Save Soho’s Mojo: An Open Letter by John James

Save Soho’s Mojo: Prosperity vs WCC
An open letter by John James

“None of this is possible without economic growth and I am clear that we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity. That’s why my message to business is this: if growth is the challenge, then investment is the solution — and I want to work with you to deliver that. We ran as a pro-business party and we are governing as a pro-business party.” – Rachel Reeves

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

To maintain London’s place as a world beating capital it is important to encourage growth and development. The West End is the centre of our capital. It is the home of the finest art, theatre, culture, hospitality, entertainment, architecture and shopping which we should encourage and support if we are to continue to be attractive to visitors world-wide.

Westminster City Council must recognise that internationally recognised growth cannot be restricted to what only a minority of residents will accept. Business is a net contributor to the local economy and successful businesses continue to grow their contributions, nowhere less than in Soho.

The Government wants to encourage growth and prosperity through engagement with the private sector and they and the GLA want to promote London as a 24hr International City. Sadly, the reality is much less attractive in Westminster.  The council are a year into consultation on their so-called After Dark initiative and seem in no hurry to come to any conclusion. In fact, local councillors are using planning and licensing powers to deliver entirely the opposite of encouraging anything after dark.  Rather than behaving like the most important local authority in the entire country – WCC council is acting like a rural parish council.

To support this statement a local ward Councillor, Paul Fisher, has made the following statements on Soho Radio when interviewed:

(time stamps listed)

30:56 – “I’ve always said it, if the Act (Licensing Act) assumes as much and parliament is legislated to allow for the restriction on licensing (applying the cumulative impact assessment) the obvious candidate for that is Soho.”

31:20 – “…I’d spoken out so much against licensing that I couldn’t sit on a licensing committee because I think it would prejudice most applications…”

35:26 – “You can now use this data (Cumulative Impact Assessment) when you are trying to combat licensing applications before licensing committees”

45:17 – “So, we’ve got to have those mini-battles, we’ve got to keep going, as a collective The Soho Society and local councillors have done their best over the last two years to fight the big applications which we think are just not right for Soho, and we have had some success, now that’s not going to turn back the clock but it is sending out a message that Soho has reached saturation point”

47:57 – “Of course noise is a huge issue, huge issue which we’ve spoken about a lot and we’re going to keep banging that drum.”

53:21 – “I made some very clear statements during the…campaign which again debarred me from sitting on these committees” when discussing cumulative impact licensing in Soho

But Cllr Fisher went on to sit on planning committees and refused applications for hospitality change of use.  I consider this to be improper conduct by a councillor when he is clearly not impartial and has pre-determined his decision – often against Officers recommendations.

Another vital issue in Soho is the need to convert an area which is dominated by car use into one which, wherever possible, allows the emergence of alfresco dining. During the pandemic alfresco dining not only delighted thousands who took advantage of it but kept many businesses alive.  Yet without even considering an application Cllr Patrick Lilley, lead member for Soho has made the following statements in an email to the Soho Business Alliance:

“Dear Jo, Am afraid to say there is no assumption that pavements are too narrow. WCC are conducting a year-long study into traffic, noise and air quality and I want to understand that before ad hoc projects.

At present any widening of pavements will obviously open up areas with hospitality to tables and chairs and effective al fresco which has been decisively rejected. Having worked hard to bring the residents and business community together any back door approach to pavement widening prior to getting trusted data and resident support would be ill considered. Let’s focus on the explosion in crime attracted by the excess of late night premises.”

While Soho, like all major urban centres, experiences crime and disorder, it is inaccurate and misleading to attribute these issues solely to late-night venues. This unfounded assertion not only lacks factual basis but also reveals a concerning trend: some councillors appear overly influenced by a small group of local residents. These individuals seem resistant to preserving Soho’s diverse character and instead advocate for transforming this vibrant district into an insular village, disregarding its significant role within an international city. The outcome of this willingness on behalf of Westminster councillors to effectively predetermine applications is particularly troubling, as it undermines the integrity of the decision-making process and potentially stifles the area’s cultural and economic vitality.

The licensing committee recently refused permission for a new jazz club in Soho, determining that guests would make too much noise apparently because of the representation of one resident.  The Soho Society, a local residents’ amenity group, has reviewed 102 planning applications since 2022 and objected to 101 of them. The Soho Society has never supported any planning application, yet they are treated as if they reflect the views of all residents when this is patently not the case. The majority of residents who quite happily live in Soho are oblivious to the restrictive practices that are conducted in their name.

The tragedy here is that many businesses are struggling to survive. In Soho in 2024 there are more empty premises than I have ever seen since 1986. Many operators are considering moving out because of Westminster’s obvious bias against them. Alfresco dining is an enjoyable experience which brings people together and adds vibrancy to the street scene. Other areas have since embraced alfresco as a pleasant improvement to the street scene and some areas have made parts of this change into a permanent fixture. Charlotte Street has removed parking bays and given them over to people, improving the area in the process.

China Town has used its now pedestrianised area to greatly expand its offering which visitors clearly enjoy, and Covent Garden uses its cobbled pedestrianised square to enhance the visitor experience. Sadly, the locals in Soho do not get this choice. I fear Alfresco has been politicalised and misinterpreted as a vote loser in Soho. In reality, we know from the pandemic and since, that many residents support alfresco and enjoyed it when it was in use.

Underpinning the ever-present green agenda on which all political parties agree, Soho needs to prioritise people over cars, starting with part-time street closures and place sharing of the roadways.  There are ways to do this which do not inhibit travellers moving through the area. This is a project that would not only enhance Soho’s appeal but would support what the Mayor of London wants and what most people, regardless of political affiliation, regard as sensible and progressive.  

Only when local politicians start to recognise what really matters at the heart of a World City might we see the Soho everyone loves and admires, growing and working towards a positive future.  We applaud the Mayor of London for introducing a Mayoral Development Corporation in Westminster. Even he recognises the council’s inaction is quite simply unacceptable.  

John James
Managing Director, Soho Estates Limited