The Sub-Committee is asked to determine Raoul’s Bar’s application, taking into account the details in the report and any representations made at this Sub-Committee meeting.

This report will be added as a supplement.

The applicants joined the meeting.  

The Chair invited the applicants to introduce themselves. The applicants introduced themselves as Craig Baylis and Rob Opher. 

The Chair invited the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer to present the report.  

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (ET) summarised the report, noting the requirement for the Sub-Committee to determine a variation application submitted by Spirits Bar LTD for the Premises Licence of Raoul's Bar (Spirit Bar LTD), 32 Walton Street, Oxford, OX2 6AA. 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer summarised the report, stating that applicant applied for the following: 

• Recorded music, dance, and supply of alcohol (on and off sales): Sunday 12:00 hours to 01:00 hours and Monday to Saturday 11:00 hours to 01:00 hours  

• Existing timings for recorded Music, dance and supply of alcohol: Monday and Tuesday 11:00 hours to 00:00 midnight, Wednesday to Saturday 11:00 hours to 01:00 hours and Sunday 12:00 hours to 00:00 midnight  

• Late night refreshment: Sunday to Saturday 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours  

• Existing timings for late night refreshment: Wednesday to Sunday 23:00 hours to 01:00 hours 

The Sub Committee were informed that the application received no adverse comments from Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service as a responsible authority and licensing act. The applicant agreed the conditions to be attached to the premises license if the variation was to be granted. A copy of the agreed conditions from TVP can be found at appendix 3. Additionally, there were three interested parties all of which can be found at appendix 4. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer also noted that these representations highlight concerns in relation to how the application may fail to promote the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance. The application also received a representation of support from an interested party which is found in appendix 5.  

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer reminded the Sub-Committee of its responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act, noting that: 

• The Sub-Committee must consider a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the rights of local residents. Any decision taken by the Sub-Committee must be necessary and proportionate to the objectives being pursued. 

• Whenever a decision is made under the Licensing Act 2003, members have a duty to act with a view to promoting the licensing objectives.  

• When considering any representations, only those issues relating to the four licensing objectives should be considered and appropriate weight given to the importance and relevance of each representation.  

• In making its decision, the Sub-Committee must also have regard to the Home Office statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy which are enclosed within the report. 

The Sub-Committee were also reminded that they must make one of the following decisions which they consider to be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives:  

• To grant the variation in accordance with the application.  

• To modify the conditions of the operating schedule by altering or omitting or adding to them.  

• To exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence  

• Reject the whole of the application.  

The Sub-Committee understood that they may also grant the licence subject to different conditions for different parts of the premises or the different licensable activities. 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer reminded the Sub-Committee that the applicant, premises licence holder, or persons making representations have the right of appeal against the decision made.  

Councillor Ottino requested information regarding the opening hours of other licensed premises local to Raoul’s Bar. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer provided this information in relation to Love Jericho, Duke of Cambridge, Jericho Tavern Pub, Angels and the Oxford Wine Café. 

The Chair invited the applicant to make any representations to the Sub-Committee. Mr. Baylis represented the applicant and spoke on behalf of Mr Opher. 

Mr Baylis informed the Sub-Committee that the purpose of the application was to effectively add three hours per week to the license. He stated that they were seeking to add an extra hour from Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, extending the hours from midnight to 1am. He noted that Mr Opher also operated the Angels premise license, which previously had a 1am license every night but after discussions with Mr Bloomfield, they had offered to reduce the hours at Angels and effectively transfer those to Raoul’s Bar.

Mr Baylis explained that the previous month he had lodged a minor variation application to reduce the hours at Angels by three hours to the Raoul’s Bar premises. He emphasised that effectively within the area, there would be no overall increase in licensed hours. He added that Raoul’s Bar had held a 1am license since 1979 and that there were conditions on the license reflecting necessary precautions, such as the requirement for a dispersal policy and the requirement to risk assess the need for SIA door staff, both of which they were happy to comply with. Additionally, they had received a letter of support from a local resident. 

Mr Baylis noted that although there were three objectors, none specifically referred to the premises as being the cause of the issues raised. There were no objections from the police or any other authorities. Mr Baylis also mentioned that they had made contact with one objector and discovered that he lived in London and was objecting on behalf of his employer. 

The Chair thanked Mr Baylis for his representation and invited members of the Sub-Committee to ask questions.

Councillor Ottino asked the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer if Angels had agreed to the change and the Officer confirmed that they had.  

Councillor Morris asked whether there had been any response to the reduced hours and Mr Baylis said there had been no representations or responses.  

Councillor Jupp asked if there had been any business motivations behind the transfer of the three hours, to which Mr Baylis responded that Raoul’s Bar was likely to be a more commercially successful premises than Angels. 

Councillor Jupp asked what the typical cliental was and how it changed depending on the hour. Mr Opher responded that, as the premises was located in Jericho, many University students lived in the area. However, on weekends, it tended to attract adults aged 35 and older. 

Councillor Jupp further asked what the most challenging aspects had been in dealing with antisocial behaviours. Mr Opher said that in terms of challenges, finding both customers and staff had been difficult. Regarding antisocial behaviour, Mr Opher noted that they had not experienced any issues, as they had a greeter at the door. 

Councillor Ottino remarked that Walton Street was very close to residential properties and asked what conversations had taken place with nearby residents. Mr Opher responded they had not received any objections, and their immediate neighbour next door had not made any objections.  

Mr Baylis, Mr Opher and the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer left the meeting to allow the Sub-Committee to reach a decision. 

The Sub-Committee considered: 

• That they were impressed with the representation of the applicant in the meeting. 

• The representation and applicant responded sufficiently to all the questions asked. 

Mr Baylis, Mr Opher, and the Senior Licensing Compliance Officer rejoined the meeting to hear the Sub-Committee’s decision. 

The Sub-Committee resolved to:  

• Grant the application to vary the premises license in accordance with the changes requested by the applicant and subject to the conditions set out in the TVP Licensing Officer’s email of 15 April 2025 to the Oxford City Licensing Authority. 

The Chair notified Mr Baylis and Mr Opher that they would have 21 days to appeal the decision made during the hearing via the Magistrates Cour from the date of receiving the decision notice.  

Mr Baylis and Mr Opher thanked the Sub-Committee. 

Mr Baylis and Mr Opher left the meeting.