Bloc South Further Submissions

BLOC SOUTH FURTHER SUBMISSIONS

1. Wayne Shires Witness Statement 2. Wayne Shires Exhibit 1 – East BLOC Premises licence WS/01 3. Wayne Shires Exhibit 2 – The Bloc Group Presentation WS/02 4. Wayne Shires Exhibit 3 – Letters of support WS/03 5. Wayne Shires Exhibit 4 – Letter of support from WS/04 Jonathan Simpson 6. Wayne Shires Exhibit 5 – Letter of support from Lord WS/05 Brian Paddick 7. Wayne Shires Exhibit 6 – Companies House Extract WS/06 8. Wayne Shires Exhibit 7 – The Guardian Newspaper WS/07 Articles 9. Wayne Shires Exhibit 8 – Revised proposed conditions WS/08 10. Wayne Shires Exhibit 9 – Dispersal policy WS/09 11. Report prepared by Adrian Studd

STATEMENT OF WAYNE SHIRES

Proposed Operator of Bloc South

Introduction

1. With the permission of Lambeth Council, I hope to open and operate a new

nightclub and community premises to be called “Bloc South” in the railway arches

at 65 Albert Embankment in Vauxhall. The club will be dedicated to serve the

LGBTQ community in Lambeth and further afield. I am of course aware of the

chequered history of this premises when it previously housed Club 65.

2. Within this statement I will set out :

a. The reasons behind this application and my relationship with the previous

operators;

b. What I hope to achieve for the good of the LGBTQ community in Lambeth;

c. The Bloc South concept and the operating hours required to make the

project commercially viable;

d. The steps I will take to ensure the licensing objectives are promoted and

addressing issues raised by those who have made representations

objecting to this application.

3. Before doing so I will set out my own background and track record. I hope to satisfy

the licensing sub-committee that I am worthy of being trusted on my word, as well

as with the stewardship of this project. My reputation for delivering what I promise

is all important to me, both personally and professionally. I have not embarked on

this application lightly and I would never jeopardise my reputation for this project

or any other.

4. Whilst I acknowledge the understandable concerns referred to in the

representations, naturally, I welcome the overwhelming expressions of support this

licence application has attracted from individual residents of Lambeth, leading

representatives of the local LGBTQ community, and other public figures concerned

with improving Lambeth’s night-time economy in a safe and enjoyable way.

My professional background and personal character

5. I have worked in the leisure industry for nearly 30 years, starting in the “WAG Club”

in Soho. Then I worked as a manager and licensee at “Bar Industria” on Hanover

Street, W1 before moving to “Café de Paris” until the early nineties. At the Astoria

Group I operated my first gay venue, “Sub Station Soho”, and from here opened a

sister club “Sub Station South” in Lambeth as operator and licensee.

6. Throughout the nineties I was involved in large scale LGBTQ park events including

“Gay Pride” for nine years at Brockwell Park and later my own “Summer Rites”

festivals, first in Kennington Park and then returning to Brockwell.

7. From 1998-2008 I was the owner and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) of

“Crash Club” in Vauxhall (which is now named “Union” and is next door to Club

65), as well as opening and operating the neighbouring club “Area” before selling

both in 2010 and moving to East London.

8. In 2006 I was awarded a Police Borough Commander’s Award for community

service for co-founding the Vauxhall Gay Business Forum (“VGBF”) through which

I worked with Lambeth Council and the police to tackle the prevalence of the drug

GHB in the LGBTQ community.

9. Since 2010 I have operated “East Bloc”, a nightclub in Shoreditch that is permitted

to open until 06:00hrs at weekends and 04:00hrs midweek. I attach the Premises

Licence as WS/01. In 2015, I opened “Bloc Bar”, a late night bar in Camden and

successfully obtained a 03:00hrs weekend licence in Camden’s notoriously strict

Special Policy/Cumulative Impact area on the basis of my proven track record and

the benefits my premises can bring to the night-time economy and LGBTQ

community in Camden.

10. In 2012 I re-launched the “Summer Rites” festival in Shoreditch Park and obtained

a licence for 5,000 people to attend. The following year I took the event to Tobacco

Dock in Wapping.

11. Given my work record, I hope it will be apparent that I have a great deal of

experience in operating music venues, particularly gay nightclubs, which are

situated in mixed commercial and residential areas. I have specific and extensive

experience of operating nightclubs in Vauxhall. I am acutely aware of the control

measures that are required to prevent nightclubs becoming the source of crime

and disorder or public nuisance. My relationships with the responsible authorities

in all the areas where I have operated have always been excellent. Significantly,

none of my premises have ever been subjected to a licence review whilst I have

been the operator.

12. I attach a colour presentation relating to The Bloc Group as WS/02.

13. The licensing sub-committee will have seen that my character and reputation as

an operator of nightclubs and contributor to LGBTQ community life has been

attested to by a number of responsible individuals and public figures within the

formal representations and support letters sent to the Council (or exhibited

elsewhere) in response to this licence application. Those supporters include: Philip

Normal (LGBTQ Officer for the Vauxhall Labour Party), Andrew Boff (Member of

the London Assembly), Chris Amos (publisher of The Gay London Guide), and

Peter Tatchell (the human rights campaigner). Those support letters that are not

already included within the Agenda papers as formal representations are

separately exhibited as WS/03.

14. Among the letters of support is one from Cllr Jonathan Simpson, a former Mayor

of Camden and the current Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Labour

Councillor for King’s Cross Ward. (dated 19.1.17 at WS/04). His remit covers

Camden’s Night Time Economy. He is able to confirm that one of my other

premises, the Bloc Bar:

“…has been a very well run venue since it opened. As far as I am aware Bloc Bar has been managed well. You have an excellent relationship with the licensing team in the Metropolitan Police and have liaised well with the local community. I understand that there have been no complaints since the bar has been launched - which is impressive and testimony to how you have managed the venue.

I clearly cannot comment on the merits of any licensing application elsewhere - but from a local perspective I can confirm that you are doing well and are running good venues for our LGBT Community.”

15. Lord Brian Paddick, a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan

Police, Borough Commander for the London Borough of Lambeth and candidate

for the London mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012, has also written in support of

me and my venues (letter of 23.1.17 at WS/05). Lord Paddick states:

“I have known Wayne for about 15 years and I have always found him to be a reasonable, sensible and sound individual… I have attended his venues in the past and found them to be well run”

16. Lord Paddick also speaks of the benefits this application, if granted, can bring to

the public safety and crime and disorder licensing objectives when he observes

that:

“The sub-committee will be aware of trends in the LGBTQ community in recent years including the closing of many LGBTQ venues in London in general and South London in particular. There has also been a move to arranging to meet people ‘on line’ with the inherent dangers associated with not meeting in a neutral location first. In my opinion, there is a real need for ‘safe spaces’ for members of the LGBTQ community to meet and socialise and I believe Wayne’s application is timely and desirable.”

17. In relation to my operation of East Bloc in Shoreditch, PS Guy Hicks, who is

responsible for police licensing in the London Borough of Hackney has permitted

me to quote from an email he has sent me in these terms:

“I am happy for you to state (use my name in vain!) that you operate a well-run trouble free venue and I have had no cause to speak with you in the 5 years I have been the licensing Sergeant for the borough.”

18. I understand that PS David Smith of Lambeth Police has independently contacted

PS Guy Hicks who has confirmed the same to him.

19. In the event that a workable premises licence is granted to permit Bloc South to

open I intend to transfer the DPS positions at both East Bloc and Bloc Bar to senior

managers so I can concentrate primarily on the smooth running of the new Bloc

South.

My involvement with this premises and the previous operators

20. I have already stated that my reputation is my professional life-blood. In light of this

I hope the Council is prepared to accept my word that I am my own man. I am not,

and never will, act as a “front” or “puppet” for any other person or financial interest

as one or two representations have, regrettably, sought to intimate. I will not defer

to Paulo Moreno or any other investor in my businesses when it comes to making

operational decisions about my venues. I am saddened that one or two of those

who have made representations in this application thought it appropriate to

speculate, without any evidence to support their view, that I might do so. I hope

they will now feel able to reconsider their suggestion with a view to retracting it.

The actual reasons for my involvement in making this application are transparent

and detailed below.

21. I have for the past few years harboured a desire to take my new “Bloc” nightclub

concept back into Vauxhall’s “gay triangle” where much of my earlier professional

life was spent. The Vauxhall Triangle has a special night-time environment and is

of particular importance to London’s LGBTQ community. Therefore, I had been on

the lookout for suitable premises in the area.

22. I had seen the press reports and heard from other sources about the serious

incidents that occurred at Club 65 which led to police reviews of its premises

licence in 2014 and, again, in the summer of 2016. Word tends to spread quickly

in the tight-knit London nightclub scene. I became aware the premises licence had

been revoked by Lambeth Council at the full summary review hearing on 16 August

2016 and that the premises licence holder, Davdell Ltd, had lodged an appeal to

the magistrates’ court that is due to be heard on 18-20 April 2017.

23. I made various enquiries which led me to Mr Paulo Moreno, who was a director of

Davdell Ltd (the premises licence holder of Club 65), the owner of Club 65 and

leaseholder of the premises. Although he held a significant financial interest in Club

65, I understood that he had no involvement in the day to day operation of Club 65

but left the operation and management of the club entirely to his London-based

brother Artur Moreno (with assistance from Artur’s wife Dora Moreno who, I am

told, looked after the paperwork side of the operation). Everything I have learnt

since supports that view.

24. I note that the Decision Notice issued by Lambeth Council following the August

2016 review hearing makes no reference whatsoever to Paulo Moreno’s

involvement in the day to day operation or management of Club 65 (or at all). The

earlier Decision Notice from the 2014 review simply refers to Paulo Moreno as “the

owner” and correctly describes Artur Moreno as “the manager”. I have also been

informed by those involved in both sets of review proceedings in 2014 and in 2016

that none of the responsible authorities have ever suggested that Paulo Moreno

was personally involved in the day to day operation or management of Club 65 or

levelled any criticism at him as an individual, save for noting he was “the owner”.

25. I am aware that the Decision Notices for the earlier summary review hearings in

2014 and 2016 are separately exhibited in the Agenda Papers and so I will not

duplicate them here.

26. Paulo Moreno has permanently emigrated with his family to Portugal where he now

lives and works. He retains a financial interest in the premises at arch 65, primarily

because he holds a long-lease of the premises.

27. After lengthy discussions with Paulo Moreno I made a business proposal to him

that would enable me to bring my “Bloc” nightclub concept into Vauxhall as I had

long wished to do.

28. As my track-record suggests, it is always my wish and practice to work in harmony

in and partnership with local authorities. This new premises licence application is

intended to further that relationship and so bring to an end the ongoing appeal

proceedings listed for hearing in April 2017.

29. I have acted transparently from the outset of this application in making it clear that

Paulo Moreno will retain a financial interest in this business as a shareholder and

the leaseholder, indeed it is stated expressly in Section 5 of the Premises Licence

application form. I made this indication precisely because I did not want anybody

to think I was trying to hide or conceal anything.

30. One or two of the representations express concerns about the “continuing”

involvement in Bloc South of either Paulo Moreno or the Moreno family generally.

Neither Artur Moreno nor Dora Moreno will have any involvement or financial

interest in Bloc South whatsoever. As I have indicated, Paulo Moreno will retain a

financial interest.

31. I have already indicated that it appears that Paulo Moreno had no personal

involvement in the troubles and failings that befell Club 65 and he has attracted no

individual blame (save for it being noted that he was “the owner”). But in any event,

the Council will appreciate that there is a major difference between an individual

having a financial interest in a business and an individual controlling how that

business is run operationally.

32. I wish to state again, and as clearly and unequivocally as I can, that if this premises

licence is granted I will operate Bloc South according to my own best judgment and

in a manner that promotes the licensing objectives at all times. I will not defer to

Paulo Moreno or any other individual who may hold a financial interest in the

business when deciding how I will operate Bloc South. I made that crystal clear to

Paulo Moreno from the start of our discussions that that is the only basis upon

which I would proceed. He accepted my position without hesitation or argument.

33. Given the concerns raised in the representations, and with the agreement of Paulo

Moreno, the corporate arrangements for Bloc South will ensure that:

a. I am the sole Director and majority shareholder of Bloc South Ltd (the

premises licence holder);

b. I am the sole Director and majority shareholder of Davdell Ltd (the lease-

holding company);

c. I am the sole Director and majority shareholder of Bloc South Trd Ltd (the

trading company).

34. Therefore I can given an undertaking to the licensing authority that any financial

interest retained by Paulo Moreno will be never be more than a minority one. I will

be the controlling mind and will in both the operational and business side of Bloc

South, as was always the intention.

35. However, if the Council believes that conditions on the premises licence are

required to formalise this state of affairs, then I am happy to agree to the following

conditions (which enhance proposals already made by police and licensing as

responsible authorities in their representations):

a) Paulo Moreno, Artur Moreno, Dora Moreno, Sonny Whittaker and Thomas Fuller, Dora Moreno and are not to be employed at the premises in any capacity. They are not to be on the premises during licensable activities.

b) This premises licence will have no effect if Wayne Shires ceases to own a majority share of Davdell Ltd (the leaseholder), Bloc South Ltd (the premises licence applicant), or Bloc South Trd Ltd (the trading company) unless all responsible authorities are consulted on, and agree with, any replacement majority shareholder.

36. A letter from my accountant will follow dealing with the corporate state of affairs as

WS/06.

The relevance of the parallel appeal proceedings

37. To achieve my vision for the venue I intended to take over Davdell Ltd’s appeal to

the magistrates’ court by becoming the sole director of Davdell Ltd (Club 65’s

licence holder and the appellant). I have done so. My intention then and now was

to argue my case before the magistrates’ court at the hearing in April 2017 that the

appeal should be allowed because, in summary :

a. I am scrapping the previous Club 65 business model that led to the issues

giving rise to the review and decision to revoke;

b. I am introducing a tried and tested concept back into Vauxhall with more

restricted hours than the original Club 65 licence;

c. The new venue would have a new reputable operator (i.e. me), a new

management team, new staff and new door supervisors. The old

management and operators would not be working at or involved in running

Bloc South in any capacity;

d. The new offering would be dedicated to the LGBTQ community. It would

provide a completely different environment and attract a new clientele who

were not, traditionally, associated with crime and disorder or public nuisance

issues in Vauxhall;

e. The venue is a comparatively small one, with a maximum capacity of 300

people, amidst a night-time economy in Vauxhall that, according to Lambeth

police, attracts some 10,000 people into Vauxhall over the weekend;

f. If the appeal is allowed, it would in effect replace a 24 hour 7 day week

nightclub licence with a more restricted nightclub licence that excluded the

potentially troublesome morning after-parties and would have far less

impact than the original Club 65.

g. The new venue has received substantial support from Lambeth residents

and the LGBTQ community and will be an asset to the night-time economy

and promote diversity and equality in Lambeth without undermining the

licensing objectives.

38. I was, and remain, confident that on full and fair consideration of my case the

magistrates’ court will allow my appeal in April 2017.

39. In an effort to settle that case before the April 2017 hearing, and so save Lambeth

Council and myself the significant legal costs involved in preparing for and fighting

a fully contested magistrates’ court appeal, in September 2016 my lawyers wrote

to Lambeth Council, on a without prejudice basis, offering to compromise the

appeal on very similar terms to those reflected in this new premises licence

application. I offered to meet with the responsible authorities before they made any

decisions in regard to the compromise offer. The response my lawyers received

from the Council’s legal officers was that they believed the appropriate way forward

was for me to lodge a new premises licence application and I was invited to lodge

such an application.

40. Although I have been advised by my lawyers that arguing my case before the

magistrates’ court at the appeal hearing in April 2017 is a perfectly proper and

normal course to take in these circumstances, I agreed to follow the course

recommended by Lambeth Council’s officers out of respect for their wishes.

Therefore I instructed my lawyers to lodge this new premises licence application

so it could be considered in light of the ongoing appeal proceedings. In substance,

although I accept not necessarily in form, this application is not a “new” premises

licence application to insert an additional nightclub into Vauxhall. In reality it is an

application for a more restricted licence to replace the existing Club 65 licence. I

have been advised by my lawyers that the senior Courts have repeatedly indicated

that licensing decisions should be based on the substance rather than the form of

the application in question.

41. Because I am now the sole director of both Davdell Ltd (the appellant in the Club

65 appeal) and Bloc South Ltd (the applicant for this new premises licence) I am in

a position to undertake to the Council that in the event that a workable and

commercially viable premises licence is granted to Bloc South Ltd following this

licensing sub-committee hearing, I will instruct my lawyers to surrender the

premises licence held by Davdell Ltd and previously utilised by Club 65

(#Prem832) and/or to discontinue the ongoing appeal by Davdell Ltd against its

revocation. That old licence will therefore no longer be in existence. Only this new

one would be. This can be achieved, I am told, by conditions that only permit the

new licence to come into effect once the old one is surrendered.

The benefit to Lambeth’s LGBTQ community and the night-time economy

42. There has been much public discussion in recent months about the closure of

many of London’s night-time venues. Of the 430 that traded between 2007 and

2015 only 245 are still open. The LGBTQ scene has not escaped these losses and

has suffered particularly badly. In the past two years iconic venues in East London,

Islington, Vauxhall, Camden and the West End have closed, including The Joiners

Arms, The George & Dragon, G-A-Y/Astoria, Shadow Lounge, Madam Jojos,

Kazbar, The Nelson’s Head. In Vauxhall most of the original gay venues are now

gone.

43. As the licensing sub-committee will be aware, the importance of London’s night

time economy has belatedly been recognised by the creation of a new Night Time

Commission by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to reverse the decline of a sector

that is worth £26bn to London’s finances. The Mayor’s website states:

“The Mayor has established the Night Time Commission to review the capital’s night time economy - a key driver of economic and cultural regeneration and a magnet for domestic and international visitors.

Recent research shows that the night time economy contributes £26.3bn to London’s annual GDP, equivalent to 40% of the UK’s night time economy. This figure is expected to rise to £28.3bn by 2029. But there is currently no oversight of this critical part of London’s economy and as a result, night time businesses are sometimes seen only as the root of noise and nuisance.

Around the world, cities are starting to re-evaluate their night time economies. There is growing recognition that there is increasing demand for a broader night time culture and entertainment offer. Many of the world's cultural metropolises are appointing 'Night Mayors' to champion, coordinate and bring innovation to their night time economies.

The Commission seeks to understand the challenges faced by night time businesses. They review policies to ensure the night time economy can flourish and will report in late 2016 on the social and economic impact of night time economy in London.

The Mayor of London has appointed a Night Czar: Amy Lamé and Chair of the Night Time Commission, Philip Kolvin QC to help deliver a vision for London as a 24-hour city. The Night Czar will act as an ambassador for London’s night time economy and do vital work with the businesses, local authorities, the Metropolitan Police, Transport for London and punters to ensure London thrives as a 24-hour city. They will build on opportunities such as the Night Tube to diversify and grow London’s night time economy.”

44. More specifically, and importantly for LGBTQ people, are the losses directly

affecting the scene with fewer and fewer well-run nightclub venues remaining open

for them to enjoy themselves and socialise in a safe and protective atmosphere.

London has long been hailed as one of the world’s most open and gay-friendly

cities, setting the pace with globally renowned club brands. For any gay visitor

arriving today the current state of the LGBTQ night-time scene would certainly not

reflect past glories or reputation.

45. In this regard, I attach two articles from The Guardian newspaper as WS/07. The

first by Bill Brewster (dated 26.8.16) speaks powerfully about the harm being

caused by the decline in UK nightclubs generally (nearly 50% have closed in the

past decade) and specifically on the importance of dedicated gay clubs for the

LGBT community. He observes that:

“Nightclubs can be liberating, transformative spaces. For gay men and women, a nightclub is often the first step they make into a safe space as they come out.”

46. The second article by Matthew Weaver and Haroon Siddique (dated 7.9.16)

speaks more generally about the harm being caused to London and other major

UK cities by the number of nightclubs being closed following the well-known

revocation of Fabric nightclub’s licence by the London Borough of Islington, a

decision later reversed on appeal to the magistrates’ court.

47. Of course, the continuing closure of nightclubs (or refusals to permit new ones from

opening) does not stop people enjoying themselves and meeting others. It simply

means that they will do so in a less regulated and safe environment than a well-

run club by a professional operator to the detriment of all the licensing objectives.

48. With this spate of LGBTQ venue closures in the past couple of years and the ensu-

ing negative media attention, a new community oriented nightclub venue would, I

strongly believe, be a significant and welcome addition to the Vauxhall Gay Village

as well as to the wider London scene. It will promote the licensing objectives and

be a real asset to Lambeth.

49. With a population of 318,000, Lambeth is one of London’s largest Borough’s.

According to the latest Lambeth Resident’s Survey, 4% per cent (or 12,720) of

respondents identified themselves as gay, although this is likely to be an under

representation. The total number of dedicated LGBTQ late night venues (meaning

they hold LGBTQ events every Friday and Saturday) is now down to just three

venues: Royal Vauxhall Tavern, The Eagle, and The Two Brewers. Since this

application was lodged in early December 2016, two further Lambeth LGBTQ

venues have closed down: Hoist Vauxhall and Kazar in Clapham.

50. In comparison, my researches suggest that there are currently at least fourteen

non-LGBTQ venues with a late licence of some sort (e.g. having a terminal hour of

03:00hrs or later) in Lambeth.

51. I believe these statistics underlie the high number of supporting representations

made by Lambeth residents and members of London’s LGBTQ community in

general in response to this application. Indeed, I am aware that many members of

Lambeth’s LGBTQ community moved into the area specifically to avail themselves

of the welcoming and protective environment of the ever-decreasing number of

gay-friendly venues in the Vauxhall area.

The Bloc South concept

52. Our proposals seek to provide a high quality multi-use space for the LGBTQ com-

munity. We will be offering an eclectic mix of programming similar to our existing

venues and in particular East Bloc. Initially opening at the weekends, I aim to

develop a midweek calendar in time. My new management team intend to offer a

diverse and welcoming environment for the LGBTQ community consisting of

various elements of the scene, mixing up queer cabaret, bears, lesbian/girl nights,

themed parties and guest LGBTQ club brands.

53. We will trade exclusively as a LGBTQ venue. I will employ a completely new

management team and new staff ultimately answerable to me and me alone. The

music programming will reflect my other two venues, East Bloc and Bloc Bar in

Shoreditch and Camden respectively. I will not operate the ‘after hours’ events (i.e.

from 06:00 – noon) that the previous venue Club 65, and others in the area, were

known for. I will focus on a more community based approach where the venue

becomes as a safe social space for people to meet and enjoy themselves similar

to The Two Brewers in Clapham, The Royal Vauxhall Tavern and The Eagle.

54. Looking ahead, I would like to open up the Goding Street side of the venue as a

daytime and early evening cafe bar to supplement the venue’s primary nightclub

operation and a place for LGBTQ persons to meet and for community and

charitable events to be held.

55. To ensure an LGBTQ crowd we would look to replicate the membership system

that operates well at my Camden venue.

The proposed operating hours

56. Our proposed new opening (maximum) hours are :

a. Monday - Thursday : noon – 02:00hrs

b. Friday & Saturday : noon – 06:00hrs

c. Sunday: 21:00 – 03:00hrs

Licensable activities will end 30 minutes prior to closing time.

57. These proposed hours are significantly less than the 24 hour/7 days a week

premises licence currently held by Club 65/Davdell Ltd. They also prevent the

weekend “morning-after” parties held by other venues (including Club 65) that can

cause issues with our residential neighbours.

58. There will be a last admission time of 04:00hrs at weekends to help prevent

migration from other venues.

59. I should indicate that I am aware that Lambeth’s Statement of Licensing Policy

suggests a terminal hour for “nightclubs” at the weekend of 02:00hrs. The first point

in relation to this (as I refer to earlier in this statement) is that I am not applying, in

substance or reality, to insert a brand new additional nightclub into the Vauxhall

area. Club 65 already holds a premises licence offering 24/7 opening hours. The

future of that licence will be decided at the magistrates’ court appeal hearing in

April 2017 but, I am advised by my lawyers, as things currently stand it is still an

existing premises licence pending that appeal decision.

60. Like all policies, Lambeth’s Statement of Licensing Policy and its recommended

hours policy (set out in Appendix 1) is not, as I understand it, intended to be applied

inflexibly and without exception. The Policy does not, and cannot, predict or cater

for all the exceptional circumstances that may give to all individual applications. I

am aware that the Policy indicates that licensing sub-committees will always

consider the “individual merits” of an application and depart from their Policy in

appropriate circumstances. Indeed, I have on a number of occasions been granted

extensions to premises licences in several other London Boroughs as exceptions

to their own Statements of Licensing Policy. I respectfully suggest that given the

exceptional circumstances of this application, and particularly its background, an

exception to Lambeth’s hours policy can be justified without establishing any

precedent for future applications.

61. The second point is that a premises that closes at 02:00hrs at the weekend in

Vauxhall cannot, by any realistic measure, properly be labelled a “nightclub” at all.

It is, by modern standards, a bar. The characteristics of the night-time economy in

the Vauxhall Triangle are, probably, unique within the United Kingdom. People do

not tend to arrive at nightclubs until close to midnight or afterwards. Therefore a

closure at 02:00hrs does not provide sufficient operating hours to enable a

nightclub in Vauxhall to be commercially viable. In fact, and I know this from my

personal experience of operating clubs in Vauxhall, it would be an impossible

business model to operate with no chances of success. That is why a restriction of

the operating hours to 02:00hrs would entirely defeat the objective of this

application and sadly prevent Bloc South from going ahead at all (unless the

magistrates’ court were to take a different view in April 2017). I very much hope

that can be avoided.

The control measures

62. All licensed premises have an impact on their community. The licensing sub-

committee may think that the critical questions are:

a. Whether the benefits of the venue to the wider community outweigh the

disadvantages;

and,

b. What steps can be implemented to minimise the risk of public nuisance

(particularly to residents) and incidents of crime and disorder.

63. I have considerable experience of operating nightclubs and late night bars in areas

of mixed residential and commercial environments. Vauxhall has, for many years,

been the centre of South London’s night-time economy hosting nightclubs

renowned for operating throughout the night and sometimes the day.

64. I am acutely sensitive to the need to properly control and safeguard our customers

when they are inside our venue, and to assist in a well-controlled dispersal at the

end of the night to protect the reasonable expectations of residents who choose to

live in a vibrant area such as Vauxhall with a long established night-time economy.

65. A revised set of proposed conditions will be submitted before the hearing which

adopt most of the helpful proposals by the responsible authorities: WS/08. I also

exhibit a draft Dispersal Policy as WS/09 which I hope to perfect following input

from the responsible authorities in due course.

66. As part of this application process I have made efforts to engage with residents in

the area and their representatives. I have offered to meet with all those who wished

to take up my offer so that I can explain what I am trying to achieve and to explain

the steps I intend to take to minimise the risk of residents being unreasonably

disturbed.

67. I am encouraged by the fact that none of the individual residents or local Ward

Councillors who made representations in support of the police application to review

Club 65’s licence in August 2016 have made any representations objecting to this

application. Indeed I have spoken at length to individual residents throughout the

consultation process. One particular resident, a gay man who lives very close to

the venue and was heavily involved in objecting to Club 65 when it operated,

offered me his support for the new club once I explained to him what was intended.

68. I am pleased that, exceptionally, not a single valid relevant representation has been

received by the Council from any resident objecting to this application.

69. In any event, I will be taking all reasonable steps to minimise the risk of nuisance

to residents who live nearby and incidents of crime and disorder. These include:

a. Adopting all significant conditions already present on Club 65’s licence

(#Prem832);

b. With a few tweaks, accepting all the additional conditions proposed by the

responsible authorities in their representations to this application;

c. Agreeing to operate in accordance with a written dispersal policy to be

finalised following full consultation with the authorities (a draft is at WS/09)

d. Introducing a new door team supplied by a company with Approved

Contractor Status (the “kitemark” for SIA operators)

Conclusions

70. I have a proven track record of operating LGBTQ nightclubs in Vauxhall without

undermining the licensing objectives and being true to my word. This application

seeks to replace Club 65’s existing licence with a more restricted one that permits

a new type of venue to operate in the railway arch 65 that will serve the LGBTQ

community in Lambeth and London with, I hope and intend, great distinction. I am

aware that no premises licence is permanent and if I do not prove myself over the

coming months then Bloc South’s premises licence can be called in for a review at

any time by any person and, ultimately revoked. However, this will not be required,

because I will spare no effort in ensuring that Bloc South will prove itself to be a

success and source of pride for Lambeth, if the licensing sub-committee permits

me to do so.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed: …………………………………

Wayne Shires

Dated: 23 January 2017

Exhibit 1 – East BLOC Premises Licence

This premises licence has been issued by: Licensing Service Web2 Hillman Copy Street London E8 1FB

PART A – PREMISES LICENCE

Premises Licence Number

LBH-PRE-T-1035

Part 1 – Premises details

East Bloc 217-219 City Road Hackney London EC1V 1JN

WhereWeb the licence is time limited the datesCopy

Not Applicable

Licensable activities authorised by the licence

Recorded Music Other Entertainment Similar to Live or Rec Music or Dance Performance Late Night Refreshment Supply of Alcohol

The times the licence authorises the carrying out of Licensable activities

Recorded Music Standard Hours:

Premises: Mon 00:30-03:30 WebWed 20:00-02:30 Copy Thu 20:00-03:30 Fri 20:00-05:30 Sat 20:00-05:30 Sun 20:00-00:00

Non-Standard Hours:

Public Holidays from end of permitted hours to start of permitted hours the day following

Web Copy Page 1 of 9

Other Standard Hours: Entertainment Similar to Live or Mon 00:30-03:30 Rec Music or Dance Performance Web Copy Premises:

Late Night Standard Hours: Refreshment Mon 00:30-03:30 Premises: Wed 23:00-02:30 Thu 23:00-03:30 Fri 23:00-05:00 Sat 23:00-05:00 Sun 23:00-00:00

Non-Standard Hours:

Public Holidays 23:00 to 05:00 the day following

SupplyWeb of Alcohol Standard Hours: Copy

Premises: Mon 00:30-03:30 Wed 20:00-02:30 Thu 20:00-03:30 Fri 20:00-05:30 Sat 20:00-05:30 Sun 20:00-00:00

Non-Standard Hours:

Public Holidays from end of permitted hours to start of permitted hours the day following

The opening hours of the premises Web Copy Premises Standard Hours:

Mon 20:00-04:00 Tue 20:00-04:00 Wed 20:00-04:00 Thu 20:00-04:00 Fri 20:00-06:00 Sat 20:00-06:00 Sun 20:00-04:00

Web Copy Page 2 of 9

Non-Standard Hours:

Public Holidays from end of permitted hours to start of permitted hours the day following.

WhereWeb the licence authorises supplies ofCopy alcohol whether these are on and/or off supplies

On Premises

Web Copy

Web Copy Page 3 of 9

Part 2 –

Name, (registered) address, telephone number and e-mail (where relevant) of holder of premises licence

Mr Wayne Shires FlatWeb 1 Copy 75 Redchurch Street London E2 7DJ

Registered number of holder, for example company number, charity number (where applicable)

Not Applicable

Name, address and telephone number of designated premises supervisor where the premises authorises the supply of alcohol

Mr Wayne Michael Shires

Personal licence number and issuing authority of personal licence held by designated premises supervisor where the premises licence authorises the supplyWeb of alcohol Copy

Date of Grant: 13 July 2009

Signed:

David Tuitt TeamWeb Leader - Licensing Copy

Web Copy Page 4 of 9

Annex 1 - Mandatory Conditions

Supply of Alcohol

1. No supply of alcohol may be made under the premises licence: (a) At a time when there is no designated premises supervisor in respect of Webthe premises licence. Copy (b)At a time when the designated premises supervisor does not hold a personal licence or his personal licence is suspended.

2. Every supply of alcohol under the premises licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence. 3. (1) The responsible person must ensure that staff on relevant premises do not carry out, arrange or participate in any irresponsible promotions in relation to the premises. (2) In this paragraph, an irresponsible promotion means any one or more of the following activities, or substantially similar activities, carried on for the purpose of encouraging the sale or supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises - (a) games or other activities which require or encourage, or are designed to require or encourage, individuals to; (i) drink a quantity of alcohol within a time limit (other than to drink alcohol sold or supplied on the premises before the cessation of the period in which Webthe responsible person is authorised Copy to sell or supply alcohol), or (ii) drink as much alcohol as possible (whether within a time limit or otherwise); (b) provision of unlimited or unspecified quantities of alcohol free or for a fixed or discounted fee to the public or to a group defined by a particular characteristic in a manner which carries a significant risk of undermining a licensing objective; (c) provision of free or discounted alcohol or any other thing as a prize to encourage or reward the purchase and consumption of alcohol over a period of 24 hours or less in a manner which carries a significant risk of undermining a licensing objective; (d) selling or supplying alcohol in association with promotional posters or flyers on, or in the vicinity of, the premises which can reasonably be considered to condone, encourage or glamorise anti-social behaviour or to refer to the effects of drunkenness in any favourable manner. Web(e) dispensing alcohol directly byCopy one person into the mouth of another (other than where that other person is unable to drink without assistance by reason of a disability).

4. The responsible person shall ensure that free tap water is provided on request to customers where it is reasonably available.

5. 5.1. The premises licence holder or club premises certificate holder shall ensure that an age verification policy applies to the premises in relation to the sales or supply of alcohol. Web Copy Page 5 of 9

5.2. The policy must require individuals who appear to the responsible person to be under 18 years if age (or such older age as may be specified in the policy) to produce on request, before being served alcohol, identification bearing their photograph, date of birth and a holographic mark.

6. The responsible person shall ensure that: Weba) where any of the following alcoholic Copy drinks is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises (other than alcoholic drinks sold or supplied having been made up in advance ready for sale or supply in a securely closed container) it is available to customers in the following measures: • beer or cider:1/2 pint; • gin, rum, vodka or whisky: 25ml or 35ml; and • still wine in a glass: 125ml; and b) customers are made aware of the availability of these measures.

A responsible person in relation to a licensed premises means the holder of the premise licence in respect of the premises, the designated premises supervisor (if any) or any individual aged 18 or over who is authorised by either the licence holder or designated premises supervisor. For premises with a club premises certificate, any member or officer of the club present on the premises in a capacity that which enables him to prevent the supply of alcohol.

7. 7.1 A relevant person shall ensure that no alcohol is sold or supplied for Webconsumption on or off the premises Copyfor a price which is less than the permitted price.

7.2 For the purposes of the condition set out in paragraph 7.1 above - (a) “duty” is to be construed in accordance with the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979; (b) “permitted price” is the price found by applying the formula - P = D+(DxV) Where - (i)P is the permitted price, (ii)D is the amount of duty chargeable in relation to the alcohol as if the duty were charged on the date of the sale or supply of the alcohol, and (iii)V is the rate of value added tax chargeable in relation to the alcohol as if the value added tax were charged on the date of the sale or supply of the alcohol; (c) “relevant person” means, in relation to premises in respect of which there Webis in force a premises licence - Copy (i) the holder of the premises licence, (ii) the designated premises supervisor (if any) in respect of such a licence, or (iii) the personal licence holder who makes or authorises a supply of alcohol under such a licence; (d) “relevant person” means, in relation to premises in respect of which there is in force a club premises certificate, any member or officer of the club present on the premises in a capacity which enables the member or officer to prevent the supply in question; and (e) “value added tax” means value added tax charged in accordance with the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Web Copy Page 6 of 9

7.3 Where the permitted price given by Paragraph 8.2(b) above would (apart from this paragraph) not be a whole number of pennies, the price given by that sub-paragraph shall be taken to be the price actually given by that sub- paragraph rounded up to the nearest penny. 7.4 (1) Sub-paragraph 7.4(2) below applies where the permitted price given Webby Paragraph 7.2(b) above on a dayCopy (“the first day”) would be different from the permitted price on the next day (“the second day”) as a result of a change to the rate of duty or value added tax. (2) The permitted price which would apply on the first day applies to sales or supplies of alcohol which take place before the expiry of the period of 14 days beginning on the second day.

Door Supervision 8. Each individual who is to carry out a security activity at the premises must be licensed by the Security Industry Authority.

Annex 2 – Conditions consistent with the Operating Schedule

9. The licensee will regularly provide appropriate training to their employees in connection with the sale/supply of alcohol including remedial retraining where required.

10Web Appropriate staff will be properly trainedCopy on action to be taken when the fire alarm is activated.

11. All incidents will be recorded in an incident logbook kept at the premises.

12. All emergency exists shall be kept free from obstruction.

13. The licensee will endeavour to reduce any effects of light/sound pollution from the premises.

14. Customers will be discouraged from congregating outside the premises.

15. A supervising adult will be required to accompany children at all times.

16. Soft drinks/Non-alcoholic drinks will be available.

17.Web Staff will request proof of age from anyoneCopy that appears to be under the legal age, ID such as a passport/driver's licence or other formal ID to prevent the sale of alcohol to a minor.

18. A sign reminding customers that alcohol cannot be served to person under the age of 18 shall be displayed on the premises.

19. Signs discouraging noise are to be displayed where patrons enter, exit or queue for the premises.

Web Copy Page 7 of 9

20. Premises to operate a zero tolerance policy to drugs and comply with the Hackney Policy/Council Community Safety Unit Drugs and Weapons Policy. Signs to be displayed informing customers of zero drugs and weapons policy.

Conditions derived from Responsible Authority representations

21.Web A comprehensive CCTV system thatCopy ensures that all areas of the licensed premises are monitored, including all entry points , and which enable frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. All cameras shall continually record whilst the premises are in operation and the recording shall be kept available for a minimum of 31 days with time and date stamping. Recording shall be made available to a duly authorised Council officer or a police officer together with facilities for viewing. The recordings for the preceding 31 days shall be made available immediately on request. The CCTV system shall be operated in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

22. The premises will also, in cooperation with Hackney Police and no later than 3 months following granting of the premises licence, regularly facilitate a premises drug audit using the Ion Itemiser o r similar device.

23. Premises to operate a no baseball caps or hooded tops policy after 2000hrs. Web Copy 24. There will be no alcohol promotions e.g.; 'Happy Hour' or '2 for 1'.

25. DPS or other authorised person shall be a member of the local PubWatch/ClubWatch scheme and attends at least three meetings a year.

26. Measures to be implemented aimed at discouraging anti-social behaviour.

27. Measures to be implemented to ensure that patrons cannot take glass outside the premises.

28. Amount of people coming outside the venue to smoke to be limited to 10 to prevent people spilling into the road.

29. All instances of crime or disorder to be reported by the DPS or responsible member of staff to an agreed contact point responsible member of staff to an agreed police contact point. responsible member of staff to an agreed police Webcontact point. Copy

30. Notices to be displayed at exits requesting the public to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premises and the area quietly.

31. Adequate/improved security lighting outside the premises with consideration being given to light pollution of neighbouring properties.

Web Copy Page 8 of 9

32. Documented search policy to be implemented and displayed stating that everyone entering the venue will be searched as a condition of entry.

33. Toilets to be checked hourly after 2000hrs.

34.Web The installation of sound limiting devicesCopy (device type to be approved by the Pollution Team) to all music systems. The limiting devices should be set to ensure inaudibility in all residential premises, a certificate of compliance should be submitted to the pollution Team. The limiters should be locked and only accessible by management.

35. No charging of bins between 2300 hrs to 0700 hrs.

36. A staff member who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when it is open to the public.

37. A minimum of one SIA registered door staff per 75 customers or part thereof shall be on duty whilst the premises are in use under the Licence. Additional Male and Female SIA door staff to be employed at the premises when required on the basis of an operational risk assessment. Identity badges will be displayed at all times and SIA numbers, full names, address, contact telephone numbers, times worked and duty performed to be entered into an Weboccurrence book and made available Copy to police immediately upon request.

38. The Sound limiter device should be recalibrated annually by a competent person and the subsequent calibration certificate should be submitted to the Pollution Control Team for their approval

Annex 3 – Conditions attached after a hearing by the licensing authority

Not Applicable

Annex 4 – Plans

PLAN/LBH-PRE-T-1035/03/10/2012 Web Copy

Web Copy Page 9 of 9

Exhibit 2 – The Bloc Group Presentation

THE BLOC GROUP

Welcome to the Bloc Group, three venues in Camden and Shoreditch serving the local LGBTQ communities. All operated and overseen by Wayne Shires, Each venue plays host to regular weekly nights for a diverse and varied crowd from across the LGBTQ spectrum.

East Bloc

Opened in 2010 by Wayne Shires, East Bloc has in the following six years become an integral part of East London’s social scene, hosting regular weekend nights for a diverse and varied crowd from across the LGBTQ spectrum. With a 6am licence at the weekend it is the default destination for a broad mix of people, always attracting a good crowd who enjoy its intimate layout and friendly staff. It recently hosted the Transtastic party to raise funds for Trans Sister Ra- dio, a community led LGBTQ radio sta- The Bloc

The Bloc is the sister venue to East Bloc, opened in August 2015 and one of only two LGBTQ venues in the borough of Camden. It hosts a regular lesbian night as well as other promotions ranging from commercial pop and RnB to men-only bear nights. Currently operating Friday, Saturday and Sunday it has proven popular as a north London social LGBTQ space. Her Upstairs

Situated above The Bloc and operated by the former manager of the now closed Black Cap, George Anthony, Her Up- stairs hosts a series of alternative queer cabaret nights in homage to the much missed Cap. In contrast to the darker club aesthetic downstairs Her Upstairs is all things camp, and with the closure of Madam Jojo’s a much needed injec- tion of the quirky and wonderful into London’s nightlife. Open seven nights a week the bar has proven a great success with themed nights throughout the week with homegrown and international guests from the cabaret and performance world.

THE BLOC GROUP DIRECTOR

Wayne Shires

Wayne Michael Shires (DOB 29-03-65) has worked in the leisure industry for nearly three decades starting at the WAG club in Soho, then as manager and licensee at Bar Industria on Hanover Street, W1 before moving to Cafe de Paris until the early nineties. At the Astoria Group he operated his first gay venue, Sub Station Soho and from here opened a sister club, Sub Station South in Lambeth as operator and licensee. Throughout the nineties he was involved in large scale LGBT park events including Gay Pride for nine years at Brockwell Park and later his own Summer Rites festivals first in Kennington Park and then returning to Brockwell.

From 1998 until 2008 he was the owner and DPS of Crash Club in Vauxhall, as well as opening and operating the neighbouring club, Area before selling both and moving to East London.

In 2006 he was awarded a Police Borough Commander’s Award for community service for co-founding the VGBF (Vauxhall Gay Business Forum) through which he worked with Lambeth Council and the police to tackle the prevalence of the drug GHB in the LGBTQ community.

In 2012 Wayne relaunched Summer Rites Festival in Shoreditch Park that held licence for 5,000 capacity. The following year he took event to the Tobacco Dock venue in Wapping.

Since 2010 he has operated as the DPS East Bloc night club as well as Bloc Bar in Camden for the last year where he successfully secured a late licence in a SPA area. BLOC SOUTH

The proposals seeks to provide a high quality multi-use space for the LGBTQ community, offering an eclectic mix of programming similar to our existing venues. Ini- tially opening at the weekends with the aim of developing a midweek calendar in time, the management see the weekends as being a diverse and welcoming various elements of the scene, mixing up queer cabaret, bears, girls nights, themed parties and guest club brands.

We propose to take over the promotional and operational side of the venue trading exclusively as a LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) venue. We would operate under a completely new management team with new licence managers and DPS (Mr. Wayne Shires).

The programming would reflect Mr. Shires’ other two venues, East Bloc and Bloc Bar in Shoreditch and Camden respectively, avoiding the ‘after hours’ events that the venue and others in the area known for. We would focus on a more community based approach as a safe social space for people to meet and enjoy themselves similar to The Two Brewers in Clapham, The Royal Vauxhall Tavern and The Eagle.

Looking ahead we would like to open up the Goding Street side as an daytime and early evening cafe bar.

To ensure an LGBTQ crowd we would look to replicate the membership system that Mr. Shires has operates at his Camden venue.

Suggested opening times would be:

Monday - Thursday 9pm - 2am Friday 10pm -6am Saturday 10pm -6am (Last admission 4am. Alcohol sales until 5.30am for both weekend nights.) Sunday 9pm -3am THE VENUE

Existing Club 65 frontage Proposed bar cafe entrance to Bloc South

Bloc South floor plans Lgbtq london

London’s LGBTQ Scene

There has been much discussion in recent months of the closure of many of Lon- don’s nighttime venues. Of the 430 that traded between 2007 and 2015 only 245 are still open and the gay scene has not escaped these losses. In the past two years iconic venues in East London, Islington, Vauxhall, Camden and the West End have closed, including The Joiners Arms, The George & Dragon, G-A-Y/Astoria, Shadow Lounge, Madam Jojos, Kazbar, The Nelson’s Head and in Vauxhall most of the original gay venues are now gone.

The importance of the night time economy is belatedly being recognised in the ap- pointment of Amy Lame as ‘Night Tsar’ to reverse the decline of a sector that is worth £26bn per year to London’s finances. More specifically, and importantly for LGBT people, are the losses directly affecting the scene with less and less option of safe, well run venues to go to. London has long been hailed as one of the world’s most open and gay-friendly cities, setting the pace with globally renowned club brands. For any gay visitor arriving today the current state of the LGBT nighttime scene would certainly not reflect past glories or reputation.

With this spate of LGBTQ venue closures in the past couple of years and the ensu- ing negative media attention a new community oriented venue would be a great addition to the Vauxhall Gay Village as well as the wider London scene.

Exhibit 3 – Letters of Support

Patrick Lilley 36 B St Michaels St London W2 1QX Friday, 20 January 2017

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN – LAMBETH LICENSE APPLICATION BLOC SOUTH – WAYNE SHIRES

I am writing to offer to speak in support of your endeavour to open a new LGBT venue in Lambeth – Bloc South in Vauxhall. A timely response to the announcement that two more Lambeth venues, Kazbar in Clapham and the Hoist in Vauxhall have both closed. Both venues had run for 20 years. This means that the future needs of the community for safe spaces is not guaranteed.

I am an event organiser, community activist (LGBT Coordinator for Westminster CLP) with a 20+ year history of organising events in Lambeth and have witnessed the innovation and professionalism Wayne Shires has brought to LGBT venues in Lambeth, Westminster, Camden and Hackney.

Wayne Shires and the Bloc group of venues have ab exemplary record of managing safe spaces for the diversity within our community. I have also witnessed the LGBT venue economy’s recent decline in Lambeth. Wayne Shire of the Bloc group has the track record and professional history to run Bloc South in a way that adds to public safety. This application is also not for a new premises, it was a club before and the venue many years ago did host LGBT events without incident (before it went straight) and changed and it can do again as Bloc South with appropriate security, management and good relationship with neighbours, the environment, police and the council.

DIVERSITY As an organiser one priority of mine is to ensure that the LGBT scene reflects cultural and ethnic diversity of our community and boroughs where I operate. I am proud to acknowledge for the last 3 year I have been part of the teams who received of the BOYZ club award for those events that have catered to the LGBT BAME community In addition I was a privileged to be guest Board Member of UK Black Pride for 2 years. The events attract a significant number of LGBT people with Asian, Caribbean and African heritage. But I no longer organise regular events in Lambeth.

RECENT LAMBETH IN Lambeth In 2015 and 2016 I have organised annual events supported by funding from NHS Lambeth via the Brixton Reel Film Festival created specifically for the vulnerable Caribbean LGBT community in Lambeth.

The festival asked me to create events as no spaces exist that cater to this population which can experience poor mental health access, homophobia from own community and racism from society and also with the LGBT community. I was specifically tasked to create a pop up event to allow outreach to occur because this community is hard to reach and has almost no social spaces in the borough now.

The event supported by NHS Lambeth titled “Too Black Too Queer” was a mix of poetry, films and music in 2016 and Urban Wotever 2015 - were created and hosted in Lambeth as part of Brixton Reel Festival to allow wellness messages to be filter through at the gatherings I organised. They have been very successful.

If the decline on the number of venues in Lambeth continues it will be increasing hard to do this. I am confident that Wayne Shires and Bloc South will, as previously, allow us to create events that cater to the diverse needs of Lambeth residents in a way no others are.

INTERNET There has been ongoing debate in our community about the role & safety of the internet. A club like Bloc South is safer than the internet or outdoor meetings spaces (there have been murders in parks in Clapham and in homes following internet “dates”) because there is security and CCTV etc.

The LGBT people living increasing atomised online lives, more people living alone and not building the social and personal relationship they need to live happier & healthier lives. Clubs within our community are far more than dance spaces. People meet the friends they keep for life so many having moved to London to live open lives, to find a place build their homes and lives. With the continuing prevalence of HIV it’s vital that club spaces exist so that a community can exist.

London & especially Lambeth have lost a shocking number of LGBT venues. But what is perhaps not acknowledged is the loss of mainstream venues which hosted BAME LGBT events. Events I run have been forced to relocate to North London where I currently organise the biggest multi-ethnic LGBT event in the UK having previously run the event at Hidden a Lambeth venue that was knocked down for redevelopment.

As the license is considered I’d suggest that no extra burden would be added to the area by having a new dedicated LGBT venue but will add to the economy, social life and quality of life and safety of Lambeth and its diverse residents and businesses.

So I am very pleased to speak up for reversing the decline in Lambeth’s venues that cater to LGBT residents by opening a new LGBT club in the area. It also helps stimulate the local economy.

Patrick Lilley

11 Cole House, Baylis Road, London SE1 7AZ [email protected] 07719 790261

January 18 2016

Re Wayne Shires’s licensing application for Bloc South at 65 Albert Embankment SE1 7TP

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to support the application made by Wayne Shires to open an LGBT- focused venue called Bloc South at 65 Albert Embankment.

I write in my capacity as a journalist covering London’s LGBT+ nightlife and performance scene – for Time Out London between 2009 and 2013 and for NotTelevision.net since 2013 – and as a campaigner involved in issues around LGBT+ spaces in London through membership of groups such as RVT Future, the Black Cap Foundation and the Queer Spaces Network.

Many LGBT+ spaces have closed in recent years and fewer have opened. I believe this to be to the detriment of what remains a marginalised and vulnerable community, and to the detriment of London as a whole.

As a member of RVT Future, the campaign to secure the Royal Vauxhall Tavern as a site of LGBT+ community and culture, I have been greatly heartened by Lambeth’s positive attitude towards this issue and its recognition of the value of well-run community-oriented LGBT-focused venues in the borough.

Mr Shires has an excellent record of operating such venues and engaging with the wider LGBT+ community and performance scene. I believe Bloc South would be an asset to Vauxhall, to Lambeth and to London and therefore support this application.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Walters

Bloc South - Late Representations

From: tom whelehan Sent: 06 January 2017 13:27 To: Licensing Subject: South Bloc application/Wayne Shires

Hello,

This letter is on behalf of Mr. Wayne Shires and his current application for a new LGBTQ venue, South Bloc.

It has been a pleasure to know Mr. Shires both personally and professionally as a stalwart businessman and entrepreneur within both the LGBTQ and greater London community.

Wayne Shires is a highly professional owner and operator with a proven track record of running successful venues.

These provide jobs, income, entertainment and a safe haven for not only LGBTQ residents and attendees but a friendly open-door policy for non-LGBTQs of all age groups who can enjoy the wide variety of cultural tastes that London has on offer.

All of Mr. Shires previous and current venues: Sub Station, Crash, Summer Rites, Area, East Bloc and The Bloc have become mainstays on the London scene. Mr. Shires is a mover and shaker whose business ventures have added noticeably to the local economy and, unlike other venues, has never caused problems for the local residents.

As a Lambeth council resident and in my professional capacity as a business college academic and language instructor to international students, I support fully the addition of another LGBTQ venue under the direction of Wayne Shires. It will be a welcome expansion to a part of London that has continued to grow and re-invent itself as an international, multi-cultural area that celebrates and encourages diversity.

Thank you for taking my opinions into consideration.

I look forward to Mr. Shires receiving approval for his application and welcome any queries you may have.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Whelehan

From: Stewart Turnbull

To: Licensing

Cc: Patrick Lilley

Subject: Licence application submitted by Wayne Shires for Bloc South in Vauxhall, Lambeth

Date: 30 December 2016 12:34:37

Stewart Turnbull

## Kay Road

Stockwell

London

30-12-16

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN/LICENSE APPLICATION LAMBETH

Re: Licence application submitted by Wayne Shires for Bloc South in Vauxhall,

Lambeth

With reference to the above, I would like to submit this letter of support for Mr Shires' application.

I am a gay man who has lived in Lambeth for the past 25 years. I have witnessed many changes over this time - some good, some not so! However, over the last year, three venues that catered to the LGBTQ community have closed down. A fourth, The Royal Vauxhall Tavern has been engaged in a long running campaign to stay open. LGBTQ venues are few and far between and, arguably, by providing safe spaces, they play a far more significant role in our community than in some others. They act as unofficial community centres as well as places to socialise or dance. So, I am very happy to hear plans for a new LGBT venue in Lambeth, Bloc South in Vauxhall.

Wayne Shires is a well regarded LGBTQ business professional who has, and continues to operate, well respected venues and events across London, notably East Bloc and The Bloc Camden. He will bring those skills to Bloc South.

Wayne has a strong connection with Lambeth, having successfully operated venues and events in the Borough for over 20 years: Sub Station South in Brixton [my personal favourite!], as well as Crash & Area in Vauxhall. He also created and promoted the LGBT festival Summer Rites which was also based in Lambeth (starting in Kennington Park and moving to Brockwell Park). His venues and events have always played host to diverse and inclusive programmes , including LGBT BAME events.

Wayne is respected within the LGBTQ community in London for providing safe, professionally operated and well programmed venues. At a time when many LGBTQ venues are closing due to rising rents, costs and redevelopment, Wayne has managed to open and operate venues that contribute to the wider community and local economy. This, surely, has got to be a good thing, not just for Lambeth but also for the LGBTQ residents and visitors to the borough too.

I repeat that London, as well as Lambeth, is currently losing venues all over that provide a safe and well managed environment for the community. I know of many LGBTQ people who travel from their home areas - often outside of the borough - to places like Lambeth to find social spaces that are safe. It is precisely because I believe/know Lambeth to be a froward thinking, visionary and LGBTQ friendly borough that makes me such a proud resident.

And, it is as a proud Lambeth resident that I'd like to strongly express my support for Mr Shires' application. Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of this matter. Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss this any further.

With very best wishes

Stewart Turnbull

From: Peter Tatchell Sent: 16 January 2017 15:13 To: Licensing Subject: LGBT Venue in Lambeth

Lambeth Licensing

Leader, Lambeth Council

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I emailed this submission to you in mid December but did not receive an acknowledgement. Perhaps you did not receive it for some reason? In any case, I am emailing it again today. Please confirm receipt. Thank you.

In the last two years London has lost a number of LGBTQ venues and this is has nowhere been more noticed than in the borough of Lambeth. Three venues closed and others that hosted diverse LGBTQ one-nighters have also been closed and redeveloped.

I am pleased to see efforts made by Wayne Shires and his team, to open a new LGBTQ venue in Lambeth, Bloc South. I think the community and the council should welcome and support his efforts.

Wayne has been operating safe venues and festivals for the LGBTQ community for many years, with most of them in Lambeth (Crash and Substation South in Brixton) and the Summer Rites festival in Kennington and Brockwell Parks.

Lambeth has a very long history as home to a vibrant LGBTQ community going back decades. With this in mind, it is welcome to see venue operators like Wayne Shires opening a new venue in the heart of Gay Vauxhall. Not only will this create a safe space LGBTQ residents in Lambeth and it will also attract visitors from other parts of London, so it will be good for the local economy too.

Wayne already operates LGBTQ venues in Camden (The Bloc) and Hackney (East Bloc). I know him personally and can vouch for his well-run LGBTQ bars and clubs.

I trust Lambeth Council licensing will join with the LGBTQ community and their friends to welcome Wayne and Bloc South to the borough.

Thank you and best wishes,

Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation

Peter Tatchell

Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation

From: David Tinney To: Licensing Subject: Bloc South Date: 21 December 2016 22:46:47

Lambeth Licensing, I am a long term resident of Lambeth and a director of a Lambeth residents association. I would like to express my full support for the licensing of Bloc South in Vauxhall.

Thank you David Tinney

Get Outlook for iOS

Exhibit 4 – Letter of Support from Jonathan Simpson

From: "Simpson, Jonathan (Councillor)" Date: 19 January 2017 at 16:56:43 GMT To: "[email protected]" Subject: Bloc Bar, Kentish Town Road, NW1

Dear Wayne

Further to our conversation I am writing as Camden's Cabinet Member covering the Night Time Economy to confirm that Bloc Bar has been a very well run venue since it opened.

As far as I am aware Bloc Bar has been managed well. You have an excellent relationship with the licensing team in the Metropolitan Police and have liaised well with the local community. I understand that there have been no complaints since the bar has been launched - which is impressive and testimony to how you have managed the venue.

I clearly cannot comment on the merits of any licensing application elsewhere - but from a local perspective I can confirm that you are doing well and are running good venues for our LGBT Community.

Kind regards,

Jonathan Simpson Cabinet Member for Community Safety & the Voluntary Sector Labour Councillor for King's Cross ward

Twitter: @CamdenJonathan

This e-mail may contain information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected. This e- mail is intended for the addressee only. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

Exhibit 5 – Letter of Support from Lord Brian Paddick

THE LORD PADDICK

07734 102000 23 January 2017 [email protected]

FAO House of Lords Lambeth Licensing Sub-Committee Westminster London SW1A 0PW I have been asked by Wayne Shires to comment on his application to open a new venue in Vauxhall catering for the LGBTQ community.

I have known Wayne for about 15 years and I have always found him to be a reasonable, sensible and sound individual. I was introduced to him by a former partner of mine (now deceased). I have attended his venues in the past and found them to be well run. I have no other association with him.

The sub-committee will be aware of trends in the LGBTQ community in recent years including the closing of many LGBTQ venues in London in general and South London in particular. There has also been a move to arranging to meet people ‘on line’ with the inherent dangers associated with not meeting in a neutral location ﬁrst. In my opinion, there is a real need for ‘safe spaces’ for members of the LGBTQ community to meet and socialise and I believe Wayne’s application is timely and desirable.

Yours sincerely

Brian Paddick

Exhibit 6 – Companies House Extract

Exhibit 7 – The Guardian Newspaper Articles

23/01/2017 Save Fabric: our clubs are under threat as never before | Bill Brewster | Opinion | The Guardian

Save Fabric: our clubs are under threat as never before Bill Brewster British clubs are being scapegoated for society’s drug problems, and strangled by licensing laws and spiralling rents. If we’re not careful they’ll disappear

‘Nightclubs can be liberating, transformative spaces. For gay men and women, a nightclub is often the ﬁrst step they make into a safe space as they come out.’ Photograph: Alamy

Friday 26 August 2016 12.55 BST

laying for the ﬁrst time at a great club like Fabric will always be a special moment, but P playing there on the opening Saturday and meeting your future wife that night make it an extra special place for me. I proposed to her a few months later on the same danceﬂoor at midnight on 31 Dec 1999.

When my in-laws, a retired headmaster and French teacher, wanted to see what I did for a living, the staﬀ at the club opened the VIP room especially for them, gave them a bottle of champagne on the house and escorted them down to the DJ booth. My mother-in-law loved dancing there: “It’s so dark no one can see how old I am!”

Then there were the many times I turned up at 10pm to play the warm-up set in room 1, only to ﬁnd managing director Keith Reilly playing his bag of records with all the enthusiasm of a kid with a new toy. Fabric is no ordinary club. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/26/savefabricclubsdrugslicensinglawsrent 1/2 23/01/2017 Save Fabric: our clubs are under threat as never before | Bill Brewster | Opinion | The Guardian But even though this feels personal there are wider issues that go beyond one club in EC1 that is currently shut with its future looking uncertain following two tragic deaths and the suspension of its licence. Over the past 10 years we have lost nearly 50% of our club spaces. The change in licensing laws has meant the free entry bar has aﬀected paid entry to nightclubs, as has the rise of festivals, but spiralling rents, intransigent councils and avaricious developers have also played a part.

Nightclubs can be liberating, transformative spaces. For gay men and women, a nightclub is often the first step they make into a safe space as they come out. Nightclubs have been the motor that has driven the best of British fashion for over 30 years. Great clubs – and DJs – can define the sound of a city. Bristol, with its bass-heavy sound, produced Massive Attack, Tricky, Portishead and Roni Size. Glasgow’s fierce electronic eclecticism is a direct product of the Sub Club, Optimo and the sadly recently closed Arches.

Of course, they are also great places to go and get hammered or pull, but nightclubs have been responsible for transforming previously unloved urban areas. Fabric (and Turnmills, also now closed) brought life to soporiﬁc Clerkenwell, a place where it had previously been impossible to buy a bottle of water late at night without breaking into a shop. Now it hums with activity. The recently closed Dance Tunnel and its sister venue Dalston Superstore performed the same function in E8, while Peckham’s Bussey Building is the fulcrum of a newly buzzing scene in south-east London. Most importantly they are incubators for new musical styles and movements. From disco to hip-hop and house, there is not a single genre of dance music that would exist today without without the testing ground of the nightclub danceﬂoor. Given the fact that we export far more music than steel or cars these days, it should be valued and cherished.

Governments and arts councils fall over themselves to lavish grants fatter than a diva’s waistline on opera, but anything remotely connected to the black community, from jazz to electronic music, is either starved or derided. In 1985, in the wake of inner-city riots, government minister Oliver Letwin urged Margaret Thatcher not to give money to black businessmen, claiming “new entrepreneurs will set up in the disco and drug trade”. More recently, a government spokesman told the BBC: “The current regulations strike a fair balance between making sure we have music entertainment for the public and preventing crime and disorder, whilst keeping the public safe.”

Drug-taking is endemic in British society and there’s not a shred of evidence anywhere to suggest closing nightclubs will somehow either lower drug harm or eliminate consumption. It’s a smokescreen for a drug policy that has consistently failed over a 50-year period. Short of performing a colonoscopy on every clubber, it’s impossible to eliminate all drug use in clubs (and, indeed, anywhere else). Only last December, Fabric’s drug policy was described by district judge Allison as a “beacon of best practice”. Given the fact that drugs are rife in prison, where theoretically some form of security exists, what chance do clubs have to control this issue?

We could be bold, like Amsterdam and Berlin, which regard nightlife not as a social disorder issue but a tourist attraction.

Or we could be like New York, where neoliberal policies have all but destroyed what was once the most musically innovative and vital club scene in the world. If we want our cities to be modern, vital, vibrant, inclusive spaces that are available to everyone and not just a gaggle of oligarchs, we need to save Fabric.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/26/savefabricclubsdrugslicensinglawsrent 2/2 23/01/2017 Fabric closure sparks alarm about future of London's nightlife | Music | The Guardian

Fabric closure sparks alarm about future of London's nightlife Islington council’s decision to revoke club’s licence is condemned across political spectrum

Clubbers at Fabric nightclub in Farringdon, central London. Photograph: PYMCA/UIG via Getty Images

Matthew Weaver and Haroon Siddique Wednesday 7 September 2016 19.24 BST

The closure of Fabric, one Britain’s best known nightclubs, has prompted alarm about the future of the clubbing scene and concerns that it is being driven underground as councils attempt to gentrify their areas.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Islington council decided to revoke Fabric’s licence after a review prompted by the drug-related deaths of two 18-year-old patrons within nine weeks this summer. In a decision backed by the Metropolitan police, it claimed searches of people entering the club and supervision within was inadequate, ignoring protests by leading dance music ﬁgures and a 150,000-strong petition demanding the venue be saved.

Supporters vowed to pursue legal and political avenues to keep it open and there was condemnation from across the political spectrum, from the novelist Irvine Welsh to the rightwing thinktank the Adam Smith Institute, as well as from drug safety campaigners.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/sep/07/fabricclosurealarmfuturelondonnightlife 1/4 23/01/2017 Fabric closure sparks alarm about future of London's nightlife | Music | The Guardian

Fabric nightclub in London. Photograph: David Mirzoeﬀ/PA

More than half of London’s clubs have closed in the last eight years, according to the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who said this decline had to stop “if London is to retain its status as a 24- hour city with a world-class nightlife”.

Welsh, whose books including Trainspotting and Ecstasy chronicled the drug and clubbing scene in the 1990s, said the closure of Fabric was the “beginning of the end of our cities as cultural centres, and indeed as entertainment centres in the traditional sense”.

He said concerns about drugs were being used as a pretext to close clubs, claiming Fabric was the “least druggy club in London”.

He told the Guardian: “It’s all about property development. In the epoch of neoliberalism and corporate elites, entertainment is being privatised, and will increasingly take place with gated communities, owned and rented out by largely foreign investors.

“The cities need to be kept as sterile and unthreatening as possible for the new overseas owners of them, who can then get trashed behind closed doors or in the mini-club facilities built into their apartment complexes.”

Welsh suggested that future clubbing would take place in shanty towns. “The tent cities and makeshift communities that will grow up on the outskirts of cities, like in the developing world, will be the places to go for a proper party,” he said.

Welsh’s comments were echoed by the editor of Mixmag, Duncan Dick.

“Clubs find themselves in a perfect storm of gentrification and development,” he said. “Although clubs offer massive cultural benefits to the area, are what makes a city, give a city its character, property is king.”

He compared the plight of Fabric to that of the Glasgow superclub the Arches, which closed last year, where he said a luxury hotel was being developed. Dick claimed that more people had died from drugs at a fast food restaurant around the corner from the Arches and yet the club was scapegoated.

While there has been a boom in dance music festivals, Dick said clubs were where “DJs cut their teeth and new genres like dubstep emerge”.

He added: “There’s plenty of people dancing and making music but it will move further out as the developers push them out. Maybe in 20 years the clubbing hotspot will be Luton. You’re not going to stop people wanting to go out and dance but right now it’s looking as if London’s claim to be the centre of nightlife in the world is being eroded.” https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/sep/07/fabricclosurealarmfuturelondonnightlife 2/4 23/01/2017 Fabric closure sparks alarm about future of London's nightlife | Music | The Guardian The DJ Goldie threatened to melt down his MBE in protest at the closure. Goldie, whose real name is Clifford Joseph Price, told Channel 4 News on Wednesday: “This country was built on being different and being out there musically and from an artistic point of view. “I’m wondering whether or not the likes of me, the likes of Jazzie B, Norman Jay, Pete Tong for that matter, should just trade our MBEs in, melt them down and put them in a pencil-pusher’s coffee, so it can taste a little bit sweeter for him today, so he feels more successful in killing counter-culture and culture itself.”

Drugs charities warned that closing Fabric would actually increase the risk for clubbers by moving them into unregulated environments.

Danny Kushlick, director of Transform, said: “It’s a disaster. The point is, if there was some risky drug taking going on there then you throw harm reduction services at it. This is a long- established principle since we introduced needle exchanges, free condoms. This decision ﬂies in the face of all our experience of dealing with drug use.”

He blamed the council’s decision on the failure of the licensing process to prioritise public health.

Katy McLeod, director of Chill Welfare, a social enterprise dedicated to keeping clubbers safe, suggested the recent deaths at Fabric were likely to be linked to the emergence of high- strength ecstasy pills rather than any management failings.

“Fabric was probably one of the gold standard clubs in that they had awareness of drug problems,” she said. “People will [instead] go to house parties, underground raves, that have no licensing, drug policies.

Flowers left outside Fabric. Photograph: David Mirzoeﬀ/PA

“Shortly after the Arches closed, there was a cluster of deaths. There was intelligence to suggest many of them weren’t in nightclub settings; they were in house party settings.”

McLeod warned that making searches more stringent was not necessarily the answer as it merely encouraged “pre-loading” – people taking all their drugs in one go before entering the club.

Sam Bowman, the executive director of the Adam Smith Institute, said the decision to revoke Fabric’s licence was a disgrace.

He said: “The objective should be to reduce harm to drug users and the way to do that is to let them know what they’re using. That means testing drugs that are circulating in clubs and warning drug users if potentially dangerous batches are around – a scheme that has been piloted by some clubs in the past.” https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/sep/07/fabricclosurealarmfuturelondonnightlife 3/4 23/01/2017 Fabric closure sparks alarm about future of London's nightlife | Music | The Guardian London’s mayor, who unsuccessfully campaigned to keep Fabric open, conceded that steps needed to be taken to ensure that clubbing was safe. Khan said: “The issues faced by Fabric point to a wider problem of how we protect London’s night-time economy, while ensuring it is safe and enjoyable for everyone.”

He conﬁrmed plans to appoint a “night tsar” modelled on Amsterdam’s “night mayor” to do more to promote and protect London’s nightlife, including clubs and venues.

Khan said: “No single organisation or public body can solve these problems alone – we all need to work together to ensure London thrives as a 24-hour city, in a way that is safe and enjoyable for everyone.”

The club’s owners temporarily shut the venue in August to allow an investigation to take place after the death of the second teenager, who collapsed outside the venue. The other died after he fell ill inside the venue in late June. The club said it had operated without incident in the previous two years.

Responding to the council’s decision, the owners said: “Closing Fabric is not the answer to the drug-related problems clubs like ours are working to prevent and sets a troubling precedent for the future of London’s night-time economy.”

An Islington council spokesman said: “The decision of Islington council’s licensing committee on Fabric’s licence was based solely on the evidence, submissions and representations put before the committee. “To suggest anything else is simply wrong. For the avoidance of doubt, Islington council is not the owner of the building and has no ﬁnancial interest in the site.”

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/sep/07/fabricclosurealarmfuturelondonnightlife 4/4

Exhibit 8 – Revised Proposed Conditions

Summary of Revised Application Following discussions with Local Authority and consideration of representations

Off Sales of Alcohol withdrawn in agreement with Public Health representation

Conditions Accompanying original Application and amendments annotated

CCTV

1. The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises.; All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the preceding 31 day period.

2. A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV shall be on the premises at all times when the premises are open to the public. This staff member shall be able to show Police recent data or footage with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

INCIDENT LOG/REGISTER

3. An incident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of the London Borough of Lambeth or the Police, which will record the following:

a) All crimes reported to the venue;

b) All ejections of patrons;

c) Any complaints received concerning crime and disorder;

d) Any incidents of disorder;

e) All seizures of drugs or offensive weapons;

f) Any refusal of sale of alcohol.

4. The Designated Premises Supervisor shall ensure that the following details of any incident are added to the register within 24 hours of an incident occurring:

o Date of incident o Time o Location o Persons concerned o Summary of incident

CONTACT TELEPHONE

5. A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publically available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

DRUGS POLICY

6. The premises must operate a zero tolerance policy to drugs

POLICE FORUMS

7. A member of the premises management (whether the DPS, manager or owner) must attend all Police Licensing Forums organised by the local police when invited.

LIGHTING

8. Adequate security lighting outside the premises shall be provided (with consideration being given to light pollution of neighbouring properties).

SEARCH POLICY

9. A documented search policy must be implemented and displayed stating that everyone entering the venue will be searched as a condition of entry.

10. A metal detecting wand is to be employed to search all persons entering the premises.

11. Toilets must be checked hourly after 2000hrs until close on Thursday Friday and Saturdays. (See Condition 57 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

DOOR SUPERVISORS

12. A minimum of two SIA registered door staff per 100 customers or part thereof shall be on duty whilst the premises are in use under the Licence on Fridays and Saturdays. Additional Male and Female SIA door staff to be employed at the premises when required on the basis of an operational risk assessment. Identity badges will be displayed at all times and SIA numbers, full names, address, contact telephone numbers, times worked and duty performed to be entered into an occurrence book and made available to police immediately upon request. (See Condition 58 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

13. All door supervisors at the premises shall be supplied by a company with Security Industry Authority Approved Contractor Status.

14. None of the door supervisors involved in the public disorder incident at the premises on 24 July 2016 may be employed at the premises.

15. Except in exceptional circumstances, door supervisors are to adopt a “hands in pockets” policy with any cause to lay hands on fully documented in the incident register. (See Condition 59 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

16. Security personnel employed at the premises will enter their full name, date of birth, address valid phone contact details, SIA badge number, employing company, along with the times that they are working in a log/register upon commencement of their work at the premises. The Designated Premises Supervisor/manager at the time will be responsible for ensuring that this is done and for confirming the security staff’s details and permissions to work, via the public SIA website facility. This log book shall be made available for inspection on request by an authorised officer.

17. The premises management must instruct security staff and other staff members to assist police and/or local authority officers with any enquiries they make in the execution of their duties.

18. The premises management itself will directly employ the security personnel or security company responsible for supplying personnel. External promoters will not be allowed to use their own security personnel. The DPS and premises management must be responsible for the security staff at their premises.

19. Door supervisors are to use walkie talkie or other forms of electronic communication devices to communicate with each other including the use of ear pieces to ensure that communications can be properly heard and understood at all times the premises are open to the public.

20. All reasonable efforts are to be employed by the premises management and security personnel to keep customers quiet and orderly prior to entry and upon leaving the premises.

LAST ENTRY

21. There shall be a last entry to new customers at 04:00hrs on Friday-Saturday nights.

22. Notwithstanding the last entry condition, persons will be permitted to temporarily exit and leave the premises to smoke in the controlled smoking area.

ID SCAN

23. All customers must provide identification to be scanned into an electronic identification system (such as Scannet) as a condition of entry.

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE & TRAINING

24. The premises licence holder is to provide the police and licensing authority with a document setting out the management structure and the various responsibilities each officer holds, including but not exclusively, the person(s) responsible for checking whether SIA staff badges were up to date, the handling and/or escalation of serious incidents and the monitoring of door staff. (See Condition 60 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

25. The premises licence holder shall ensure that all staff are given regular training supervised by the DPS in relation to the Licensing Act 2003 and conflict management. Trainings records must be kept at the premises and refresher training will be given to all staff at least every six months.

26. The incident register is to be reviewed monthly by the Designated Premises Supervisor and management. (See Condition 61 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS & RISK ASSESSMENTS

27. The Designated Premises Supervisor shall undertake a risk assessment of any significant promotion or event (as defined below) using the MPS Promotion/Event Risk Assessment Form (696) or an equivalent and provide a copy to the Metropolitan Police Service and the Licensing Authority not less than 14 days before the event is due to take place.

28. Where an event has taken place, the licensee shall complete an MPS After Promotion/Event Debrief Risk Assessment (Form 696A) and submit* this to the Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Authority within 14 days of the conclusion of the event.

NOTE: METROPOLITAN POLICE DEFINITION OF A ‘SIGNIFICANT EVENT’ This definition relates to events that require a Promotion/Event Risk Assessment Form 696. A significant event will be deemed to be: any occasion in a premises licensed under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, where there will be live performer(s) – meaning musicians, DJ’s MC’s or other artiste; that is promoted in some form by either the venue or an outside promoter; where entry is either free, by invitation, pay on the door or by ticket. *Submission of electronic documents by e-mail is preferred.

29. The details (including company name, address, telephone and SIA registration details) of any company or agency providing door supervisors to the premises for a significant event, or the details of any individual employed by the premises directly as a door supervisor, must be provided to the police no less than 14 days before the date they begin working on the premises. Following checks the police may, if they have a good reason, veto the provider or individual door supervisor in the interests of preventing crime and disorder at the premises and the premises must comply with the veto. (See Condition 62 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

PRIVATE PARTIES

30. The premises management must provide the contact name and details (including telephone number and address) of the organiser of any private party at the premises at least 14 days before the event. Following checks the police may, if they have good reason, veto the holding of the private party in the interests of preventing crime and disorder at the premises and the premises must comply with such veto.

31. Any such party must be for pre-invited guests only and a guest list must be kept of all attendees, including, name, address and contact telephone number(s). These records must be kept for a minimum of 12 months and made immediately available to police and local authority officers upon request.

EXCLUSIONS

32. The premises management are to permanently exclude any person found with weapons or illegal drugs at the premises as well as customers known to have contributed to crime or serious disorder in the premises. The premises management are to take all reasonable steps to make security personnel and aware of the identities of excluded persons. (See Condition 63 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

33. Sonny Whittaker, Thomas Fuller and Artur Moreno are not to be employed at the premises in any capacity. (See Condition 64 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

Preventions of Public Nuisance

NOTICES

34. Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the area quietly.

NOISE LIMITER

35. A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system set at a level determined by and to the satisfaction of a specialist acoustician, so as to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to local residents or businesses. The operational panel of the noise limiter shall then be secured by key or password and access shall only be by persons authorised by the Premises Licence holder. The limiter shall not be altered without prior agreement with the satisfaction of the specialist acoustician. No alteration or modification to any existing sound system(s) should be effected without prior knowledge of the specialist consultant and records of any approvals shall be available for inspection by the Environmental Health Officers. No additional sound generating equipment shall be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter device.

36. No noise generated on the premises, or by its associated plant or equipment, shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

LITTER

37. During the hours of operation the licence holder shall ensure sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising or accumulating from customers in the area immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and or washed and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements by close of business. (See Condition 65 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

ODOURS

38. No fumes, steam or odours shall be emitted from the licensed premises so as to cause a nuisance to any persons living or carrying on business in the area where the premises are situated. SMOKING

39. Notices shall be prominently displayed at any area used for smoking requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and use the area quietly.

40. The premises licence holder shall ensure that any patrons smoking outside the premises do so in an orderly manner and are supervised by staff so as to ensure that there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the public highway.

41. Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, eg to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them unless in an authorised external area.

DISPERSAL

42. The premises is to have a written dispersal, entry and ejection policy which must be available for inspection by a police officer or authorised officer of the council on request. No staff are to be employed at the premises without prior training in relation to these policies. (See Condition 66 below proposed by Robert Gardner)

43. Customers shall not be permitted to remove glasses or bottles from the premises.

Public Safety

MEDIC

44. A qualified medic (of at least Emergency Medical Technician level) shall be employed and onsite when the premises is open to the public for licensable activities (unless the police give written agreement for this condition to be waived on a particular occasion)

Protection of Children from Harm

45. A challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cars such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS hologram.

46. A sign reminding customers that alcohol cannot be served to person under the age of 18 shall be displayed on the premises.

Further conditions proposed by Robert Gardner

47. The premises licence holder will join a licensing forum, which is known as Vauxhall One. Agreed

48. The licence holder should join the full package of the Business Crime Reduction Partnership. Agreed

Public Safety

49. Drug use deterrent awareness signage to be displayed in the premises including toilets. Agreed

50. Drug use searches in the toilets. Agreed

51. Ejection of people found with drugs or using drugs Agreed

52. Ejection of those selling drugs and their information recorded down and sent to the police for further action. Agreed

53. The premises shall prominently display signage informing customers at the entrance/exit - “To leave quietly and to respect your neighbours”. - Stating that CCTV is in operation and police have instant access to the footage. Agreed - Any person found carrying weapons or illegal drugs will be permanently excluded and the police will be informed. Agreed

Prevention public nuisance

54. Smoking Area – limit to no more than 20 customers and this area is to be actively monitored by SIA. Agreed

55. No customers shall be allowed to leave the premises while carrying open drinking vessels ('open' shall be taken to mean an opening of the original manufacturers sealing of the vessel) or to consume alcohol on the public highway. Agreed

Protection of Children of Harm

56. Challenge 25 signage to be placed around the premises. Agreed

Amendments to original Conditions above

57. Toilets must be checked hourly after 2000hrs until close on Monday - Sunday. Agreed

58. A minimum of:- • two SIA registered door staff per 100 customers or part thereof shall be on duty whilst the premises are in use under the Licence on Monday – Sunday Friday and Saturday from 8pm until 30 minutes after the premises closes • one SIA registered door staff per 100 customers or part thereof shall be on duty whilst the premises are in use under the Licence on Sunday to Thursday

Additional Male and Female SIA door staff to be employed at the premises when required on the basis of an operational risk assessment. Identity badges will be displayed at all times and SIA numbers, full names, address, contact telephone numbers, times worked and duty performed to be entered into an occurrence book and made available to police immediately upon request. (Agreed subject to amendments in red)

59. Except in exceptional circumstances, door supervisors are to adopt a “hands in pockets” policy with any cause to lay hands on shall be fully documented in the incident register. This however does not prevent searches taking place. Agreed

60. The premises licence holder is to provide the police and licensing authority with a document setting out the management structure and the various responsibilities each officer holds, including but not exclusively, the person(s) responsible for checking whether SIA staff badges were up to date, the handling and/or escalation of serious incidents and the monitoring of door staff. The manager is to ensure that the above checks are routinely recorded every day, with detailed comments and actions and are available for inspection by a responsible council officer or metropolitan police. Agreed

61. The incident register is to be reviewed weekly by the Designated Premises Supervisor and management. An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to an authorised officer of the Council or the Police, which will record the following:

(a) all crimes reported to the venue (b) all ejections of patrons (c) any complaints received concerning crime and disorder (d) any incidents of disorder (e) all seizures of drugs or offensive weapons (f) any faults in the CCTV system or searching equipment or scanning equipment (g) any refusal of the sale of alcohol (h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service. Agreed

62. The premises management must provide the contact name and details (including telephone number and address) of the organiser of any private party at the premises at least 14 days before the event. Following checks the police may, if they have good reason, veto the holding of the private party in the interests of preventing crime and disorder at the premises and the premises must comply with such veto. The manager should also do their own checks in conjunction with the police making checks to ensure that their chosen organiser is not connected with antisocial behaviour including criminal activity. Agreed

63. The premises management are to permanently exclude any person found with weapons or illegal drugs at the premises as well as customers known to have contributed to crime or serious disorder in the premises. The premises management are to take all reasonable steps to make security personnel aware of the identities of excluded persons and this information must be shared via the BCRP channels. Agreed

64. Paulo Moreno, Artur Moreno, Dora Morena, Sonny Whittaker and Thomas Fuller are not to be employed at the premises in any capacity. They are not to be on the premises during licensable activities. Agreed as amended in red

65. During the hours of operation the licence holder shall ensure sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising or accumulating from customers in the area immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and or washed and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements by close of business and a further monitor of the outdoor spaces be made 30 minutes after closing to ensure that additional litter or waste has not taken place from patrons leaving the venue, if that is found to be the case then this should be cleared before leaving the venue. Agreed

66. The premises is to have a written dispersal, entry and ejection policy which must be available for inspection by a police officer or authorised officer of the council on request. No staff are to be employed at the premises without prior training in relation to these policies, records of training must be signed by staff and management, maintained available for inspection by a police officer or authorised officer of the council. The written policy should be given to the responsible authorities ahead of the licensing. Agreed

Additional Condition following consideration of all representations

67. This premises licence will have no effect if Wayne Shires ceases to own a majority share of Davdell Ltd (the leaseholder), Bloc South Ltd (the premises licence applicant), or Bloc South Trd Ltd (the trading company) unless all responsible authorities are consulted on, and agree with, any replacement majority shareholder. Agreed

68. No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until premises licence number Prem 832 Version 14/01499/PRMMIN (or such other number subsequently issued for the premises) has been surrendered and is incapable of resurrection. Agreed

Exhibit 9 – Dispersal Policy

BLOC SOUTH DISPERSAL, ENTRY AND EJECTION POLICY

This Dispersal Policy has been implemented to assist in the promotion of the four licensing objectives, in particular crime and disorder, public nuisance and public safety. This document is subject to change from time to time as it is a working best practices document that may change through discussions with interested parties and more specifically with our neighbours.

Management are aware of the potential for neighbourhood noise and disturbance at the time that customers leave at closing time. Management have agreed to implement a written dispersal policy to move customers from the premises and the immediate vicinity in such a way so as to cause minimum disturbance or nuisance to neighbours. Every effort will be made to minimise any potential nuisance and it will be the responsibility of all members of staff to support this policy.

Winding-down Period

1. Management have put into place an effective “wind-down” procedure in order to facilitate prompt closure of the premises and orderly dispersal pattern by customers.

2. At closing key members of trained staff are directed to work in the customer areas near the front entrance and exit. Customers are informed that the premises are about to close and are directed towards the nearest exit.

3. The premises will promote the gradual departure of customers and will ensure the control of the flow of customers by carefully managing the cloakroom and lobby areas of the premises.

4. Internal lighting levels will be increased during the last 30 minutes of trading.

5. Music will be played at a lower level gradually reducing until it can’t be heard.

6. The winding down period outlined above ensures that customers disperse gradually prior to cessation of trade.

7. We are proud of the area and we will endeavour to keep the area clean and attractive for our patrons and our neighbours. This means dealing with debris outside our frontage that may have nothing to do with us but in the interests of maintaining good standards in the area we will still clear it up.

Door Supervisors to assist with dispersal

8. Door supervisors at the agreed levels shall be maintained until the premises are closed and shall be in position early enough in the evening to ensure that procedures for promoting public safety and preventing public nuisance are effective

9. Door Supervisors are trained to know the following:-

a. where the nearest mode of public transport is b. details of taxis and a number is available at the reception c. general local knowledge so that if customers decide to move on the door staff can help them with directions. d. Bloc South Security are assigned key roles and these are split between supervising the dispersal and general control of the vicinity. e. The door supervisors are easily identifiable in striking uniforms and before each night there will be a team briefing to allocate the roles. f. There is an end of night team meeting to discuss any ways that the premises may improve the dispersal of patrons and any actions points are added into each supervisors job cards.

Notices

10. Notices shall be displayed at customer exits and in prominent positions requesting that patrons respect the needs of local residents and leave the premises and area quietly.

11. All employees are given appropriate instructions and training to encourage customers to leave the premises and the area quietly.

Incident Reports

12. All incidents of crime or disorder or nuisance are to be reported by the designated premises supervisor or responsible member of staff.

13. The licence holder shall ensure that the details of all complaints are recorded in an occurrence book.

Taxi Service

14. Staff will ensure taxis are available for customers so that they can wait inside the premises. and Bloc South staff will ensure that car doors are not slammed and will ensure that taxi drivers keep engines turned off if they are parked outside.

15. Arrangements are made with all local taxi firms for taxis to stop at a safe stopping place when collecting patrons. A recommended list of local taxi companies is available to customers. Any taxi companies that regularly visit our premises will be notified in writing that the use of car horns outside the premises is only allowed in accordance of Rule 1121 of The Highway Code. Door supervision staff will take note of drivers that do not comply with this rule and management will notify the relevant taxi companies. Repeat offenders will result in that taxi firm being excluded from the recommended list of taxi providers for the premises.

16. Bloc South staff are trained to be aware of the location of taxi ranks, bus stops and hire car offices and advise customers accordingly.

17. Taxi drivers will be asked to remain in their vehicles and radios should not be played at a volume likely to disturb the neighbourhood.

18. At the end of the shift employees will say goodbye to each other inside the premises and arrange for lifts or taxis to collect them at a convenient and safe stopping point away from residential properties

Entry

19. Subject to the following rules all visitors to licensed premises are to be admitted irrespective of their colour, race, religion, sex or disability provided that:

• They are not considered to be underage. • They are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. • They meet the dress standards. • They meet any local licensing requirements. • They abide by the rules set by management. • They don’t refuse to be searched. • They have not been previously banned. • They are not subject to an exclusion order. • Their behaviour at the time of admission is not likely to cause a disturbance, create disorder or be offensive to any customer or employee.

EJECTIONS

20. When it becomes necessary to eject customers from the venue the following points are to be taken into account on every occasion:

• The safety of everybody is paramount. This includes employees, customers, bystanders, yourself and indeed the customer/s that is/are being ejected. • Except in exceptional circumstances, door supervisors are to adopt a “hands in pockets” policy with any cause to lay hands on shall be fully documented in the incident register. This however does not prevent searches taking place.

Overall

21. Bloc South staff shall be in place at the exits to wish customers farewell and ask them to leave quietly and shall answer any questions regarding transport availability. Bloc South will not tolerate departing customers congregating outside of the premises. Bloc South staff will at all times be aware of activity outside of the premises and endeavour by their presence to minimise bad behaviour. They should be aware of potential areas of difficulty (nearby residences) and provide a presence in those places to minimise potential problems. Whilst carrying out their legitimate duties outside of the premises all staff are trained not to behave in a manner likely to disturb the neighbourhood, conversation and laughter must be quiet and any communication is usually digital through an earpiece.

22. Bloc South will attach the utmost importance to the careful investigation and prompt resolution of any complaint made in respect of the running of the premises. Particular emphasis will be placed on building and maintaining close links with local residents including hosting meetings where necessary to allow our neighbours to raise any issues and for those issues to be quickly resolved. The telephone number of the premises will be provided to all our immediate residential neighbours.

Bloc South will constantly review our Dispersal Policy and respond quickly to the needs of our neighbours.

Report prepared by Adrian Studd

Bloc South

Arch 65 Goding Street, Vauxhall, SW9 7EQ.

(Premises formerly known as Club 65)

Report by Adrian Studd

Independent Licensing Consultant

Introduction.

1. I have been instructed to consider a proposal for a new licence for the premises currently known as Club 65, Goding Street, Lambeth following revocation of the premises licence. The premises are currently closed under interim steps pending an appeal of the review hearing decision due to be heard in April 2017. I will also comment on the representations made against the proposed replacement premises, Bloc South, with a view to assisting the licensing sub-committee on the likely impact of the new venue on the licensing objectives.

2. Due to the challenges faced by the former operator, Artur Moreno, aired at the review proceedings in August 2016, and the consequent loss of confidence in him and his management team by the licensing authority, it is proposed that a new operator, Mr Wayne Shires, will take over the operation of the premises. I am informed that Mr Shires intends to completely change the style of the operation to reflect that of premises that he currently runs very successfully elsewhere in London. The previous management and security teams, including Artur Moreno, Dora Moreno Sonny Whittaker and Thomas Fuller will have no role in opening or operating the new premises.

3. I have had lengthy and substantial dealings with Club 65 in relation to the summary review proceedings it faced in both 2014 and 2016. However, I never met or had any contact with Mr Paulo Moreno, who I understand is the brother of Artur Moreno, and

held a significant financial interest in the premises. Nor did I need to. Paulo Moreno was never involved in the day to day operation or management of Club 65 in so far as I witnessed. I always viewed Artur and Dora Moreno as being the “operators” of Club 65 and individual representatives of the corporate premises licence holder, Davdell Ltd.

Personal summary – Adrian Studd.

4. I retired from the police service on 2nd November 2012 having completed 31 years exemplary service with the Metropolitan Police in London. Between January 2012 and my retirement I was employed as the Chief Inspector in charge of licensing for the London Olympic Games 2012. In this role I headed up a team of officers with responsibility for supervision of licensing compliance at all the Olympic venues, including the Olympic park. In addition I was responsible for ensuring that any associated events were properly licensed, sufficiently staffed and operated in accordance with the licensing legislation and best practice in order to ensure the safe and effective delivery of the Olympic Games. In addition to leading my team I visited and worked with both the Olympic park management and many other venues, reviewing their policies and procedures and ensuring that the Games were delivered safely and securely. The success of this operation not only protected the reputation of the MPS but provided positive benefits for the profile of the MPS and the United Kingdom. I have been awarded an Assistant Commissioners Commendation for this work.

5. Prior to this role, between Jan 2002 and January 2012, I was employed first as an Inspector and then as a Chief Inspector on the MPS Clubs and Vice Unit (Now SCD9 Serious and Organised crime command). My responsibilities over this period focussed on licensing and included day to day supervision of the licensing team that had a London wide remit to support the Boroughs with licensing activity. Providing both Overt and Covert support for policing problem licensed premises across London. My team worked with premises when licensing issues were identified in order to address these problems through the use of action plans in order to raise their standards. Where this failed I would support the Boroughs with evidence for use at review hearings if required.

6. I devised and implemented the MPS strategy 'Safe and Sound' which seeks to improve the safety of customers at licensed premises by reducing violent and other crime, in particular gun crime and the most serious violence. I also developed the Promoters Forum and risk assessment process, together these initiatives contributed to an overall reduction in violence in London of 5% and of the most serious violence and gun crime at licensed premises by 20% whilst I was there.

7. From 2004 until 2008 my role included representing the MPS and ACPO licensing lead both in London and Nationally. In this role I developed key partnerships with industry, NGOs and Government departments in order to improve the standards at licensed premises. I sat on the BII working party and helped develop the national training for Door Supervisors and worked with the SIA to successfully introduce the new regime within London. I sat on a number of Government working parties and worked closely with the alcohol harm reduction team on identifying best practice and ensuring this was used both within London and nationally by police and local authorities.

8. I have been involved with Best Bar None for a number of years and have successfully helped a number of boroughs implement the initiative. I am a trained Purple Flag and Best Bar none assessor and until my retirement sat on the Board for Best Bar None in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. For the last five years I have been in charge of licensing for the Notting Hill Carnival, the largest street carnival in Europe. During this time I have contributed to a reduction in violence overall at the Carnival and delivered increased seizures of illegal alcohol, reduction of unlicensed alcohol sales and a reduction in alcohol related violence. In addition to the above I have attended a large number of internal MPS training and qualification courses, I am trained in conducting health and safety risk assessments and hold the National Certificate for Licensing Practitioners, issued by the British Institute of Inn keeping (BII).

9. Following my retirement I established ‘Clubsafe Services Ltd’ to provide independent compliance support and advice for premises requiring a local authority licence. Since then I have provided evidence gathering services, advice and support to a broad range of licensed premises on a variety of issues, including crime and disorder, street drinking, rough sleepers and age related product issues. This work has involved premises that 3

benefit from a variety of local authority licences including alcohol on and off licences, betting premises licences and late night refreshment. I have provided expert witness evidence at both local authority and appeal court hearings on a number of occasions.

Background

10. As a result of a tragic death outside the premises in 2014 an expedited review was brought against the premises. Following a thorough investigation over an 18 month period, and a trial that took place in February 2016, there were no convictions of any door supervisors or any other staff in connection with this death.

11. Following the review in 2014 a number of conditions were imposed aimed at addressing the issues identified. These included a review of the policies and procedures, the completion of a risk assessment for promoted events using form 696 and compulsory ID scanning of customers.

12. The premises re-opened in September 2014 and operated until July 2016. On 24/07/16 an incident occurred at the premises where four males attempted to force their way into the premises, this resulted in a fight involving door supervisors and the males outside the premises. Despite the obvious provocation, the door supervisors over-reacted and acted in an unacceptably violent manner towards the males. The males left but subsequently returned and one of them discharged a firearm at door supervisors standing outside the club’s entrance door.

13. The premises management and staff fully supported police throughout the investigation, ensuring police had been called following the initial disturbance when the males attempted entry and by providing vital pieces of information to assist in the arrest of the suspects such as the registration numbers of vehicles involved, forensic exhibits, the mobile phone and ID card of one of the male suspects and CCTV evidence. This incident was the trigger for the summary review

14. It is clear that the males who arrived at the club were intent on violence from the outset. They were outside the premises loading up with drink and possibly drugs before

attempting to intimidate the door supervisors to allow them entry to the premises. It is unknown at this stage why they wanted to get in so badly, even after the fight two of the males attempted to persuade the door supervisors to let them in.

15. This incident highlights the challenges that the premises faced over this period. The operation of the premises and in particular the music policy, promotions and hours of operation at the premises determine the type of customers attracted. In turn the customers and their behaviour will dictate the security and door supervision required.

16. The incident on 24th July 2016 highlighted the fact that the existing management was not sufficiently robust to manage the security at such a premises; they had allowed a completely unsuitable individual to manage the door and the door supervisors and failed to ensure that these individuals acted in a professional, responsible manner.

17. It is widely recognised that some gang members and others with a propensity to violence can seek to attach themselves to certain styles of urban music such as Bashment and hip hop. They attempt to gain entry and exploit any areas of weakness in security at premises promoting such events. It is clear to me that this has been at the root of the problems at Club 65 and while the management have been committed to managing these challenges they have failed to do so.

18. The incident on the 24th July, and previous incidents and community concerns, makes clear that the business model needs root and branch change to ensure that the type of individuals who have caused the issues in the past are not attracted to the premises in the future. This will mean that security risks are reduced and the present challenges and the associated problems eliminated.

19. Key changes required are: • A new style of operation, music policy and promotions that attract a different clientele, • Revised hours and elimination of post 06.00 hours events • New management structure with a proven track record and clear business plan,

• New and experienced DPS acceptable to police and licensing authority, • New Security Company to provide door supervisors or directly employed SIA door supervisors.

The new application for Bloc South

20. I have been asked to consider the application, business plan and management proposed for a new licence at the premises that will submitted by Wayne Shires for a premises to be called ‘Bloc South’. I understand that in the event an appropriate licence is granted that permits Bloc South to operate as a proper nightclub, the existing and more permissive “Club 65” licence will be surrendered. In other words, the new licence will replace the old one.

21. Although I do not know Mr. Shires personally I am well aware of his excellent reputation in the licensing industry over many years including experience in owning and running premises in Vauxhall close to Club 65. I would expect that he is already known to both local police and Lambeth licensing authority through his proven track record locally.

22. Mr Shires runs premises that focus on providing a safe and enjoyable experience, primarily for the LGBT community. He currently operates East Bloc in Shoreditch and Bloc in Camden and I am not aware of any issues that have caused concern at either premises.

23. I visited both premises and met with Mr. Shires on Saturday 5th November 2016. I found both premises to be well run, well maintained and providing a safe, relaxed and professional environment for customers. There is a varied offering, for example at Bloc in Camden there is a cabaret bar upstairs that provides live entertainment and a dance floor and bar on the ground floor. East Bloc is a basement club with a number of different areas, light show and dance floor.

24. At both premises I spoke with door supervisors, bar staff and managers. All were knowledgeable and professional. The security in particular provided an approachable customer focus while maintaining a professional approach. Both premises are very

different from the existing Club 65 in their style of operation, music policy and security and will not attract the type of customers who have proved so challenging in the past.

25. Mr Shires outlined his plans for the new premises that will be similar to the two he already runs. He is very familiar with the Vauxhall area, nearby clubs and the premises itself and has a clear vision of what will fit in with the local community and compliment the area. I have no doubt that the customers attracted to the premises will not be those with a propensity towards violence or gang membership seen previously and will not cause any of the issues that have been previously seen at Club 65.

26. The management and security from Club 65 including Artur Moreno, Sonny Whittaker and Thomas Fuller will have nothing to do with the new club and will not be permitted to work there in any capacity. I have been informed that Paulo Moreno, despite only holding a financial interest in the business and now living permanently in Portugal, has also agreed not to enter the premises when licensable activities are taking place. The long period of closure at Club 65, which is still in force, will ensure that there is a clean break between the old Club 65 and the new Bloc South.

27. It is important to ensure that the new business, operating schedule and conditions are clearly documented to reflect the new premises and ensure that the necessary provisions are in place and enforceable to promote the licensing objectives to a high standard. In addition to visiting the existing premises owned by Mr Shires I have reviewed the proposed business plan, operating schedule and conditions.

28. An important aspect of the new application is the reduced hours. The new proposals provide for a significant reduction in hours in comparison to the present operation that is permitted to open 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The premises will now close at 02.00 hours Monday to Thursday night, 06.00 Friday and Saturday night and 03.00 Sunday night. This ensures that the controversial after-hours events that have taken place on a Saturday and Sunday morning in the past, and that have caused concern to residents and the authorities, cannot take place under the proposed new licence. This will significantly

reduce the impact on residents who go about their normal business over the weekend daytime hours.

29. The proposed conditions provide a robust structure of control to ensure the premises prevents crime and disorder and promotes the licensing objectives. They reflect best practice in the following areas:

I. CCTV is installed and maintained to a high standard,

II. The DPS, Wayne Shires, will ensure all incidents are recorded in the incident log,

III. A telephone number is available for members of the public to contact the manager when the premises are open.

IV. Zero tolerance to drugs at the premises,

V. Management attendance at police licensing forum,

VI. Everyone entering the premises to be searched and use of a search wand,

VII. The use of door supervisors to be on a risk assessment basis Sunday to Thursday with at least 2 door supervisors per 100 customers on a Friday and Saturday night. Strict guidelines on the behaviour and supervision of door supervisors.

VIII. All customers to be scanned in using an approved scanning device and scanning device used to record details of banned individuals to ensure they are unable to gain entry and to enforce challenge 25 policy.

IX. Documented management structure and staff training,

X. Submission of Form 696 at least 14 days prior to any promoted events taking place.

XI. Restrictions on private parties including police veto if appropriate,

XII. A qualified medic working at the premises whenever it is open to the public,

30. The above measures provide a robust framework for the new premises that will have an LGBT and community focus and be owned and operated by Mr. Shires, a well-respected and experienced operator, with knowledge of the local area and communities. I am confident that new premises will promote the licensing objectives to a high standard and provide positive benefit to the local community and night-time economy in Lambeth.

The representations

31. I have additionally been instructed to comment on the representations received against the proposed new premises. There is no need for me to comment on the many supporting representations from Lambeth residents and members and representatives of the LGBT community as they speak for themselves. I will confine my observations to those that object to the application in its current form. It is significant that no valid representation has been received from any objecting resident.

32. Public Health Licensing. Under their General Comments they raise concern that ‘research suggests that increased hours of alcohol sales are associated with increased alcohol consumption, increased alcohol related injuries and increased alcohol related harm’. This does not represent a full picture of the available research or my experience; there are many licensed premises that are open for long hours yet suffer from few, if any, alcohol related problems. Of much more importance is the style of operation of the premises and quality of management. The proposed premises is aimed at LGTB customers who tend to go out late and stay late, the hours are later rather than longer.

33. Premises that are exclusively alcohol led drinking environments, commonly referred to as High Volume Vertical Drinking (HVVD), where customers are admitted into the premises, encouraged to consume large quantities of alcohol in a short space of time and then

ushered out into the street are likely to produce high levels of intoxication. This has been shown to lead to the excessive drunkenness and associated crime and disorder such as that referred to in this representation. Such premises regularly only trade for 3 or 4 hours a night.

34. A premises that has a genuine attraction beyond the consumption of alcohol, is well managed and run and regulated by stringent conditions is no more likely to generate alcohol related crime and disorder by remaining open until 06.00 than if it only remained open until 02.00. In the case of this application there is a significant reduction in the hours proposed when compared to those of Club 65 which was licensed for 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The hours proposed by Mr. Shires for Bloc South are a significant reduction.

35. The review evidence clearly indicates that the previous style of operation, promotions and failing management were the direct cause of the crime and disorder that led to the reviews and revocation of the licence. Of particular concern were the morning promotions that took place from 06.00 and impacted on nearby business, passers-by and residents. Under the proposed hours it would not be possible for any events to take place or the premises to be open after 02.00 Monday – Thursday night, 06.00 Friday and Saturday night (with last entry at 04:00hrs) and 03.00 Sunday night. This will ensure that these events, that were responsible for so much of the previous crime and disorder, cannot take place in the future and no one will be attracted to the premises after 04:00hrs at weekends.

36. With regard to the recommendations made by Public Health it is my view that the premises operating as proposed with Mr Wayne Shires in control, together with the conditions that have been agreed, will not add to any cumulative impact in the area and therefore the hours proposed will not have a negative impact on the licensing objectives.

37. Since the hours now being applied for are significantly less than the hours currently permitted on the existing Club 65 licence even if Public Health’s assumptions are taken to be correct, the grant of this licence and concurrent surrender of the Club 65 licence is more likely to reduce the issues of concern to Public Health rather than increase them.

The Council will also be aware that there is no general “public health” licensing objective in the Licensing Act 2003.

38. I agree with Carolyn Sharpe that the provision of off-sales is unnecessary and it has now been removed from the application.

39. Community Safety Team. The community safety team raise three concerns. The first relates to the hours requested, in particular those on a Friday and Saturday night. They are outside the hours recommended in the Lambeth Licensing policy. I would repeat my observations made above in relation to this new licence replacing (not adding to) the more expansive one utilised by Club 65. This application must also be seen in the context of a 300 capacity premises that will be operating in an area that, the police state, has a licensed capacity of around 10,000 people over a weekend period (according to Pc Paul Robinson’s witness statement supplied in the August 2016 review proceedings). This includes three premises that are licensed 24 hours a day, one that is open without licensable activity 24 hours a day and another that is open until 06.00, all of them are close by (according to the police representation from David Smith). The operation of the proposed premises is so different from Club 65, and the proposed hours of operation so reduced, that it is highly unlikely that there will be issues such as those seen previously. A look at Mr Shires’ track record, and the two premises that he currently operates (which I have seen in operation), provides a current and accurate picture of what is likely to take place if this application is granted. As far as I am aware there have been no concerns or issues raised about crime and disorder at any of the premises that Mr Shires has operated previously or currently. Indeed I am aware of a number of highly positive comments being made about their operation, including one by Cllr Jonathan Simpson the Cabinet Member responsible for the Night Time Economy in Camden.

40. The second concern refers to generic problems encountered at some poorly run premises and also to historical issues that were suffered when the premises was operated as Club 65. The best measure of how the proposed premises will operate must be the other premises currently owned, and operated in a similar style, by Mr. Shires. This evidence is clear that the issues referred to do not occur and are highly unlikely to occur if this application be approved. There are clear policies to address areas of concern such as discarding drinking vessels; there are no off-sales and no containers of drink of any kind 11

will be permitted to be removed from the premises even to the smoking area so these issues cannot take place. Other matters such as Street cleaning and dispersal are covered in operating policies that reflect best practice.

41. The police consider that there has been a considerable reduction in public nuisance since Club 65 closed. This is referred to in the statement of PC Paul Robinson where he states that some 10,000 people visit Vauxhall over a weekend. The Community Safety Team representation raises concerns that permitting this application will allow for this nuisance to start up again. It must be considered that this premise has a capacity of only 300 customers and in the context of the 5000 visiting Vauxhall on a Friday or Saturday night is just 6% of the total. While in the past Club 65 generated issues disproportionate to its size it is clear that the problems taking place were due not to the presence of a small 300 capacity club per se but specifically to Club 65 and the issues of poor management, types of events and the customers who were attracted to the premises then. The new operation is a premises targeting an LGBT customer base run by Mr Shires and with a substantial number of conditions agreed that eliminate the risk of a repeat of the issues seen previously. Experience has shown that the type of clientele who attend dedicated LGBT venues tend to be better behaved than customers of other late night venues.

42. In my view the concerns raised regarding Mr Paulo Moreno’s previous involvement with the premises are not supported by evidence but in any event he and Mr Artur Moreno will have no part in the proposed operation which will see Mr Shires as the majority shareholder, DPS and in complete control of the operation and management of the premises. I think it is far-fetched (and unsupported by any evidence) to assert that Wayne Shires will risk his long-standing and high reputation in the night time industry by putting aside his better judgment in deference to the wishes of Paulo Moreno even if he retains a financial interest in the premises.

43. Police Representations. Public Safety. The individuals named as being of concern to police will not be present on the premises at any time it is open for business or have any role in operating the premises. This will be enforced through the agreed conditions.

44. Prevention of Crime and Disorder. Police refer to: “adding another similar premises to the area” and state that it will lead to cumulative impact on the area. This is an inaccurate

comparison. The new proposed venue is not “similar” to the old Club 65. In fact it is difficult to think how it could be more different. It will be offering an entirely different environment and so attract a very different crowd to reduced hours and will be operated by an extremely professional operator in Wayne Shires. Nor is the proposal “similar” to existing large venues in Vauxhall. For example nearby ‘Fire’ nightclub has a capacity of 1,500 which is five times that of the proposed premises, it is open 24/7 and it is a generic nightclub holding the type of problematic events that generate crime and disorder that were previously associated with Club 65 but can longer take place there. The proposed premises is in no way comparable to that. It is not necessary to speculate on how the premises will run, or the impact it will have, there are two examples of such premises, run by Mr Shires, in London that currently trade without issue and without generating crime and disorder. This provides clear evidence that this proposal will support the licensing objectives, will not add to cumulative impact in the area and will add a depth of diversity to the night-time economy.

45. Whilst guidance does indicates that licensing authorities may take into account the negative cumulative impact of a premises even in the absence of a special policy, such a course should, with respect, be based on clear evidence supported by detailed statistics and fair comparisons rather than based on mere assertions. The sub-committee will be aware that following substantial statutory consultation on the revised Statement of Licensing Policy adopted by Lambeth Council for the period 2014-2019, the Council decided not to introduce a cumulative impact policy in relation to the Vauxhall area (in contrast to Clapham High Street). This decision would have been based on a fair consideration of any evidence supplied by Lambeth Police and others in relation to the Vauxhall area.

46. The police appear to suggest that the existing premises in the area generate unacceptable levels of crime and disorder and for this reason a new application, for a small premises that all the evidence suggests is unlikely to generate significant levels of crime and disorder, should be refused. If this is correct it is an unacceptable way of dealing with such problems. If the existing premises generate unacceptable levels of nuisance and crime and disorder then the police have the powers to deal with them through the recommended stepped approach of enforcement including licence reviews if required. To

take the view that new premises, that evidence shows will be well run and targets a very different customer base, should be prevented from opening while taking no action against premises currently causing nuisance, crime and disorder is unacceptable. Increasing the diversity of premises and customers is a positive step that improves an area. A well-run premises will highlight further the issues caused by those premises that do not implement the same rigorous approach and support the licensing objectives; it is these other premises that should be subject to enforcement activity by the responsible authorities rather than the police deterring a better run premises to operate in the area for the benefit of the LGBT community.

47. Robert Gardner, Licensing Principal Officer. Robert Gardner has proposed a number of sensible conditions that, I understand, the applicant has agreed to, with minor amendments, with the exception of the “policy hours”. In my experience of working with a considerable number of club operators both as a Chief Inspector of Police and in my current role as an independent consultant, a “nightclub” that has to shut at 02:00 has little or no chance of being commercially viable or, indeed, being considered to be a proper nightclub at all. This is particularly so in Vauxhall and with the LGBT community in particular with its late opening culture.

Conclusion

48. It is my opinion that the hours proposed by Mr Shires for Bloc South are appropriate for the proposed premises, taking into account the evidence from the other premises he owns and the measures and controls he intends to introduce. The new venue is unlikely to contribute in any significant way to the increased crime and disorder or public nuisance in the Vauxhall area. Additionally, I am in no doubt whatsoever that, if granted, the new premises licence for Bloc South is likely to have far less impact on the licensing objectives than the existing licence utilised by Club 65 that it will replace.

I understand that my duty is to the sub-committee and this report has been prepared in compliance with that duty. All matters relevant to the issues on which my expert evidence is given have been included in this report. I believe the facts I state in this

14 report are honest and true and that the opinions I have expressed are correct to the best of my judgement. The fee for this report is not conditional on the outcome of the case in anyway whatsoever.

Adrian Studd Independent Licensing Consultant. 20/01/17.