purchasing a meal to do so in the stress area.

Bar, pubs & clubs are at times a significant factor in crime and disorder, particularly relating

to violence and anti-social behaviour. Restaurants in general are entirely different and currently cause police very few issues relating to crimes and incidents of this type. Any relaxation of restaurant conditions that will enable alcohol to be sold without a meal, will have consequences whereby such premises will become more of a draw to „drinkers‟ with the resulting crimes & disorder issues. Restaurants without restrictive conditions will also have the potential to deter families and people from a broader age spectrum to visit them and could become little more than „seated bars‟.

Councillor Jean Paul Floru - Restaurants are better than bars in that they cause less noise and nuisance. Licensing Advice Project -I have acted for residents in a number of cases where it has been reasonable to assume that a relaxation was sought to permit the premises to become more of a bar; equally I have acted in a number of cases where it was just as reasonable to assume that the applicant genuinely wanted merely to allow the flexibility to permit one person with a group who was not eating to have a drink. I have been of the view that where a proposal is in the form that sale of alcohol should not have to be ancillary up to some specified time (para 3.2), then that part of the application should be dealt with under PB2. The part of the application when alcohol is ancillary should be dealt with under RLN2. I agree that it is extremely difficult effectively to condition a premises licence in this regard. I would keep the definition of a restaurant totally distinct from that of a pub/bar and resist the conversion of restaurants to bars by deleting the „ancillary‟ condition at all times due to the likely impact on the licensing objectives/cumulative impact

Not generally in agreement Shaftesbury PLC – No impact if alcohol without food bought at 5 pm in afternoon. Such use envisaged and allowed under Planning A3 use class provided this is ancillary to the primary use as a restaurant.

Jeffery Green Russell No, there is no need for a definition of restaurant premises. Almost any definition of a restaurant will not allow for a casual drinker to join others who are eating. If premises are running predominantly as a restaurant, it is true that they are likely to cause less problems and therefore should be encouraged. It is not necessary to discourage premises which are not restaurants. What should be discouraged are premises causing problems, not premises not providing food.

Why Council concerned that restaurant premises do not operate as bars and direct its enforcement efforts at preventing this happening? It should be directing its enforcement efforts at the problem that it is actually trying to solve i.e. the bad behaviour, not nomenclature.

Heart of London -It is fully understandable that Westminster City Council wishes to avoid the „creep‟ from a restaurant into an alcohol-led venue at a general level, particularly late in the evening in the city‟s Stress Areas, given the challenges of alcohol-related disorder which, despite the decrease in crime over the past three years in the West End, does still occur.

The Heart of London Business Alliance consequently supports the thinking behind the thrust of this revision to the Statement of Licensing Policy, because it too wants to maintain the quality of offer in the West End and its members‟ BID area in particular. Getting the right

balance of alcohol-led operations with restaurants and other non-alcohol led venues in the West End is crucial to the city‟s reputation and to the viability of our member‟s businesses.

However, separating restaurants from „café-bars‟ or „bars that serve food‟ is not something that is easily defined under the Licensing Act 2003 and simply defining a restaurant as a site where alcohol is ancillary to a meal is a crude definition and unworkable in contemporary entertainment districts where operations often change their „offer‟ throughout the day, sometimes operating as a full restaurant and other times as a „café-bar‟. This flexibility is imperative to respond to the market and the way in which customers dining and drinking habits are changing.

Because of this confusion, it is the Heart of London Business Alliance‟s view that, in line with the Licensing Act‟s clear stipulation the no licensing authority should seek to use the Licensing Act to do the work of existing legislation, that planning policy is much better suited to demarcating use types. Planning legislation (through the Use Classes Order) very clearly ensures that leisure-retail uses are separated out into A3 (food-led), A4 (alcohol-led) and A5 (takeaway) premises (and even areas within premises), based on the majority of their business. Planning, properly enforced, is more workable than trying to use the Licensing Act to demarcate what is and what isn‟t a food-led or alcohol-led venue.

It is therefore the Heart of London Business Alliance‟s view that a traditional restaurant should not be allowed to fully „morph‟ into a bar at night, because this might add to the cumulative impact. However, a restaurant with a bar area should be permitted to open to general users (not just diners) within the bounds of the conditions attached to its licence and its proper management within the licensing objectives, and certainly during the time of day (say before 8 pm) when crime and disorder related to alcohol in the West End is minimal, and which certainly cannot historically be linked to the bars of food-led venues. This is confirmed from police figures which show that the type of crime that is associated with alcohol consumption, nationally (as it is in Westminster) is extremely low, during the day and only after 8 or 9 pm is there a notable uplift in alcohol-related disorder. Special conditions should be applied to the licence of any venue where there might conceivably be daytime problems, e.g. international football matches etc.

As a result, our conclusion is that any restriction on restaurants with a bar area selling alcohol before this time is neither reasonable nor founded in empirical proof and could be construed as a dogmatic rather than a evidence-based response to the reality, which could compromise the workability and credibility of the Statement of Licensing Policy in future years.

Councillor Glenys Roberts - Restaurants must not automatically be seen as the 'soft option', i.e. less troublesome than bars. It must be appreciated just how disruptive they are to residential neighbourhoods with late night coming and goings, servicing in the small hours, noisy outside eating, proliferation of a/c units etc. To eliminate these nuisances licensing should work more closely with planning to resist change to A3 use.

Westminster Licensees Association – We note the suggestion that the definition of restaurant should be applied at all times in order to benefit from the more favourable policy approach. We believe that there may be scope to relax this and allow greater flexibility to serve drinks which are not ancillary to full meals during the day time e.g. drink and bar snacks or drink up to 6 pm.

Smokers and drinkers outside premises

Do you agree with the proposed approach to enforcement to tackle problems

from outside drinking and smoking when and where they arise?

Generally in agreement Comedy Store

Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd.- Too many people drinking on the streets making London look dirty and shabby with constant litter and broken glass. Creates the opportunity for people to wander the streets with their drinks

Matthew Bennett –in part. There needs to be a standardised approach customers of some premises take up the whole or most of the pavement with impunity whilst others are kept between tight barriers

Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society - In some cases drinkers have prevented residents from legitimately parking, prams and toddlers forced into the road. Conditions for staff to regularly survey outside, encourage use of barriers , and management to clear litter

North Mayfair Residents Group -but does not go far enough. Outside drinking is driven not only by smoking but also by weather and major events e.g. Hyde park concerts .the blockage of pavements should be rigorously addressed

South East Bayswater Residents Association - Law should be changed so that some outside areas are for non smokers.

Metropolitan Police - Agree with Westminster Council‟s approach. There has been an increase in customers drinking and smoking outside many licensed premises in Westminster. By far the majority of these venues have responsible managers and effective systems in place that limit the crime and public nuisance issues groups of people undertaking these activities cause. There are unfortunately, a small number of premises who at times pay scant regard to the management of customers outside their venue and these have caused severe public nuisance issues that have adversely affected the quality of life of residents and other businesses. These „unmanaged‟ activities have also been a cause of crime, mainly in the form of theft of customer‟s property.

It is therefore essential that enforcement action is taken against premises that do not manage these activities and that well managed venues are not penalised for the good work they undertake.

London Fire Brigade - problems associated with outside drinking and smoking have given rise to increasing fires on the street and particularly in waste bins notably throughout the area of Soho. I would request when considering this issue that in addition to the areas high lighted you include that appropriate receptacles should be provided to

ensure safe disposal of smoking materials

Councillor Jean Paul Floru - We should ensure that pavements remain free to walk – enforcement please. The policy text should refer to the fact that the problems with smokers outside arose from the previous‟ government‟s smoking ban

Jeffery Green Russell - If there is no problem, why take enforcement.

Licensing Advice Project -The problem of outside drinking is of vast importance to residents who live in the vicinity of licensed premises. The smoking ban has exacerbated it. Promoting the licensing objective of public nuisance in respect of these issues is a delicate balancing act. In my view, the Council‟s licensing enforcement officers do an excellent job in monitoring, encouraging and facilitating compliance. Most of the cases I deal with involve some element of public nuisance caused by outside drinking, therefore it is vital that enforcement remains strong. Anecdotally, it appears that many premises are not aware of the need for a street trading licence if they have tables and chairs on or within 7 m of the public highway. This is an area where perhaps stricter compliance could be sought.

Westminster Licensees Association – In view of the fact that there are extensive enforcement powers under other regimes to deal with the problems of litter and public nuisance arising from the effects of the ban, we see no reason for further expansion under the licensing policy in this area. If problems of this sort arise at an individual premises then they should be dealt with individually as well not by means of blanket policy or restriction.

Not generally in agreement Royal Thames Yacht Club- Much stronger statutory provision required on health and safety grounds and to reduce harassment and intimidation

Shaftesbury PLC- Not necessary to restrict taking drinks outside .Should be controlled on a case by case basis

Covent Garden Community Association – Problem led approach insufficient Should be a condition to keep 2 M clear for passage of pedestrians

Councillor Glenys Roberts - Street drinking must be enforced and the police encouraged to intervene where there are breaches of the residents' right to quiet amenity. In cases where it is allowed, the outside area must be precisely measured and controlled as part of the licence

Heart of London –Providing, it is founded on a positive partnership and solution-based approach and not seen solely as an „enforcement‟ issue, the Heart of London Business Alliance welcomes the licensing authority‟s escalating „problem-led approach‟ to smoking and its assertion that each case should be considered on its particular merits. We would like to see this „partnership‟ reflected in the wording of the revised policy

The licensing authority must acknowledge that venues which are currently managing as best they can, should have the option of providing new (appropriately designed) areas for people to smoke in the bounds of their property or an adjacent property, even if this

increases the size of the venue to avoid damaging the viability of those business that have already done everything they can to manage a situation that was not of their own making. There exists a clear contradiction between council enforcement officers and the police on their position regarding outside barriers. The police want these barriers removing and yet the council insist on them being in place to provide a managed area for smokers, This contradiction needs to be cleared up and in the revised licensing policy we would like to see wording encouraging „the provision of barriers where appropriate‟ in order to help meet the licensing objectives.

Off licences and shops with ancillary alcohol sales Do you agree that applications for off licences in the West End Stress area

should be refused, other than to vary hours within core hours?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club North Mayfair Residents Group Covent Garden Community Association – Paper misquotes Guidance Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper South East Bayswater Residents Association - New off licences should be limited to finish at 19:00. Variation to the core hours should not be permitted. Should extend to all Stress Areas.

Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society –Concern that CCTV is of a quality to use as evidence in prosecutions

Metropolitan Police - Applications for off licences in the West End Stress area should be refused, other than to vary hours within the defined „core hours. The sale of alcohol to people who have problems with alcohol dependency is a major source of anti-social behaviour and quality of life issues for residents and businesses in Westminster and a frequent cause of complaint to police. These people tend to purchase their alcohol from off-licences and then consume it nearby with others (drinking schools) causing problems including; noise, street urination, begging and disorder (fighting amongst themselves). Many off licences have been warned by police about „irresponsible sales‟.

„Problem drinkers‟ are drawn to the West End stress area for the rich pickings in relation to begging.

There are also occasions where off licences sell alcohol to people in the stress area who, because of the large numbers in premises close by, choose to purchase it in off licences and then consume it with others outside licensed venues or nearby locations. This has been a cause of disorder and does create quality of life issues with residents.

Licensing Advice Project - Pre-loading is a major national issue, and Westminster is no

exception. It can cause issues of crime and disorder and public nuisance. Additionally, off licences can hinder dispersal from the stress areas late at night. Proliferation of off- licences can also encourage street-drinking, adding significantly to cumulative impact in the stress area

Westminster Licensees Association – We very much welcome the recognition in the issues paper of the significant contribution off licence sales make to problems of alcohol related crime, disorder and nuisance on the streets and are pleased to support Westminster‟s lead in trying to introduce new measures to address this, despite difficulties imposed as a result of the governments deregulatory agenda.

Not generally in agreement Councillor Jean Paul Floru - I do not agree that applications for off licences in the West End Stress Area should be refused. Drinkers will simply buy more from the existing ones, or will bring it in from outside the West End Stress Area. I believe that not allowing new off licenses will not make one iota of a difference with regards to nuisance in the WESA

Wine and Spirits Trade Association - We do not agree that off-licenses should be included and are concerns about the council‟s justification of this policy on the following issues: Street drinking A one size fits all policy for off-licences which includes restrictions on certain products untargeted and goes against statutory guidance. There is no evidence that specific strength products are the only ones likely to be bought by street drinkers.

The consultation refers to restrictions on beers and ciders over 5.5% having discouraged street drinking in Westminster. The evaluation of this policy does not seem to be publicly available and we would ask that it is released, as all the data we are aware of suggests that targeting certain products only results in problem drinkers switching products.

Pre-loading While we recognise that drinking before going out can contribute to a specific problem in an area as important for tourism and the night time economy as Westminster, the 643 confiscations of alcohol cited in this document have been reported in the press as alcohol related incidents in which pre-loading was a factor. We do not believe that this reflects the facts. While some people have a drink before going out, this is rarely the significant amount implied by the media. Data shows the majority of people drink nothing before they go out and on average, even 18-24 year olds usually drink 1.7 drinks. Likewise, only a minority of people using the night time economy are involved in any disturbance. Throughout an evening, a person may consume alcohol in a number of locations, including several different on-trade establishments; it is not possible to pinpoint the alcohol that made them drunk. Off-licences serve a variety of different customers that will include workers buying alcohol to take home with their shopping for the evening meal. Concentrating on tackling drinkers who cause problems is a more effective policy than targeting a specific type of retailer Other Jeffery Green Russell - It depends entirely on the nature of the custom and product. The premises selling expensive rare wines should not be castigated into the same

category as off licences selling high strength lager to street dwellers. Nor does the stress policy recognise the pre-loading that would take place outside the stress area. Each application should be judged on its own merits and I see no benefit from refusing licences for, for example, newsagents selling low alcohol drinks as an ancillary to their main trade. The problem street drinkers that live on the streets in Westminster should be deprived of high strength lagers and any policy should recognise that as a goal.

Heart of London- the Heart of London Business Alliance area, does have a substantial amount of public drinking of alcohol. There is no reason to suggest the police‟s Operation Safe Night‟s 643 confiscations of alcohol in October 2009 was in anyway exceptional.

The implementation of a Designated Public Places Order is something supported wholeheartedly by the Heart of London Business Alliance. Our members and on-trade operations across the whole of Westminster, often have to refuse people entrance to their premises who have been pre-loading as they can cause problems inside the venue. Most of those who use the West End at night are not from Westminster, those who have been pre-loading will have bought this alcohol near where they live. However, there are opportunities for them to use off-licences in Westminster to „side-load‟ (that is „topping up‟ between visiting on-trade venues to reduce the cost of an alcohol-led night out). Therefore, the Heart of London Business Alliance would support restrictions on the sale of off-licence alcohol outside of core hours, at the very least. Indeed, resistance to further off-licences operating within core hours (both within and without the Stress Area) is likely to bring benefits in reduced drunkenness and disorder in venues and the public realm. These individuals, who will be staying in hotels, bed and breakfasts and apart-hotels and are anticipating a major alcohol-led night out are also likely to be pre-loading in preparation for their night within their accommodation. So again, there are likely benefits in limiting the availability of cheap off-trade alcohol outside of the controlled environment of a professionally managed venue. Do you agree that a general restriction to the sale of alcohol before 08.00 is necessary to combat problems with street drinkers?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Royal Thames Yacht Club -Could be later say 10:00 Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group Covent Garden Community Association – large numbers of street drinkers and hostels in the West End South East Bayswater Residents Association –Early morning drinking is a problem in some areas and see no reason to allow sales before 8:00 (10:00 ) Sunday . Metropolitan Police -The main reasons for this are explained in the above answer. In addition „problem drinkers invariably undertake the „anti-social‟ activities described

above in the close proximity to the premises where they purchased alcohol. Any sales before 08.00 will attract people with these problems and have the potential to severely affect residents and business people going about their daily business. In my experience, the vast majority of people living in and visiting Westminster without a drinking problem rarely wish to purchase alcohol before this time

Heart of London - Street drinkers‟ (as opposed to people drinking in the street are generally the most visible form of public drinkers in Westminster and do sometimes cause public order and nuisance problems. The Heart of London Business Alliance supports measures to try and reduce the negative behaviour of street drinkers on other public realm users within Westminster, while understanding that they often have difficult and chaotic lives and need the right support and, treatment. However, , the Heart of London Business Alliance do not perceive any reason for the sale of alcohol before 08:00hrs from off-licences and, therefore, we support Westminster City Council in its proposals for this area.

Unsure Comedy Store

Not generally in agreement Councillor Jean Paul Floru -I tentatively agree with the general restriction, with the caveat that it punishes non-problem drinkers as well (law abiding citizens who for whatever reason need to buy alcohol in the morning). I don‟t feel strongly about this

Jeffery Green Russell -, if there is a local problem which requires an 08.00 a.m. start time, then such a condition could be imposed. As a general proposition I don‟t think this will help deal with the problem but merely shift it to a later hour.

Wine and spirits Association - As discussed earlier, we firmly believe that policies should be targeted at problem drinkers rather than targeting specific opening times, premises or products. Later licensed hours will not deter a street drinker from drinking alcohol when they are able to access it. However, for a retailer having different licensed and opening hours entails extra staff members and time to manage, creating a burden for the business. It will also inconvenience customers who would normally shop at this time.

Clarification of circumstances which might be justifiable exceptions to stress area policies

Do you agree that it would be helpful to further clarify those

circumstances the council consider may, or may not be exceptions to

stress area policies?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group Covent Garden Community Association – Seeks consultation on wording of clarification Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society -- Welcomes point on licences being in perpetuity. The chronic strain on A&E and health facilities in general should be added

Licensing Advice Project - No, but I think it would certainly help to clarify the background for the cumulative impact policy. The evidential basis is set out in the Appendices but setting out the underlying reasons in the section of the policy that deals with the Stress Areas would be helpful in making it clear to Applicants what is expected of them. It will give Applicants all the information they need to demonstrate that they should be considered an exception to Policy. I am not sure that it is helpful to set out what is an exception to policy beyond what is already stated in the policy. The Stress Area policies are after all meant to be strict. It is up to the Applicant to demonstrate how they are an exception, rather than for residents to demonstrate that they are not; this is the appropriate position. It may place the Council in an invidious position if it were to set out a definitive list of what constitutes an exception to Policy

Metropolitan Police - Further clarification is required for exceptions to the stress area. Additional clarification I believe is necessary for the following:

Expired premises licences - These should be treated as an entirely new application regardless of the previous history and type of operation of the establishment. The reasoning behind this is that whilst the premises may have traded in a totally compliant manner, there will be many dozens of other premises nearby who have operated in the same way. The new application MUST be assessed on the likely impact new trading will have in the locality and should either be refused on the grounds of the policy or be given „Core Hours‟. This I believe would have an impact on reducing the cumulative impact of late night premises including restaurants.

Trial Period of Operation - These should be completely contrary to policy as there are extensive resource implications in the monitoring during this „trial period‟ and the results are not always indicative of the manner in which the premises propose to operate in the future. It is my experience that premises put in place additional

security measures whilst a „trial‟ is in operation with the intention that once the trial has proved to be successful these „measures‟ will no longer be necessary. The results of a trial are also open to interpretation as a reduction in crime in a premises during a trial may be attributable to factors outside of the measures they have put in place such as increased police activity, restricted access due to road / building works nearby and traditional „quite periods‟.

Shaftesbury PLC - clarification but not further restriction

Heart of London – A common criticism of the current statement of licensing policy is that it‟s sometimes unclear, particularly on exceptions to the Stress Area sub-policy. Therefore, the Heart of London Business Alliance welcomes any move to clarify what is or may be considered an exception to a Stress Area and what isn‟t.

A major potential challenge to the stress area policy, which is not mentioned in the consultation document. As of 2010 there has been no definitive legal verdict on any stress area (or cumulative impact policy) in England and Wales regarding the „one in one out‟ theory. That is, the argument from operators that if one licence lapses, then the licensing authority should give out another, particularly if there has been a fall in crime and disorder in a stress area.

It is the Heart of London Business Alliance‟s view that to maintain the quality of operator and leisure-retail innovation in London that flexibility should be permitted now that there are less venues than there were when the last policy was research in 2007.

We have commissioned our own data to demonstrate the number of business operating in the Stress Area based on „real firms‟ The number of actual licences is useful indicator, this too is less accurate than the data used by in our study because some venues have multiple licences within them yet their „real world‟ impact is to be one venue. There are some positive trends in the West End Stress Area, such as the increase in restaurants, which is to be warmly welcomed by all those interested in the sustainable future of the West End as a diverse destination. However the number of „nightclubs‟ and „bars, café-bars and pubs‟ has fallen to around 85 to 95% of their 2005 levels.

A common consensus among operators (and also amongst many customers) that there has been a fall in the quality of the West End‟s offer, as existing operators no longer have fresh competition. the „cache‟ and „brand reputation‟ of the West End is slipping. If the current policy of preventing any high quality operators to open fresh concepts in the West End, its brand value may become so devalued that the quality of exiting premises will also fall. Attracting customers of a „lower-end mainstream‟ variety (and who are most likely to cause crime and disorder), deterring higher quality customers from using the West End and whose behaviour is likely to moderate that of the younger more party- focused individual

It must also be noted that crime has fallen within Westminster, within the Stress Area and within the Heart of London BID area. It is not possible to make any direct correlation with any specific policy measure such as the Stress Area increased policing, better lighting, better operation of premises, as there has been no opportunity for a controlled

academic study. However, it is likely to be a combination of all these factors

Westminster Licensees Association – As the Delicious Case made explicit, the Stress Area Policies should be clear, understandable and transparent such that an individual business would be able to understand how and when the exceptional circumstances would be applied. We do not believe the current licensing policy is sufficiently clear in this respect. Whilst the proposed revisions make clear what circumstances would not be considered to be exceptions to the policy they provide no greater understanding about what would constitute exceptional circumstances. We believe further clarification is required on this point in particular.

Not generally in agreement Councillor Jean Paul Floru Sale- Unnecessary. Licensing Committees rarely allow for exceptions Jeffery Green Russell - I believe that if any clarification is required it is what the reasons for the policy are. Westminster has hitherto avoided enumerating exceptions and I understand the reluctance; it is for the applicants to come up with operating solutions to the problems and it is for the politicians to identify the problems that it needs solving South East Bayswater Residents Association- If circumstances defined applicants will use them to justify application and will recite them at any appeals

Stress Areas and hours of premises when granted as exceptions to policy

Do you agree that it would be helpful to identify in the policy the impact that granting applications to different hours beyond core hours may have?

Generally in agreement Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group - Also here exceptions should be exceptional Covent Garden Community Association Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society Licensing Advice Project South East Bayswater Residents Association Metropolitan Police Westminster Borough - Yes, I believe there would be a number of advantages in identifying the impact of granting applications beyond core hours. It is the experience of the Metropolitan Police that the later the hours granted; the larger the cumulative impact is within the West End stress area. This is exacerbated by premises that are purely „alcohol lead‟ and/or provide music and dancing. Restaurants have less impact, however the later the hour that these premises close provides circumstances where a mix of drinkers, club goers and people who have finished a meal in a restaurant are all in the busier areas at the same time.

The Metropolitan Police recommends that the policy takes into account that even restaurants being granted extra hours adds to the cumulative impact and that there are

few, if any, circumstances where the policy could permit an extension of hours or capacity as an „exception‟ to the stress area policy.

Shaftesbury PLC –No strong view but could lead to misinterpretation of reasons for the policy. The impact is difficult to assess.

Jeffery Green Russell - Yes, I do. This essentially would be supplying the reasons for the policy and I believe setting those out will be helpful to all parties.

Not generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd.

Councillor Jean Paul Floru - let‟s allow the Licensing Committees some liberty, please. The Heart of London Business Alliance- would be concerned about giving examples of potential impact as this may lead to a certain construal as to the fundamental reasons for the policy. The reasons can (and should) be provided as part of the policy, but the impact is much more complex and unpredictable (hence the benefit of trial periods) and could confuse or constrain the conditions under which any such exception might be made.

Westminster Licensees Association - As previously noted, we do not believe that blanket policies of this nature are appropriate and that hours of operation should be determined on a case by case basis following an assessment of the merits or otherwise of their grant. We would be concerned that any additional detail on this issue in the policy whilst designed to be helpful would, in fact, end up becoming prescriptive and militate against such an assessment. It is difficult to provide a more detailed response in the absence of detailed statistics on the number of premises in the Stress Area open at specific hours or trading beyond core hours.

Unsure Comedy Store

Trial periods Do you agree that it is not appropriate to grant licences or variations to licences for trial periods under the policy?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group -for reasons given in issues paper Covent Garden Community Association Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society - The Council has no spare resources to police this and concerned over use of public monies to monitor in a meaningful way. South East Bayswater Residents Association

Licensing Advice Project -It places too much of an onus on residents, and indeed the Council, to monitor these premises. A recent case involving the grant of a trial period demonstrates the danger of granting for trial periods. If an Applicant can demonstrate that the application will not harm the licensing objectives/will not add to cumulative impact, the application deserves to be granted. If not, it should be refused. Creating a middle ground is merely muddying the waters.

Metropolitan Police Westminster Borough - The Metropolitan Police strongly believes that it is not appropriate to grant licences or variations for trial periods. These have been proven to be difficult to monitor and are resource intensive taking away staff to undertake this role who are better employed undertaking enforcement work for less compliant premises.

It is also the experience of the Metropolitan Police that premises will provide additional resources during a trial period knowing that if granted in perpetuity the resources will be diminished having the potential to create enforcement issues in the future.

Finally, the outcome of trial periods is not always clearly defined and is subject to various interpretations.

Not generally in agreement Comedy Store

Jeffery Green Russell - When applicants come up with plausible policies on how to overcome the stress problems, it is right and proper that the Licensing Authority should allow the theories to be tested. It is understood that there is a cost implication and it may be that there could be a mechanism for defraying that expense

The Heart of London Business Alliance - Therefore, it is the Heart of London Business Alliance‟s view that „trial‟ periods, by way of adding specific licensing conditions, can be of use when the licensing authority (or other responsible authorities) are not able to present evidence that by granting the licence it will harm the licensing objectives. Conversely, when in the Stress Area, clearly operators are required to prove that they will not harm the licensing objectives and a trial period (with all other management measures and conditions in place) would permit them to demonstrate how they are not adding to the cumulative impact (e.g. during the „trial‟ period are there increased complaints of noise from nearby residents, are bus stops nearby busier to the point of it being unsafe, can the police evidence increased crime problems in the vicinity etc.).

Westminster Licensees Association – Given that the application of a Cumulative Impact Policy is all about assessing the likely impact rather than acting in response to specific problems, we can understand why the Council does not want to entertain the idea of granting permissions for trial periods. Nevertheless, we can see how it would be helpful in certain circumstances as it would allow slight relaxations to be tested to see whether anticipated problems do in fact arise and enable policy going forward to be more accurately based in reality.

Stress Areas - lapsed licences Do you agree that if the period for transferring a licence after it has lapsed is increased to 28 days, the policies on new licences should not be relaxed if a subsequent application is made?

Generally in agreement

Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Royal Thames Yacht Club North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society Covent Garden Community Association –Should be on merits of the application and its impact especially in the stress areas South East Bayswater Residents Association- For reasons in report. If premises closed for weeks should apply for a new licence and may be subject to less hours or more conditions

Licensing Advice Project -It is matter for each individual case. For example, where a premises has been badly run and has caused problems for residents, and the licence has lapsed e.g. because of insolvency of the premises licence holder and a new licence is applied for by essentially the same management, it could clearly be relevant to take into account any concerns of residents/police etc when considering the application, rather than it being waved through without appropriate scrutiny

Metropolitan Police - do not believe that policies should be relaxed on lapsed licences and that they should be treated as a wholly new application. It should also not be a „given‟ that an application involving a lapsed licence is provided with the hours on the previous licence and in most cases should defer to core hours.

This would ensure premises are more compliant and have to reprove their ability to comply with the licensing objectives before seeking any variation. This is particularly the case in alcohol led and premises that provide music and dancing.

Unsure Comedy Store

Matthew Bennett - Not in every case. Premises which have caused repeated problems where the licence lapses the council should take the earliest opportunity to revoke the licence. It could on an informal basis relax the timescale .

Not Generally in agreement Shaftesbury PLC - uncertainty following lapses of licences and delay and vacancy are problems

Jeffery Green Russell - It seems inappropriate for a grieving widow, who has perhaps overlooked applying for a transfer of a licence to have the added burden of losing the value

that a licence brings to the premises. Each application should be considered on its own merits.

Heart of London Business Alliance- It can be the case that land owners or individual building owners (though not the licensed business) are in a position where a licence has lapsed due to the financial circumstances of the premises licence holder. Whilst licences are re-granted, this process involves unnecessary expense, additional conditions being added and a building or unit left empty. Heart of London Business Alliance would like to see a lapsed licence as an exception, which can be re-granted in its original form regardless of the time that has passed.

Westminster Licensees Association – we do not agree with the suggestion that the Council should consider opportunities provided by the laps of licences to reduce cumulative impact by removing any automatic assumption that replacement licences will be granted in such circumstances. The purpose of a Cumulative Impact Policy and the law in this area is to prevent further or additional adverse effects arising. It would be wrong to treat a lapse in a licence as an opportunity to reduce licence numbers in a given area. All applications should be treated on their merits and assessed on a case by case basis.

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Do you agree that CCTV should be provided at premises to varying extents only as necessary to promote the licensing objectives?

Generally in in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store (in house) Royal Thames Yacht Club North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society – but smaller restaurants and off licences “swamped by accommodating so many CCTV cameras. Common sense should prevail South East Bayswater Residents Association- In pubs and bars should be throughout public areas and toilets. Thefts and Drug use often take place in non- local “popular “bars

Covent Garden Community Association – In part, CCTV must be visible and operating properly. Should be recognised other measures are needed to prevent public nuisance

Metropolitan Police Westminster Borough - CCTV should be provided at all premises for which a licence has been granted. However, the scope and extent of the CCTV should be proportionate to the premises taking into account the activities that they undertake and the crime and disorder situation in the vicinity. It is the experience of the Metropolitan Police and well documented in crime statistics within Westminster that premises trading with later hours (beyond core) and providing music and dancing and/or vertical drinking attract a significantly higher degree of crime and disorder. These premises in particular need comprehensive coverage.

Other premises including off licences, restaurants and theatres need only provide CCTV to record the entry and exit of customers should an incident of crime and disorder occur inside. These offences would include thefts, non payment of bills, assault/abuse of staff and allegations of underage sales.

It is requested that when writing the next policy Westminster City Council take into account that CCTV images are an integral part of the investigation of crime and is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence to secure a conviction.

Shaftesbury PLC- has extensive CCTV in Carnaby Street

Jeffery Green Russell - Most emphatically yes, for the reasons stated, Licensees should be encouraged to work with the statutory authorities in partnership and therefore if an increased level of CCTV is required for the proper running of the premises, then the Licensee should increase it voluntarily

Heart of London Business Alliance - CCTV has a valuable role to play, but it must be proportionate with risk and many venues will not require it.

Westminster Licensees Association - we wholeheartedly support and endorse the statement that CCTV should only be required to the extent necessary to secure the licensing objectives. This has been an area of legislative creep in the past where CCTV has been volunteered by applicants and then significant additional cost burdens have been imposed by means of police, and council recommendations on what CCTV should cover, minimum operating standards and maintenance and upkeep. This is an area of significant and often disproportionate cost to small businesses and it must be handled with care to avoid imposing an undue burden. We would welcome greater clarity in this area and reassurance that if the criteria set out in 10.3 are used as a guide by the small or low risk businesses, opposition by the police seeking a higher standard will be rebuffed. Equally, we would need to understand more fully the definition of high risk businesses to which higher standards will be applied. We would be concerned if all pubs, bars and restaurants that opened later – irrespective of operation - were automatically classified as high risk.

Other Matthew Bennett - Question needs clarification. Many premises cause no problems and indiscriminate use of CCTV should be resisted if no evidence that would serve the crime prevention objective

Licensing Advice Project -Places too much of a financial burden on premises for which extensive CCTV is not appropriate. CCTV requirements should, where possible, be tailored to the particular circumstances of each premises, where it promotes/benefits the licensing objectives.

Councillor Jean Paul Floru - The imposition of CCTV is excessive. It should only be imposed for premises where alcohol is provided. Even in those cases there should be a presumption against it, as it is an infringement of civil liberties. It should certainly be imposed at known problem venues. I am concerned that we impose CCTV without assessing the cost this imposition carries. Licensing applications should state the cost of

the CCTV installations impose

Searches - metal detectors searches arches

Do you agree that metal detectors and search arches should be required at premises where there is a risk of serious violence?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society Covent Garden Community Association – South East Bayswater Residents Association- But only why only serious violence? There may be premises particularly late night large premises where all precautions are necessary.

Licensing Advice Project -Certain premises, particularly in the West End, have a clear association with crime and disorder

Metropolitan Police - metal detectors and search arches should be used at premises where there is a risk of serious violence.

Since the last policy there have been several incidents where weapons have been taken into licensed premises and used with devastating effect. These premises have exclusively been late night bars and nightclubs. In one incident, a loaded firearm was recovered by the use of a search arch at a nightclub and if this piece of equipment had not been in place it is likely that fatal injuries would have occurred.

The Police Licensing Unit in Westminster provide advice to premises about the search policy they should have in place taking into account a number of factors including: the type of people attracted to the premises/event, the number in attendance and the previous history of crime and disorder within and close to the premises. From this and other information appropriate advice is given to premises as to the level and type of searches that should be undertaken. It should also be taken into account that premises with a visible search policy that includes metal detectors and search arches have a significant deterrent effect on criminal‟s intent on serious violence.

.Not generally in agreement Councillor Jean Paul Floru -We should only require metal detectors in the most exceptional circumstances. I note the threat of terrorism is brought up in the text – if we change our lifestyle then the terrorists have won. I do not believe in restricting freedom to defend it

Jeffery Green Russell - No. I believe that metal detectors etc. should only be required when there is a serious risk of serious violence.

Westminster Licensees Association - Again, this is another area where police best practice or recommendation has become an expectation or requirement for many businesses. Others have felt pressurised to accept police recommendations for search arches, search wands and the level of searching to be applied. All of this has a cost to business and, as well as the degree of perceived risk, this needs to be borne in mind when recommendations or conditions are made. We believe it would be helpful if the policy were to clarify in more detail what the risk criteria are and confirm that they will be applied on a case by case basis. Overly stringent requirements and recommendations which become expectations are the quickest way to deter voluntary activity and investment.

Non Glass Drinking Vessels

Do you agree that the use of glasses and bottles should be prohibited in appropriate circumstances?

Generally in agreement Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society – Should this apply to some TENS? How would the policy apply to new venues Covent Garden Community Association South East Bayswater Residents Association- Difficult to enforce for outside use only. Many premises only use plastic glasses for beer not wine.

Licensing Advice Project Yes, where necessary.-Where there is a clear and present risk of violence/disorder

Metropolitan Police - glass drinks containers and glass bottles should be prohibited in appropriate circumstances. The use of glass drinks containers as weapons causing significant injuries is unfortunately an all too regular occurrence in Westminster. The effects of a „glass related‟ injury are devastating to a victim, often resulting in permanent scarring and significant medical treatment. In contrast the quality and type of polycarbonate drinks containers has improved significantly over the last three years to such an extent that even the higher end nightclubs and bars are using them exclusively with no negative feedback from their customers.

Police provide advice to premises based on previous incidents of violence in and close to the premises. Consideration is also given on events taking place in London on particular days and the type of people they will attract.

.Not generally in agreement

Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd.

Councillor Jean Paul Floru - there are a number of problems with this: it lowers the quality of the venue, it punishes the non-guilty with the guilty (as it is less pleasant to use non- glass vessels). In very exceptional circumstances, where there is proven previous violence involving glass vessels I think it may be appropriate, otherwise not. If no glass is available, do trouble makers not simply use other methods.

Heart of London Business Alliance - It is absolutely crucial that glass bottles and glasses should only be prevented in venues (or certain times at certain venues) where there is a major risk of disorder or a premise has a history (not isolated incident) of glass related crime.

Westminster Licensees Association - Again, this has a cost associated with it and we believe it would be more beneficial to retain the current system of recommendations and voluntary activity associated with high risk events eg football matches, rather than moving to a more formalised prohibition. A condition on a licence to only use non-glass drinking vessels in certain circumstances should be the exception rather than the norm and should only be imposed if there is clear evidence that it is necessary to prevent crime and disorder in that individual premises. Whilst plastic glasses may be appropriate for some premises, we area concerned that the question implies a more general or blanket condition; we would oppose this.

Other Jeffery Green Russell- It is one‟s definition of appropriate which is the problem and it should only be required if there is a serious risk which needs to be addressed. If we are to introduce crumpable drink containers to the night time industry, I anticipate far more spilt drinks and ensuing violence. Nor do I accept the principle that toughened glass or polypropylene glasses should be eliminated because they can be used as missiles. As a general principle I don‟t agree that it helps as there is always some implement that can be used.

Touting and escorting groups to premises Do you agree that the policy should address the problems associated with touting?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store -also „flyering‟ Royal Thames Yacht Club Stringfellows – Touting can lead to public nuisance. Policy should make clear, the distinction between illegal touting and legitimate marketing, how “vicinity will be interpreted” and that enforcement action will treat all operators fairly with regard to the impact of enforcement against touting on their business. Matthew Bennett –If there is clear evidence of problems but unaware of persistent problems in relation to touting North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society South East Bayswater Residents Association – for reasons in report

Covent Garden Community Association Licensing Advice Project -Touting, particularly in the West End, adds to problems for residents caused by licensed premises

Metropolitan Police Westminster Borough - the policy should assist in addressing the problems associated with touting and escorting customers en masse from one premises to another.

The use of touts has become more prevalent in the last three years and there have been occasions where people who are wholly unsuitable to come into contact with potentially vulnerable people have been undertaking this role. They take customers from queues by offering them cheaper facilities elsewhere which does not always transpire to be the case. This has caused some premises to also employ touts purely to maintain customer levels which otherwise they were losing to competitors using this practice.

The Metropolitan Police do not believe that touts provide any service to visitors to Westminster and, in fact, on many occasions provide a negative experience, therefore, any policy or legislation that assists in preventing this practice is welcomed.

Jeffery Green Russell - Touting is a serious problem which needs to be tackled. This is best tackled by a partnership approach, although the scenario suggested is the exception to the rule. When these exceptions take place they should be dealt with. If a call from a Police or Licensing Officer is not sufficient, an application for review will be made.

The Heart of London Business Alliance is clear that this is one of the most crucial issues requiring attention in the West End and within the Heart of London BID area in particular. Touts, and disturbances in queues caused by touts, create considerable problems and distress to the public and can lead to disorder. While the Heart of London Business Alliance has proposed a code to deal with touting and which had the support of its members, unfortunately it was not supported by the police and council Our members also believe that there is one rule for one operator and one for another when it comes to promoting their premises. Most premises licences within the West End understandably have conditions on their licences that prevent payment being made to anybody to bring customers to a venue. Most licences are also subject to the „rules of management‟, which prevent soliciting for custom, including leafleting in the surrounding area of premises. The Heart of London Business Alliance believes that Westminster City Council has been slow in prosecuting premises for breaching these conditions, which means there isn‟t an even playing field for those venues who act in accordance with their licence conditions and are therefore punished for their compliance. One potential solution would be to allow accountable operators to promote their premises, but subject to an agreed Code of practice (for example not promoting „lateness of opening‟ or „cheap drinks‟). Any operator that breaches the code of practice would be prosecuted for infringing their licensing conditions; We believe that this would stem the flow of illegal touts to operate and it would give Westminster City Council control of the touting situation, which it clearly does not have at present. Not generally in agreement Councillor Jean Paul Floru - Touting is unpleasant, but I‟m afraid I do not really believe in us ever being able to stamp it out. Charity begging is just as unpleasant (when crossing say from Charing Cross Road to Piccadilly Circus one gets easily accosted by six or seven different charity begging groups. I note WCC does not propose to tackle this (though it is of course not a licensing issue

Westminster Licensees Association - we are not aware of any significant problems of the type cited in the Issues Paper. Only if detailed evidence is available that these problems are widespread and common to a wide range of premises should the issue be referred to in the policy. If the problems cited are specific to a small number of premises, touts or promoters then action should be taken against them in the first instance.

Pubwatch Do you agree that it would be useful to emphasise the value of coordination of premises through the Pubwatch scheme to combat problems associated with football and other sporting events?

Generally in agreement Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett - in part .To promote this scheme to premises that derive no discernable trade from football and other sporting events would achieve little benefit and is a waste of effort and resources North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society - Should be considered in relation to the Olympics South East Bayswater Residents Association- but not too much reliance placed on Pubwatch to oversee potential problems

Licensing Advice Project

Metropolitan Police - Pubwatches have been proven to be effective on many occasions in relation to football, other sporting events and particular activities taking place in Westminster. Any forum where good practice and structured advice to premises about forthcoming activities, crime trends and the sharing of information is welcomed by the Metropolitan Police.

Jeffery Green Russell –manifestly The Heart of London Business Alliance -Pubwatch is best practice, and the benefits are proven over time in academic research. Our view is that all responsible operators are already fully conversant and signed up to this where relevant.

Not generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Covent Garden Community Association - useful but not necessary in the policy

Westminster Licensees Association - whilst the WLA and its members support National Pubwatch we believe that it is inappropriate for businesses to feel compelled to join what is meant to be a voluntary, self-help organisation. This would be the effect of expanding the policy in such a way as to emphasise the importance placed on membership of the scheme by the Council.

Private and corporate events Do you agree that appropriate conditions should be attached to premise licences where the applicant is seeking to restrict entry to the premises?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society -have sought such a condition Covent Garden Community Association –Should not assume private events cause less problems than other licensable activities People attending private events are more likely to be intoxicated as they may not have paid for their drinks South East Bayswater Residents Association- Too wide a definition of Private/corporate events often tried to be used as a way around policy.

Metropolitan Police - appropriate conditions should be attached to premises where the applicant is seeking to restrict entry. Private and corporate events are on the whole less likely to cause crime and disorder issues however there have been occasions where wholly unsuitable events have been disguised as a private event when in fact this has not been the case.

Conditions are needed to assist the applicant in checking the credentials of persons purporting to be representing private and corporate parties and that records are kept to ensure any incidents of disorder involving these activities are provided to the responsible authorities.

Unsure Comedy Store

Not generally in agreement Councillor Jean Paul Floru - I believe we should make no change. Unnecessary interference. Businesses may want to invite guests at the last moment to replace people who have bailed out at the last moment. Leave this policy as it is please

Jeffery Green Russell - As a general principle if the applicant is seeking to restrict entry to the premises there is no need for the Licensing Authority to impose a condition. If the Licensee then changes the style of operation but causes no problems, then once again no condition is necessary.

Westminster Licensees Association - whilst we accept the need to impose appropriate conditions for premises operating private events, these should not be so onerous as to unduly restrict commercial freedom to offer such a service and should be appropriate to ensure that the management controls are sufficient to protect the licensing objectives.

This is no different to any other licensed premises.

Other Heart of London Business Alliance –It imperative that the licensing authority understands the distinction between a corporate event and a promoter led event. Those Heart of London member venues that hire out their premises will often provide a client company with pre-booked tables for them to have a corporate event within the premises. This type of event causes no problems and has no evidenced impact on the licensing objectives.

A list of all those invited is in our opinion is excessive, in a time when the Government is seeking to ensure local authorities minimise the burden on good businesses.

The concern expressed by the licensing authority, is we suspect, towards events that are hosted by particular types of external promoters, who attract a particular clientele who have a history of behaviour that would compromise the licensing objectives. To this end, we accept that for promoter led events risk assessments should be completed, although it must be borne in mind that the Metropolitan Police‟s 696 Form already ensures that this is covered.

Policies MD1 and MD2 and live music Do you agree that this part of the policy needs clarifying that it refers to music and dancing rather than all facilities for regulated entertainment?

Generally in agreement Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society Covent Garden Community Association South East Bayswater Residents Association

Licensing Advice Project - Clarifies the position for applicants and interested parties, and also clarifying whether it applies to karaoke.

Metropolitan Police - further clarification around policies MD1 and MD2 would be of benefit. The provision of music and dancing requires stronger policies and management of practices due to the level of crime and disorder attributable to these activities whereas the provision of live music is far less problematic to Police

Not generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd.

Jeffery Green Russell - I think the law needs clarifying rather than the policy. I think it is very difficult to understand what the entertainment facilities are that are facilities for dancing, over and above recorded music

Westminster Licensees Association - the Government has stated that it will review the application of the licensing regime to the performance of live music and we would caution against expanding the policy in this way at this time until that is clarified. It is likely that the regime applied to live music will be relaxed.

Service of alcohol ancillary to other services e.g. hairdressing, beauty treatments Do you agree that there may be particular risks associated with consuming alcohol when receiving some services and which should be addressed in the policy ?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Royal Thames Yacht Club Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society Covent Garden Community Association South East Bayswater Residents Association- Limited risk but should be addressed

Licensing Advice Project -Invasive procedures as set out in the consultation

Metropolitan Police - Unless properly regulated these premises do have the potential to pose risks to customers and staff. In most cases conditions are required that limit the provision of alcohol to one glass and that the recipient is required to receive „treatment‟ as well. The Police do not in agreement the provision of alcohol to friends and associates of the recipient of treatment

Jeffery Green Russell- Yes, but I am not too sure that there is a problem in relation to, for instance, hairdressing and as always applications should be judged on their own merits

Westminster Licensees Association - we are very concerned about the incremental increase in the provision of alcohol by businesses which have no experience in managing the retail of alcohol. Sale of alcohol is not the same as selling any other commodity or service and the regulation of that sale should be the same irrespective of the business making it. The licensing regime should subject all applications to the same degree of scrutiny and we would be extremely concerned if this was not the case.

Unsure Comedy Store Matthew Bennett –Unaware of these problems so unable to comment

Not generally in agreement North Mayfair Residents Group Councillor Jean Paul Floru - this is unnecessary interventionist

;

Temporary Event Notices and outside promoters Do you agree that all information relating to crime and disorder at the premises should be considered by the council when considering an opposed TEN ?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper North Mayfair Residents Group Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society - Puzzled as only police can object to TENs would in agreement if situation were to change Covent Garden Community Association South East Bayswater Residents Association

Councillor Jean Paul Floru

Licensing Advice Project -Yes, including breaches of conditions and any instances of operating other than in accordance with the premises licence. This would help residents

Metropolitan Police Westminster Borough - information relating to crime and disorder should be considered by the Licensing Authority when considering an opposed TEN.

On most occasions the Metropolitan Police object to the granting of a TEN either on the previous recent incidents of crime and disorder at a premises or on specific information/intelligence concerning the event. It is the view of Police that premises who have a wholly disproportionate amount of crime and disorder at their venue should not as a whole be granted TENs that relate to additional hours or capacity until remedial measures have been implemented and proven to be effective.

Jeffery Green Russell -The Council should consider all evidence presented and judge on its merit Not Generally in Agreement

Westminster Licensees Association - Whilst we share the Council‟s concern to ensure that temporary events outside normal licensed premises are subject to rigorous control and scrutiny, we are concerned that the proposed revisions may exceed the law in this area. Objections to TENs must be specific and relate solely to matters of crime and disorder which will arise if the event proceeds as planned. We believe breaches of non-licensing notices which would be committed as a consequence of the event taking place, but not prosecuted do not satisfy the

relevance test and should not be taken into account.

The Olympics Do you agree that events associated with the Olympic and Paralympic games should subject to the same standards under the policy as other events, and that the policy should recognise the need for coordination and planning across London during the period of the games ?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club – Policy should cover all circumstances and special allowances would not be appropriate for 2012 Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society – The build up on all emergency and transport services should be taken into account South East Bayswater Residents Association - Special circumstances should be proved Covent Garden Community Association

Licensing Advice Project -The eyes of the world will be on London, and it is important to ensure that everyone can enjoy themselves in safety without unduly affecting the rights of residents

Metropolitan Police - The sheer scale of activities and the number of people attending the Olympics warrants a need for coordination and planning across London. Visitors to the Olympics will stay at accommodation in all the London boroughs and many of the Home Counties. It is essential that effective liaison between licensing authorities takes place to ensure that events of a manageable scale across London taking into account the other demands on responsible authorities at that time.

It is also important that applications and events by premises at times when the Olympics are in place should be subject to at least the same standards as the policy and in many cases of a higher level due to the number of people visiting London at that time

Councillor Jean Paul Floru - the same standards as for other events should apply. Equality before the law, no privileges London Fire Brigade - The sections to address the Olympics and Large outside spaces are welcome additions to set out how the council intends to approach the expected increase in activities throughout the borough on the lead up to and throughout the games.

Westminster Licensees Association - as noted in the introduction, a vital, vibrant and diverse night time economy will be vital to the delivery of a successful Olympic experience. A supportive regulatory framework in the run up to the Games will be critical and it is equally important for the Council to assess the impact and effect of its policies on businesses over the coming two years as it is to start planning for the management

of temporary events during the Games themselves. Whilst we agree that events associated with the Olympics should be subject to the same standards as others under the policy, it will be equally vital to avoid hamstringing businesses trying to cater for increased visitor demands and to deliver an exceptional visitor experience.

Other Jeffery Green Russell -The most important thing here is discussion, co-ordination and plan, but I think the special nature of the Olympics and Paralympics need to be taken into account

Not Generally in Agreement The Royal Parks – The temporary intensification of use for the one off duration of the games is justifiable and indeed satisfies the delicate balancing act of maintaining the local amenity and providing the entertainment facilities for persons attending the events. There should be no presumption not to grant applications and perhaps there should be a presumption to grant, subject to the application‟s merits. Therefore, we do not agree that events associated with the games should be subject to the same standards under the policy as other events, but do agree that the policy should recognise the need for coordination of and planning across London during the period of the games.

Shaftesbury PLC- Celebrations will take place in any event bars and restaurants should be open rather than alcohol from off licences consumed on the streets

The Heart of London -the Heart of London Business Alliances is involved in pan-London Games planning on every conceivable issue at present and will continue to be so up to the Games and in legacy maximisation post-Games.

We would seek clarification on the words „standards‟. Obviously our members operate to very high standards under what is probably the UK‟s most robust licensing regime. However, for example, touting is mentioned as an area where high standards would be promulgated, yet as previously noted the public agencies have yet to address this problem. Therefore we would like to know how can a standard be maintained during the Games when pressure will be even higher, if the basic standard has not yet been achieved?

Responsible operators will have probably decided how their TENs will be used for the whole year (Christmas, New Year Halloween, the Games etc.), well ahead of the time but it is understandable that due to the numbers of venues in Westminster, some won‟t. We sympathise with the council and police on this and would wish to work with the agencies to promote the effective planning of TENs and their use during the Games amongst our members.

However, there does need to be flexibility retained for last minute applications and the council and police need to have in place the resources required for this.

Of greater concern to us are potential wider resource issues. Given this is a once in a generation and „shop window‟ for the city and country as a whole, it is imperative that resources are procured to meet the planned activities from both public and private sector. It is crucial that activities and demand are not constrained to fit the available resources. This would be wholly perverse way of looking to maximise the opportunity for

everybody‟s benefit.

However, of even greater concern is the lack of any mention consultation document to provide for the necessary flexibility in terms of hours and conditions to respond to inevitably huge demand the Olympics and Paralympics will generate. A typical quote was: In Sydney, demand for restaurants, pubs and bars was vastly increased between 7pm until 2am, and this meant that even though licensed premises had scaled up their operations, they were still at times overwhelmed.

It is absolutely imperative that responsible licensed businesses are able to open beyond their normal hours during this exceptional period in order to cope with demand when it arises. It is essential that those venues that currently have terminal hours 12 now, even if they are in the stress areas, are given flexibility to respond, until say 2am, otherwise the pressure on those venues that do have later licences will be unbearable and could result in disorder etc.

A lack of available venues will also lead to people moving around the city seeking places to enter, which could create chaotic street scenes and hazards to moving vehicles etc.

Drawing on our research, we also anticipate that many tourists, those working at the Olympic stadium and those sponsoring or running the Olympics may not return to Central London until late in the evening, perhaps even as late as midnight. In these circumstances flexibility for restaurants and bars to stay open beyond their current terminal hour will again be necessary.

We must be clear that the Heart of London Business Alliance is not arguing for a „free for all‟ when it comes to licensing at this unique time. Rather for a managed relaxation of existing parameters to ensure that a world-class experience is created that is safe and successful for all.

Finally, although standards need to be maintained from both public and private organisations (i.e. licensees maintaining their responsibilities, street cleansing, policing, tout enforcement being scaled up to reflect the intensification of activity) there will inevitably be a level of disruption to residents and other businesses at this time due to the level of activity. It is vital that the council prepares residents for this and explains why greater flexibility is needed for licensees during this time. It is our belief that residents (those who are not away) will understand that this is a one off event and that „normal service‟ will resume post-Games.

Peter Sullivan, Owner Operator West One Foods Ltd - In the lead up to 2012 Olympics s are likely to open later and

In the 100 days that span these major events, London will experience an influx of visitors and will expect a world class experience, not just during normal hours but for all hours of the day. I believe that the council should ensure flexibility of the policy both leading up to and during 2012, granting exceptions to well-considered requests for late night extensions to well-run establishments.

Other Greater London Authority - Would wish the following wording inserted “The Council is fully committed to a safe and successful Olympic and Paralympic games in London in 2012. The Council recognises that the resources of the police and emergency services will be planned out and prioritised for the security of major events before, during and after the games from May 1 2012 until October 31 2012. Due consideration will be given by the Council to representations from the Police in relation to licence applications for activity during the games time on the grounds of public safety and security when police and other emergency services resources are insufficient to deal with the risks presented. Where, as a result of representations from a responsible authority, it is identified that a licence or proposed event presents a risk that the licensing objectives will be compromised, it is [the Council's policy] likely that such applications will not be granted”

Large events in public open spaces

Do you agree that the council should take into account all events authorised at an open space by an existing licence when considering authorising additional events under a new licence application for the same, or part of the same, open space ?

Generally in agreement Ain‟t Nothin‟ But Ltd. Comedy Store Royal Thames Yacht Club Reasons and other comments; Matthew Bennett -for reasons given in issues paper Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society South East Bayswater Residents Association Covent Garden Community Association Licensing Advice Project Councillor Jean Paul Floru

Metropolitan Police - should take into account events authorised at an open space when considering applications for additional events at the same time. This is to ensure the safety of the public and that the additional events do not attract people who will lessen the enjoyment of others attending the other activities taking place.

Westminster Licensees Association - we agree that the Council should take into account all events authorised at an open space by an existing licence when considering authorising additional events under a new licence application for the same space. We further believe that it would be helpful for the impact, both positive and negative, on local licensed businesses in the vicinity to be taken into account.

Not Generally in Agreement Shaftesbury PLC- Applications should be considered on their merits Jeffery Green Russell- Each application should be decided on its own merit The Royal Parks - Each application should be considered on its own merits and judged accordingly.

Other comments

Comedy Store Unfair that a hotel can provide comedy shows without a licence and allow unlimited numbers of people to drink at their bar and are not bound by restrictions on other licence holders on advertising and flyering in Leicester Square. Matthew Bennett It would be very useful to remind premises licence holders throughout the city but particularly in the stress areas of the impact on residents that smoking and drinking outside the premises can have on neighbouring residents and businesses and urge on them various ideas of good practice such as notices requesting consideration of others, clarification of whether or not patrons are allowed to take their drinks outside, e.g. from restaurants and bars, regular visits by staff to collect empty glasses, sweep up smoking debris, check that customers are remaining within any designated space etc.etc

Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society We have been aware for some considerable time of the Council‟s excellent efforts to try to contain the problems arising through licensable activities. We are only too well aware as to how the (limited) manpower concentrates perforce on the Stress Areas. Many of the problems for residents living outside these areas arise late at night and detract considerably from an acceptable quality of life. It has become increasingly clear that residents are nonplussed as to what to do, usually finding that the calls to 999 fall on stony ground, since no crime is being committed. The closure of the 3000 number and the use of 2000 means that those in the know understand why no inspector is likely to drive out to the northwest residential area in the foreseeable future. We have come across residents who feel angered that there seems to be no immediate action taken on the grounds of Public Disorder. Dealing with pubs, restaurants and off-licences, we applaud the Council‟s efforts to establish clear guidelines and solutions to ongoing problems.

North Mayfair Residents Group Parts of Mayfair are beginning to suffer (especially from Anti-social Behaviour) from the increasing number of licences awarded. I feel the time has come to consider whether the whole area, but at the minimum certain parts, now merit being granted the status of areas suffering from cumulative impact.

You will also be aware as me of the Government‟s own consultation on the subject of Licensing and of their proposals for reversing the disastrous impact on residential amenity of the previous Government. I imaging it goes without saying but for certainty‟s sake I express the hope that any strengthening of restrictions will be fully taken into account by the Council if/when new legislation is introduced.

Metropolitan Police Westminster Borough The Metropolitan Police recognises the thoroughness and professionalism of Westminster City Council in devising licensing policies. It is through the implementation of previous policies that the Police believe has greatly assisted in making Westminster a

safer and more enjoyable place for its residents and visitors

Shaftesbury PLC Carnaby Street should not be within the West End Stress Area Policy RLN2 should not refer to cumulative impact Restaurants should be allowed to operate to 1:00

London Fire Brigade The proposed changes to the policy you are currently consulting on address the genuine concerns of persons living and working in Westminster and are fully in agreement by the Westminster Fire Safety Department.

Jeffery Green Russell The way that the questions are tightly drawn make a statistical interpretation of the results meaningless. For instance in the first question “do you agree that dispersal from the stress area is key to limiting the stress created by cumulative impact, the answer has to be “yes” and I would be very surprised if anybody said no. However this does not give the full answer to the problem in the stress areas that there are too many people on the streets at the same time. The questions are either poorly formulated or very well formulated if the question is trying to engineer a pre-judged answer.

. Licensing Advice Project Given the recent case R (Murco Petroleum Limited) v Bristol City Council [2010] EWHC 1992 (Admin), it would be helpful to clarify the City Council‟s policy on the circumstances in which a premises is considered „excluded‟ for the purposes of s176 by virtue of being used primarily as a garage.

Councillor Jean Paul Floru Please allow me to first state a particular concern. I am concerned that our limiting of (certain) licensed premises in the Central Activities Zone gives an unfair advantage to existing premises at the expense of newcomers. In other words, that it reduces competition (necessary for innovation and renewal). I am concerned that we are ending up with very large international chains which sometimes do not need to make a real effort to come up with exciting and renewing ideas in order to make a profit; because of the fact that new entrants are few (and limited by our licensing policies). I note a comment that was made about a year ago by Councillor Rowley (with which I agree 100 %), who said that for new and innovative licensed premises one needs to go to Vauxhall or the East End, and not to Westminster. I want Westminster to be innovative and world-class, not a stereotypical big chains dumping ground.

This is particularly worrying in the case of small licensed premises wanting to start in Westminster. The reduced number of sites available (in part because of our restrictive policies) makes those site far more expensive than they should – making it virtually impossible for small licensed premises to start out.

I am in particular not convinced that restricting the number of new premises has actually reduced the burden on the West End. Have people stopped coming to the West End because of it, or do existing premises just benefit from a larger turnover? I am happy

and willing to be convinced by evidence – but as the alternative (that is: a less restrictive policy) has not been tried, I think it will be impossible to prove this either way.

Until a majority decides otherwise I will of course uphold Westminster‟s Licensing Policies.

Councillor Glenys Roberts This is my response to the licensing consultation on behalf of West End residents. 1)We need the Stress area extended into parts of Mayfair, namely the Lancashire Court, Brook Street, S Molton triangle, Shepherd Market, the Mount Street S Audley area and Berkeley Street. 2) the Stress areas must mean something. There must be no granting of new licences outside policy 3) indeed there is an argument for a finite number of liquor licences as with sex shops. This is done in the US and has the effect of making operators value them so much they need less outside enforcement 4)enforcement costs should be recouped out of increased licencing fees, also after the sex shop model 5) restaurants must not automatically be seen as the 'soft option', i.e less troublesome than bars. It must be appreciated just how disruptive they are to residential neighbourhoods with late night coming and goings, servicing in the small hours, noisy outside eating, proliferation of a/c units etc. 6)to eliminate these nuisances licensing should work more closely with planning to resist change to A3 use. 7) in Soho there should be no more megaclub licences with canned music and the area should concentrate on intimate live performance spaces. The historic buildings and narrow streets are simply not suited to mega clubs and the influx of their patrons detracts from the historic cultural pursuits of theatreland. 8)street drinking must be enforced and the police encouraged to intervene where there are breaches of the residents' right to quiet amenity. In cases where it is allowed, the outside area must be precisely measured and controlled as part of the licence 9)the licensee should be responsible for the maintenance and cleanliness of the pavement in front of his premises 10)it must be an offence enforceable against the licensee to serve patrons who are drunk.

Councillor Frixos Tombolis I would suggest the following changes: an extension of the stress area into pockets of Mayfair where research demonstrates that it is merited, a finite number of licenses in the stress areas (for drink lead activity), a clarification of the policy in the stress areas to ensure that food lead establishments are treated slightly more generously than drink lead, in order to avoid the situation where they are actually encouraged.

Heart of London Business Alliance It is therefore vital to reiterate the argument that Central London, Westminster and the West End in particular, do have a reasonable late night bus service which is relatively effective most of the time at getting people away post midnight, but does suffer from pinch points. Yet, as was highlighted earlier, this is still some way from the „world class‟ infrastructure that the city deserves and needs.

The reason that this infrastructure is not substantially better, is not because it is impossible to provide a later and more effective transport system, nor is it because it isn‟t financially viable, but it is for political and historical casual factors beyond the scope of this response. These causal factors have been compounded by the failure by city- wide agencies and individual local authorities to properly plan for the changing nature of London as a world visitor centre and the societal trends for socialising later and more often which have been emergent over the past twenty years. It is the Heart of London Business Alliance‟s view that operators of venues should not be punished for the lack of investment by public agencies, which is taken for granted in other world cities and even, again as highlighted earlier in this submission, in other smaller UK cities. It is also important to note here that Heart of London Business Alliance recognises the outstanding work done in the West End on street cleaning and community safety by all partners including Westminster City Council and the police.

We would also wish to flag up that a lot of the data used to support the current statement of licensing policy, regardless of whether it was an area where the Heart of London Business Alliance were in support of the policy or in disagreement with it, was out of date. We would hope to see much more contemporary data in support of the new policy and would be happy to help provide data, where we retain it, to the licensing authority in the spirit of partnership working

Westminster Licensees’ Association The Westminster Licensees Association welcomes the early opportunity to input into the thinking behind proposed revisions to Westminster‟s Statement of Licensing Policy. The WLA has been actively involved in consultations on the Policy since it was first introduced in 2005 and is a member of the Westminster Entertainment Forum, the consultative body which maintains an overview of the policy as applied in practice.

The policy was last revised in 2007 and has been effective since January 2008. Since that time, economic circumstances have changed significantly, with a particular impact on the licensed retail trade. Moreover, there has been a significant shift in patterns of consumption and consumer behaviour as a result of both this, the smoking ban and the proactive promotion of alcohol through the off-trade supply channel. We believe that it is vital that the revision to the Licensing Policy takes due account of market dynamics and the changing environment within which it is applied. Policy context Since the policy took effect, the credit crunch, economic downturn and a series of regulatory burdens – most notably the introduction of the smoking ban - have combined to create a perfect storm which continues to threaten many of the UK‟s licensed retail premises. The outlets which have been hardest hit have been small, traditional pubs and bars. These are valuable social and economic assets, providing a regulated and controlled environment for people to enjoy alcohol socially and responsibly. In Westminster, unlike many other metropolitan areas, they are also tourist attractions in their own right and serve the needs of domestic and inbound visitors alike.

Since January 2008, new openings at a national level have declined by over 60% and

those trends are mirrored at a local level. A recent industry survey found that the highest rate of net closure of this type of outlet in England and was in the Westminster South Parliamentary Constituency1. The reasons behind this are essentially two fold but both relate to the restrictive and unsympathetic approach Westminster adopts to the licensed retail trade: new blood is not being attracted into the industry and the capital to invest is, at best, limited or absent; and, a restrictive policy is imposing direct operational costs making premises unviable. The ALMR Benchmarking Survey shows that the average cost of running an average outlet is now 48% of turnover, rising to 60% for late night, town centre operators. In the past year, operational costs - those most directly attributable to legislation (excluding payroll) - have increased by 22%. 2.

If the sector is to deliver the a positive contribution to the local economy and community as a whole, it needs a supportive regulatory and economic environment to encourage a competitive market place. We hope that the revised policy will deliver that.

The period since the last policy review has also seen an explosion in the number of other outlets licensed for the sale of alcohol – in particular an increase in off-trade numbers but also businesses for whom sale of alcohol is ancillary such as theatres, performance venues and even, the issues paper suggests, hair and beauty salons. We are concerned that pubs and bars still attract much of the opprobrium for the problems caused by alcohol consumption when the diversification of premises in this way encourages more widespread consumption throughout the day. The contribution this makes to problems of public nuisance and order must be reflected in the policy. The most significant change directly attributable to the introduction of the Licensing Act is the increasing volume of alcohol sold through the off-trade channel. Prior to the introduction of the Act, no supermarket or off-licence could sell alcohol beyond 11pm, sales had to be made from a separate area of the store and restrictions were placed on sales of wholesale quantities. In short, the legal constraints placed a commercial restraint on the sale of alcohol. Their total removal meant it was commercially viable to use alcohol as a footfall driver and significant loss leading on the category first emerged in 2006, the year after the Act took effect.The net effect has been that pub prices have increased by around 40% since the introduction of the Act, whilst supermarket prices have declined in real terms and around 70% of alcohol sold is now consumed outside licensed premises.

It will be important to ensure that all businesses selling alcohol are subject to the same degree of control and scrutiny of their activities as that applied to pubs and bars. Failure to do so will simply frustrate efforts to address the problems identified because consumption will switch away from well-regulated licensed premises and into less well- controlled environments and outlets which are less well able to manage the risks arising from alcohol misuse or consumption. The purpose of a licensing policy should be to ensure that alcohol is handled responsibly wherever it is sold.

If the aim of the revised policy is to continue to manage crime and disorder and public nuisance problems arising from alcohol consumption, then it is vital that these market

1 Analysis prepared by CGA for the All Party Parliamentary Beer Group 2009 2 Further information on the economic contribution of pubs, the wider market and Benchmarking are included in Appendices

dynamics are clearly understood and taken into account. Overview The WLA believes that the purpose of a 3 yearly review of licensing policy should be to assess whether the policy as envisaged and applied is still fit for purpose. As such it not only needs to take account of changes in legislation and case law, but also whether circumstances have changed and, crucially, whether the restrictions and controls it applies are still warranted and justified. We are concerned that the approach in this instance appears to be to look at whether the policy should be strengthened, not at whether the evidence justifying the approach remains robust, the controls necessary and whether any aspect could be relaxed.

WLA has argued for some time that recent downward trends in alcohol consumption, crime and disorder and public nuisance suggest that there is scope for limited relaxation of the very stringent controls Westminster applies to traditional pubs and late night bars without jeopardising public order. We continue to maintain that a genuine case by case assessment based on the merits of the individual application is preferable to the imposition of blanket policy restrictions based on the generic style of the operation.

Limited relaxation would also help to recognise the contribution made by responsible operators and the licensed trade more generally to addressing the public nuisance issues identified in the policy; for example, the contribution to BIDs and voluntary initiatives and investment in security and controls within the premises.

We also remain concerned that the Issues paper retains and increase the complexity of the policy by applying subtly different approaches to different types of premises licensed for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. We have never supported this policy approach and believe that the distinctions are out of date and can never keep pace with market developments and customer tastes. If a premises sells alcohol for consumption on the premises then it contributes in some way to the public order and nuisance problems which the policy seeks to address. The contribution is not limited simply to traditional pubs and bars and the controls and restrictions should equally not apply simply to those types of premises. The very fact that Westminster‟s policy has to keep adding new categories of business model suggests that this type of approach does not work and that one based on individual assessment and risk should be adopted in its stead.

Finally, our comments below on the specific questions raised in the Issues Paper should not be taken as evidence of support for the policy approach as a whole. In summary, as representatives of the thousands of responsible businesses within the City, we continue to believe that the Licensing Policy is overly restrictive. We oppose the imposition of core hours, the plethora of different policies for different outlets and activities and the attempt to impose blanket conditions through the direction of applicants. We look forward to seeing a revised and robust evidence base to justify its retention.

South East Bayswater Residents Association - The present hours policy , especially core hours and on alcohol premises, is that the policy says “persons off the premises” but this is not always stated on licences and

hours-sometimes not corrected if application hours reduced and they are not enforceable as hours are for the “sale of alcohol” not consumption, so if a customer buys a couple of pints , bottle of wine one minute before sale of alcohol time they can carry on drinking for quite a while, and then cause a nuisance when leaving. The licensing authority should fix the hour when premises must close, especially pubs /bars ,either at the same time as alcohol time or with an added drinking- up time.