Agenda item

141 Park Lane Lounge Club, 141 Park Lane, London, W1K 2AA (“The Premises”) 18/03209/LIPN (West End Ward/ not in Cumulative Impact Area)

1.

Regulated Entertainment (Indoors)

Exhibitions of films

Performance of live music

Playing of recorded music

Performance of Dance

Anything of a similar description

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 06:00

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summertime commences.

Hotel residents and their guests shall be unrestricted.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Reference to Hotel residents and their guests being unrestricted, shall be removed

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Marble Arch Clubs Limited for a new premises licence in respect of 41 Park Lane Lounge Club, 141 Park Lane, London, W1K 2AA (“The Premises”).  The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee, confirming that the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health had maintained their objections.  It was also confirmed that Richard Brown would be representing local residents and James Measures would be representing the Marriott Hotel who also objected to the application.

Mr Grant described the iconic and central location of the premises, then advised the Sub-Committee that it had before them an application for a new premises licence, for a premises proposing to operate as an exclusive late night venue.  The clientele are predominantly members of the Middle-Eastern and Arabic community. Mr Grant advised that the Applicant intends to replace the current premises licence; whereby the applicant had applied to extend the terminal hours and reduce the capacity of the premises.  The Applicant sought Regulated Entertainment (Performance of Dance, Exhibition of a Film, Performance of Live Music, Playing of recorded music and Anything of a similar description) from Monday to Sunday 09:00 - 06:00; Late Night Refreshment from Monday to Sunday 23:00 - 05:00; and Sale by Retail of Alcohol from Monday to Sunday 09:00-06:00. 

Mr Grant advised that this was not a traditional night club, although the premises currently has a licence until 03:30, the premises does not have a dance floor, because this does not represent the nature of the premises.  In exchange for extended hours of licensable activities to 06:00, the Applicant will future proof the premises so as to ensure that it will never be a nightclub in the future, with those types of nightclub associations. Mr Grant explained that the Applicant took over the ownership of the venue in 2015 and it is now a smart, civilised lounge bar. The clientele was described as being mainly from the Arabic and Middle Eastern communities, who live and spend a lot of time working in London.

Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that the Applicant’s clientele, conducted a significant amount of their business and socialising in the very late hours; one of the places where this took place, was at 141 Park Lane. Mr Grant explained that unfortunately the Applicant could not provide the service his clientele expected in a leading capital city, because at 03:00 they are asked to leave before the night is finished. That clientele do not just go home, they simply go to one of the other later venues, which are likely to be in one of the cumulative (CIA) or high pressured areas.

Mr Grant advised that his client had offered a last entry time of a 04:00.  Mr Grant asked the Sub-Committee to consider the concessions that his client will make and to ask itself if the overall impact will be more or less, if the Sub-Committee is minded to grant application.  Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that the current license allowed the premises to operate as a full nightclub, which was not his client’s intention.  However, the conditions that his client was proposing, it was felt, was a fair balance for extending terminal hours to 06:00.  Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that the conditions had been heavily revised to reflect the representations that they had received from the local community. Mr Grant then read out the new conditions proposed:

·         Condition 11, capacity reduction (page 68). The existing capacity is 350 customers and what was being proposed was 200 clients for the entire period up until 03:00, that being a reduction of 43%. From 03:00 there will be a further reduction to 150 clients, an overall 57% reduction on the existing capacity.  Mr Grant felt that this condition showed his client was intending to host clients who would behave responsibly and at a much reduced capacity.

·         Condition 60 (page 72). The proposal was to operate the premises as a private members lounge bar from 23:00.  The premises would operate as a restaurant during the day as his client did not want to discriminate against families who use the premises for lunch, dinner and other family celebrations before 23:00.

·         Condition 56, last entry time 04:00 (page 71).

·         Condition 12 (page 68). The supply of alcohol would be to seated persons only so as to prevent the premises from operating as a vertical drinking establishment.

·         Supervision Staff - Condition 25, 46, and 47 (pages 69 and 71). These proposed 5 SIA door supervisors on Friday and Saturday nights with 3 door supervisors as a minimum on Thursday night. There would also be 3 Street Marshalls, Thursday to Saturday including on North Row.

Mr Grant advised the Sub-Committee that his client does intend to have cabaret acts perform on occasion at the premises, and this is why his client has applied for regulated entertainment.  Mr Grant took the sub-committee through more of the proposed conditions drawing the Sub-Committee’s attention to conditions relating to no dancefloor, no queueing outside the premises, and the fact that the premises had operated a number of TEN’s.

Mr Grant then addressed the objections that had been raised regarding the premises licence application.  He referred to the Marriot hotel and its location above the premises. Mr Grant advised that he understood the concerns and then advised the Sub-Committee that the hotel enjoyed a 24hr license and Marble Arch is a busy area.  Mr Grant advised that his client was concerned as the Marriot operate a 24-hour lounge bar and some of the objections raised by the Marriott, may be in part competition related.  Aside from the Marriot there are 38 residential units within a 75m radius, but not one single objector lives within that 75m radius from the venue. Mr Grant summarised the local representations and complaints regarding the application to be generally noise related to the natural hustle and bustle of Marble Arch. Mr Grant argued that there would be less people and more control with supervising staff. He said that there had been no concerns from the police and Environmental Health had not reported any complaints being made to their service. Mr Grant advised that they would remove the proposal in the application which would have allowed licensable activities to be provide to Marriot hotel residents and guests on a 24 hour basis.

Mr Ian Smith gave expert evidence for the applicant. He had carried out an impact assessment and describe the premises as not being a typical nightclub. Mr Smith provided an Impact assessment report (set out at page 21 of the Licensing Sub-Committee report) and concluded that impact from the venue as minimal. He advised that most of the noise from around the area was from vehicles and traffic.  Mr Smith advised the Sub-Committee that the premises was well managed, well run and attracted a different type of clientele. Mr Grant made reference to a number of paragraphs in the report, including paragraphs 5.2 (parking area), 5.4 (smoking area), 5.5 (dispersal) and 5.6 (no incidences of criminal behaviour) and he then summarised the conclusion of the impact assessment.  Mr Smith made reference to his conclusion at paragraph 5.10 in which he stated that the general noise and pedestrian traffic in the area was not affected in any way by those leaving the venue as the streets were busy and background noise levels were relatively high. The Sub-Committee inquired as to whether the Applicant would consider surrendering the current premises license. Mr Grant agreed and advised that was the intention of his client.

The premises was not currently operating as a private members club, however they do have a list of exclusive clients, including members of middle eastern royal families and government officials who do not wanting to be seen in public.  The Sub-Committee sought further clarification regarding the management of the premises. Mr John Phillips representing the premises licence holder explained that the applicant operated a very exclusive place, for clients who conduct business and civilised activities; these are not loud, intoxicated, argumentative people. Mr Phillips advised that the premises tends to have lone female clientele and families during the day. The lounge does not get 150 people most of the time as it is not a busy establishment.  Mr Phillips explained that he was able to manage dispersing clients from the premises by providing the bills and politely asking them to leave.

The Sub-committee made inquiries as to the number of private chauffeurs and taxi drop offs outside the premises and advised that patrons should not impact on local residents and should not wait on North Row. The Sub-Committee asked the Applicant if they would consider a last entry time of 03:00.  Mr Grant advised that his client would consider a last entry time of 03:30. 

The Sub-Committee then heard from the Police. PC Bryan Lewis advised the Sub-Committee that the Police maintained their objection to the unusually late hour of the sale of alcohol. PC Lewis confirmed that he generally had little concern regarding the premises and it would actually be a lot safer for patrons to leave at 06:00 as opposed to 03:00.  However felt that the premises needed to have night club or private members club conditions; and was uncomfortable with the fact that the original application was conditioned as neither.  PC Lewis confirmed that there had been only one incident since the Applicant took over the premises, whereas the Police had many concerns with the previous tenant.

The Sub-Committee then heard from Environmental Health Office Dave Nevitt.  Mr Nevitt confirmed that there had been many EH concerns regarding the previous tenants, however over the last three years there have been no complaints.  The Applicant has operated a number of TEN’s with no cause for concern.  It was advised that the change in clientele and culture has been an advantage and it was noted that the premises had good acoustic integrity with no noise breakout.  Mr Nevitt was however concerned with dispersal and the possible impact caused on North Row. Mr Nevitt was comforted by the further conditions proposed in relation to the application, specifically the reduction in capacity.  Mr Nevitt asked the Sub-Committee to consider if the Applicant had offered sufficient conditions that will continue to work in the future.  Mr Nevitt confirmed that he had visited the premises early in the morning and found no issues. He also mentioned that he was aware of concerns about the use of supercars at other premises but did not think that there was a problem of that kind with these premises.

The Sub-Committee sought clarification on how the Applicant would ensure that food was a part of their offer and how the Applicant managed pre-booked functions and membership.  Mr Phillips responded and advised that a mezze is provided to all clientele and was therefore of the view that all customers are provided with substantial food.  Pre-booked functions are managed internally, there are no outside promoters and there is a 48 hour waiting period for membership. However, the full membership structure has not been decided yet.

Mr Richard Brown representing Mr Jones and Mr Dunn advised the Sub-Committee that Mr Dunn would speak.  Mr Dunn stressed the residential nature of the area to the east of Marble Arch and its residential streets.  Mr Dunn felt that any disturbance cased on North Row would affect the surrounding streets and approximately 120 residents.  Mr Dunn felt that that the application had changed and he could see that the Applicant had removed some of the conditions that could cause problems. However, he still felt that there were some outstanding concerns. Mr Dunn specifically referred to the 23:00 change over to a private members club and how this would operate, the capacity reduction to 150 persons at 03.00 and the 04:00 last entry time. He was also concerned that the granting of this application might create a precedent.  

Mr Richard Brown representing Mr Jones and Mr Dunn advised the Sub-Committee that the elevation of the quality of the service over quantity could be achieved by letting in fewer people and charging more. This application was about extending the hours to 06:00in exchange for a reduction in capacity.  In 2013 there was an application for these premises which sought to increase the capacity of the premises due to queuing in the street from 220 to 350 and now the reverse was being proposed. In any event, this application also involved an increase in capacity from 0 to 150 after 3 am. Mr Brown referred to the distance of the residents from the premises and advised that this was not only about direct noise emanation, but also about the impact of the dispersal in the wider community.  Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that there were no limits on the members guests and that other premises mentioned in the vicinity such as Hotels and Casinos are not similar in nature to the Applicant’s premises.  Mr Brown drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to pages 30 and 31 of its Statement of Licensing Policy and the criteria that are taken into consideration when dealing with extension of hours. He referred to the bar chart produced at page 130 and pointed out that a terminal hour of 6 am was very unusual in Westminster.

Mr James Measures represented Mr Stephen Moonen, the General Manager of the London Marriott Park Lane Hotel. He asserted that the noise and nuisance from 03:00 to 06:00 would affect their guests as there are rooms directly above the premises entrance.  It was felt that late arrivals from other establishments and cars will park up in the loading bays.  Mr Measures also sought clarification regarding reference to hotel and guests referred to in the application. Mr Stephen Moonen advised the Sub-Committee that there had been a large number of complaints by hotel guests, relating to sound emulating from the premises straight up through the hotel.  There were also complaints regarding parking and groups of clientele from the Applicant’s premises gathering outside.

Mr Nassar, a local resident addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Nassar explained that the premises was in the same building where he lived and his property was above the hotel. He has lived in his home for over sixteen years.  Mr Nassar advised that he had called the Council a number of times to investigate noise complaints, however since the Applicant took over he has been dealing directly with them.  Mr Nassar advised the Sub-Committee that he had several text messages where he was communicating with the premises.  Mr Nassar referred to hearing drumming sounds travelling through the building via the electricity pipes and air conditioning ducts. 

Mr Grant sought clarification from the Marriott regarding the escalation of complaints. Mr Moonen confirmed that he had not recently reported any issues or complaints to the management of the premises and he only became Manger in September 2017.  There was a brief discussion with Applicant’s solicitor and the Marriott regarding TEN’s and an alleged breach of License which was not reported.  Mr Grant advised that regardless of the outcome of the application, if the Marriott or Mr Nassar have any concerns that they should contact Mr Phillips.  The Sub-Committee sought clarification from the Marriott regarding the operating times of the Hotel’s Lounge Bar and its location in relation to the private residents.  Mr Moonen confirmed that the Hotel Lounge ceased operating at 00:00, as it was important that Hotel guests were not disturbed.  Mr Nassar confirmed that there is little noise that emulates from the Hotel Lounge and that there was no comparison with the Applicant’s premises.

Mr Grant summarised the application and advised that there will be a maximum of 4 guests per member.  Mr Grant also suggested that an acoustic report should be carried out to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to persons occupying the building or any adjoining buildings. Mr Nevitt from EH advised that he was surprised to hear about the noise complaints, as the last issue was reported in 2014. The Legal Adviser, Mr Barry Panto, clarified that the details of the complaints from the hotel was new information that had not been mentioned in any of the representations. Mr Panto advised that there was a process for submitting representations and it was difficult for the applicant to respond to details of complaints that had not been raised in advance. Mr Panto suggested that model condition 12 might be appropriate in relation to noise that might be generated from the licensed premises. Mr Grant agreed model condition 12 and advised that if there are problems, there is the power of review.

The Sub-Committee had regard to residents’ concerns relating to the potential for anti-social behaviour by people leaving the club and the increased hours of operation.  It was also recognised that, although there was a reduction in capacity until 3 am there was a corresponding increase in capacity after 3 am.  . However, it was also noted that neither the Police nor Environmental Health had any serious concerns about the current operation of the premises and that detailed conditions had been agreed to promote the licensing objectives. These included the requirement to operate as a private club; a requirement that all private pre booked functions will be by invitation only and will be directly managed and operated by the premises licence holder, who will retain overall responsibility and control for the functions; a requirement to carry out an acoustic survey to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused together with a condition that 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.

It was also agreed that there shall be no dance floor at the premises, there shall be no queuing outside the premises and there shall be a last entry time of 03:30 hours other than for persons temporarily leaving the premises to smoke.  The Sub-Committee was pleased to note that the applicant had removed that part of the application which had sought 24 hour access to licensable activities for hotel residents and their guests. Issues had been raised by the General Manager of the Marriott Hotel concerning noise nuisance that may have been caused by the operation of the Club but those issues had not been identified in advance of the hearing and the Licensing Sub-Committee was not in a position to conclude that the club was responsible. It was noted that the Environmental Health Service had not received any complaints in recent years.

Having regard to all of the above matters, the Licensing Sub-Committee was of the view that the application would promote the licensing objectives and granted the application accordingly. It was hoped that any outstanding issues about the potential for noise nuisance would be resolved amicably between the parties but if local residents or the Marriott Hotel had any concerns in that regard which could not be resolved, there was always the potential to review the licence.

2.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and outdoors)

Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 05:00

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summertime commences.

Hotel residents and their guests shall be unrestricted.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Reference to Hotel residents and their guests being unrestricted, shall be removed

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application as amended (for reasons see section 1).

3.

Sale by retail of Alcohol (On and Off sales)

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 06:00

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summertime commences.

Hotel residents and their guests shall be unrestricted.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Reference to Hotel residents and their guests being unrestricted, shall be removed

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application as amended (for reasons see section 1).

4.

Hours premises are open to the public

Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 06:30

Seasonal variations / Non-Standard Timings:

All licensable activities shall be extended from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

An additional hour to the standard and non-standard times on the day when British Summertime commences.

Hotel residents and their guests shall be unrestricted.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Reference to Hotel residents and their guests being unrestricted, shall be removed

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application as amended (for reasons see section 1).