The Licensing Sub-Committee (4) of Westminster Council met on Friday 22 April 2022 to consider a review of the premises licence for Ma Dames, a nightclub at 58 Porchester Road, London W2 6ET. After hearing extensive evidence and representations from various parties, the Sub-Committee decided to revoke the premises licence.

Review of Premises Licence for Ma Dames

The Licensing Sub-Committee decided to revoke the premises licence for Ma Dames, located at 58 Porchester Road, London W2 6ET, due to persistent issues relating to the prevention of public nuisance and crime and disorder. The decision was made after a comprehensive review of the licence, prompted by numerous complaints from local residents and representations from the Metropolitan Police Service and Environmental Health Service.

The review application was brought by the Licensing Authority on the grounds of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, and the Prevention of Public Nuisance. Evidence presented highlighted a significant increase in complaints from residents in the vicinity of the premises, including Westbourne Park Road and Celbridge Mews, regarding noise, anti-social behaviour, littering, urination, and the use of nitrous oxide canisters.

Arguments for Revocation:

• Persistent Public Nuisance: Numerous residents, including Charlie Avis, Erika Pilkington, Alex Greenway, and Shamir Dawood, testified to prolonged periods of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour emanating from the premises. Ms. Pilkington stated she would leave her accommodation at weekends due to noise, and Mr. Dawood indicated that nuisance from the premises was a contributing factor in his family moving out of their home. Councillor Maggie Carman and Councillor Emily Payne, representing local residents and the South East Bayswater Residents' Association (SEBRA) respectively, echoed these concerns.
• Crime and Disorder: The Metropolitan Police Service, represented by Mr. Michael Rice, supported the review, citing several criminal incidents linked to the premises, including an assault on an individual recording anti-social behaviour and threats made by a security guard. PC Brian Hunter noted that while the number of reported criminal incidents was small, they compromised police response times.
• Failure to Promote Licensing Objectives: The Sub-Committee concluded that it had lost trust and confidence in the Premises Licence Holder's (PLH) ability to manage the premises effectively and promote the licensing objectives. Despite previous assurances and meetings with council officers, measures implemented by the PLH had failed to prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder.
• Ignored Conditions and Requests: Evidence suggested that the PLH had not actioned recommendations from Environmental Health regarding a sound limiter and had failed to submit a dispersal plan despite repeated requests. Access to the premises for acoustic engineers and council officers to check the sound limiter was also reportedly rebutted.
• Unsuitable Location: Multiple parties, including the Licensing Authority and the Police, argued that the premises' location in a dense residential area was unsuitable for a nightclub operation.
• DPS's Conduct: Concerns were raised about the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), Mrs. Jennifer Cassandri, including a failure to disclose a criminal conviction and potential links to organised crime.

Arguments Against Revocation (from the Premises Licence Holder):

• Disproportionate Response: Ms. Harriet Dixon, counsel for the PLH, argued that revoking the licence was disproportionate and that the PLH was doing her best to comply with conditions and promote licensing objectives.
• External Factors: The PLH contended that not all anti-social behaviour and littering could be solely attributed to the premises, citing instances where such behaviour occurred when the premises were closed.
• Proposed Measures: The PLH proposed additional measures, including street cleaning, contributing to gates at Celbridge Mews, and stationing a fifth security officer there. They also agreed to accept additional conditions proposed by the Police, with the exception of reducing operational hours to core hours, which they deemed economically unviable.
• Past Compliance: The PLH highlighted that the premises had operated as a nightclub since 2005 and retained its licence after previous reviews, suggesting a history of compliance. They also noted that only three police incidents had been reported since 2015.
• Personal Circumstances: The PLH mentioned personal difficulties, including a bereavement, which had impacted their ability to address issues promptly.

The Sub-Committee's Decision:

The Sub-Committee found that the evidence presented demonstrated a persistent pattern of public nuisance and crime and disorder linked to the premises. They concluded that the PLH had not gone far enough to ensure the premises did not cause nuisance and that the measures implemented were insufficient. The Sub-Committee expressed a lack of confidence in the PLH's ability to manage the premises responsibly and promote the licensing objectives. Consequently, the Sub-Committee decided to revoke the premises licence as a last resort, deeming it appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives. The decision takes effect after the period for appealing has concluded or any appeal has been concluded.