Agenda item

Cavell House 2A Charing Cross Road London WC2H 0NN (“The Premises”) 18/19/02049/LIPN

1.

Sale by retail of Alcohol: On sales

Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 00:00

Friday to Saturday: 10:00 to 00:30

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-standard timings: 00:30 on Sundays before Bank Holiday Mondays. From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Core hours only

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

Ms Michelle Steward (Presenting Officer) confirmed that this was a new premises licence application made by Arboretum Lounge Ltd (Applicant), noting that the Premises intended to operate as a refreshment and function space for employees working in offices within the Premises.   She advised that the application had received a number of objections from local residents, Environmental Health (EH) and the Licensing Authority (LA). Ms Steward noted that a letter dated 28^th March was not received by the residents.  She also confirmed that the Premises were in St James’s Ward and in the West End Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

With reference to the letter dated the 28th of March, Mr Spieglar advised the  Sub-Committee that the Applicant had hand delivered letters to local residents setting out the proposals for the Premises but this had not been  received the residents and was the reason why a follow-up letter (24th April refers and contained within the committee papers) was sent to the residents. Mr Spieglar advised that with regard to the letters, his client had hoped to have conversations with the residents before the hearing, unfortunately this did not happen.  Mr Spieglar stated that Mr Ronald Mind was the founder of the company and was also the founder of the Library, a private members club which he founded in 2013.  Using Streetmap, Mr Spieglar highlighted the location of the Library in relation to the new premises for the Arboretum, he also showed the distance between the Premises and the entrance to the resident’s properties.  Mr Spieglar also highlighted the servicing yard on St Martin’s Lane.

Mr Spieglar noted that the Library’s premises licence was included in the Applicants report pack, he advised that the application for this premises licence was almost identical to the application for the Library’s premises licence.  Mr Spieglar advised that the application was exactly the same as the Library, with the only difference being the categories they were seeking to provide licensable  activities for. He confirmed that there were 3 different categories, he explained that residents were fairly comfortable with category one, somewhat comfortable with category two, however category 3 (events) was where residents had concerns. The Sub-Committee asked for further information regarding categories one and two.

Mr Spieglar asked the Sub-Committee to review  condition 10A on page 139 of the committee papers, he advised that persons working in the offices are located within the Premises was labelled as category one, he informed the Sub-Committee that he believed that residents had little concern regarding option A. Mr Spieglar noted that the main lounge was at ground floor level and there were five floors of offices, housing up to 600 workers with approximately 400 currently located at the Premises. He stated that it was becoming very popular for offices to have a lounge area where residents of the buildings can use the space for eating, drinking, socialising and networking. With regards to category 2, Mr Spieglar requested that condition 10B be reviewed, which referred to members of a private club, he then suggested that Mr Mind address the Sub-Committee to provide further details.

Mr Mind advised the Sub-Committee that the word Arboretum meant Botanical Gardens and the concept is one of an indoor living garden. He said that the idea was to bring together people who were interested in saving the planet.  Mr Mind advised that in 2007 he started a company to bridge the gap between environmental charities and corporate companies, he stated that when the opportunity came up to acquire 2A Charing Cross Road, he felt that it was the perfect chance to encourage people who were interested in the environment to collaborate on good ideas and was therefore a perfect meeting space to engage, generate ideas and transform them into reality.

Mr Mind felt that the concept needed a range of activities to take place within the space, he advised that the lounge would be used for meetings and coffee allowing members to come into the space with their laptops.  Mr Mind advised that the idea was to increase the co-working spaces and transform it into an evening space for drinking or holding events and seminars. Mr Mind stated that he had applied for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) recently in April and had held a weekend of successful seminars and events held which he confirmed would be similar to the types of events that he intends holding at Cavell House.

The Sub-Committee Chairman made a declaration, informing all parties that for five years the Botanical Gardens Conservation International was a client in her professional career. The Chairman advised that she was able to determine the application with an open mind and was fit to hear the application. All parties present agreed that they had no concerns with the declaration made by the Chairman.

Mr Spieglar advised that with regard to proposed condition 10B, this had been taken directly from model conditions 88 and 89, except for the additional requirement of a ‘minimum annual admission fee of £250’ which was in addition to the Council’s usual requirements. Mr Spieglar stated that this was not a qualifying club, however did share some similarities as per paragraph 2.4.9 of the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”), he advised that there was a vetting process and the club had been organised for a specific group of people who share an interest in the environment. Mr Spieglar noted that alcohol would only be supplied to members and their guests, he also confirmed that there was a 48-hour waiting period after applications are submitted.

Mr Spieglar advised that the club had more in common with a qualifying club than the types of proprietary clubs that the Sub-Committee, residents and policy might be concerned with. He felt that the policy recognised that these types of clubs, when well-managed, do not impact on crime, disorder or public nuisance. Mr Spieglar stated that the Applicant held experience with the Library since 2013, he confirmed that no complaints had been received regarding the Library whatsoever.  Mr Spieglar stated also that the Objectors were not too overly concerned with category 2 and sought confirmation from Mr Richard Brown. Mr Brown advised that the residents were fine with the concept of category 2, however still had some minor concerns with the conditions. With regard to category 3; events, Mr Mind addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that temporary event notices had been applied for events held in April.

Mr Mind summarised a number of events on the weekend of 11 April, describing a preview party which showcased the space, he informed Members that during the event there were several DJs, a musician and approximately 300 people. He informed the Sub-Committee that it was his intention to contact the residents on the 28th March inviting them to the event for comments and feedback and if they felt they had been impacted in anyway.  Mr Mind produced images for the Sub-Committee to view, he also advised that on the day of the event he assessed the buildings noise levels and acoustics.  Mr Mind advised that on the 12 April he held an open day where members were registered and held exhibitions showcasing five charities. The Sub-Committee observed a programme from the day’s events and queried how the space would be used and sought further images showing how the space was used for the events in April. All parties agreed that the images provided was a true reflection of the Premises.

Mr Mind provided brochures and materials for all parties to view, he advised that over 3000 people were registered to attend the weekend events. Mr Mind confirmed that approximately 150 people arrived on Friday, 6000 people arrived on Saturday between 10:00 hours and 23:00 hours on the Sunday approx. 200 people arrived for the Wellness event.  Mr Mind confirmed that all events occurred on the ground floor, he also described the layout of the space, trees, plants and green wall which he advised had plumbing and all features were permanent and sustainable. Mr Mind also discussed his work with University College London on the impact of plants and air quality in the working environment.

Mr Spieglar advised that in terms of the events, the Applicant  recognised that the SLP  expresses concerns with regard to premises presenting themselves as members clubs and then promoting  themselves as a private events space. Mr Spieglar confirmed that he was presenting a bona fida members club with all the controls mentioned previously.  He further advised that the policy referred to instant membership, online membership and nominal fees, and that the Applicant had none of those attributes.

Mr Spieglar referred to paragraph 2.4.11 of the SLP and referenced ‘the promotion of private functions’ which was not intended for the Premises. He informed the Sub-Committee that the events intended to be held were to allow environmentalists to come together and share their good ideas, have debates and seminars. Mr Spieglar stated that the cumulative impact would be low as a result, and in his opinion the policy was not intended to restrict that type of activity in the West End. Mr Spieglar then went onto state that Mr Mind required flexibility to make the project work, he agreed that it would generate an income, but the main purpose was to bring like-minded environmentalists together.  Mr Spieglar informed the Sub-Committee that he had proposed a condition in order to confirm the purpose of the Premises “ The provision of licensable activities and the holding of private events at the Premises shall at all times remain ancillary to the use of the Premises as a licensed facility for persons in the upper floor offices and the Arboretum environmentalists private members club”.and this condition appears below as Condition 9 and was imposed by the Sub-Committee.

Mr Spieglar advised that the Applicant did recognise that this was an exception to the policy, he sought to provide further reassurance and informed all parties that Mr Mind was an Applicant with a proven track record, as he already provided this type of event at his Library venue around the corner.  Mr Spieglar advised the Sub-Committee that with regard to the Licensing Authority’s contention that cumulative impact would arise in respect of the events namely category 3, the Applicant had provided membership rules, and these had been circulated to the Sub-Committee. He advised that the Licensing Authority had also raised concerns regarding the hours of operation, however the hours proposed were identical to the hours of operation proposed and granted for the Library.

Mr Spieglar advised that he was very grateful to the Environmental Health team and Mr Anil Drayan (Environmental Health Officer) who made two visits to the club, he advised that Mr Anil had proposed three conditions which were agreed in their entirety (conditions 27, 45 and 46). Mr Anil Drayan addressed the Sub-Committee, informing them that the conditions were listed on page 140, he advised that condition 27 refers to the capacity (approximately 300) which could be split between the main offices, he confirmed that the figures excluded staff.  Mr Spieglar addressed the Sub-Committee confirming that condition 45 was in relation to a suitable and sufficient Event Management Plan being drawn up by a competent person for each event and which must be made available on request to the Responsible Authorities. Mr Spieglar confirmed that the Applicant had also agreed to condition 46, however did need to change an error in the first line of the condition and remove the words ‘in the Drill Hall’.

Mr Spieglar stated that no representations had been made by the Police. He then spoke about the objections from the local resident’s which were mainly concerned with noise transference and noise outbreak, Mr Spieglar said that the Applicant would address noise concerns with a noise limiter condition. Mr Spieglar also advised that the previous events held in April had produced no noise complaints as far as he was aware.  Mr Spieglar confirmed that the second area of concern were the number and nature of the events, Mr Spieglar highlighted the conditions from Richard Brown that were proposed by residents, (Page 120 of the Committee Papers, conditions 1-20 refers).  Mr Spieglar advised that conditions one and two related to the categories, condition 3 was in respect of the noise limiter and this was agreed, with condition 16 being replaced, conditions 5 and 6 related to the servicing yard. Mr Spieglar advised that there was some interaction between the Library premises and the Arboretum premises, he informed the Sub-Committee that the servicing yard was a dedicated servicing area and walkway for staff between the two premises. Mr Spieglar stated that if the Applicant was unable to use the walkway in for servicing yard, the alternative would see members of staff walk around the building, along St Martin’s Lane and past the resident’s entrance to the entrance of the Arboretum. He felt that is was smarter and safer to use the servicing yard and for those reasons feel that proposed conditions 5 and 6 should not be imposed.

The Sub-Committee sought further clarity on condition 5, wanting to know if the condition referred to members of staff only or also included members of the club. Mr Spieglar advised that condition seven would be agreed if 22:00 hours was inserted in brackets. He confirmed condition 8 had been agreed, condition 9 was covered with the environmental health condition and that condition 10 would not be viable for the Premises. Mr Spieglar confirmed that conditions 11 and 12 were more restrictive than the conditions proposed with the application, however was prepared to swap 08:00 hours to 07:00 hours to allow for small scale refuse and the delivery of products such a dairy and bread etc.

Mr Mind addressed the Sub-Committee and informed them that he had made arrangements to combine the waste and refuse collection with the three premises using the servicing yard, so instead of three refuse collections there will only be one which will help to improve the traffic flow in the servicing yard. Mr Spieglar returned to proposed condition 13, requesting the Sub-Committee to view the plan on page 131 of the Committee papers, he showed the Sub-Committee where the resident’s entrance was located. He advised that with regard to proposed condition 14, (the entrance) the Applicant needed to use this entrance until 21:00 hours and not 06:30 hours as requested by local residents. With regard to some of the points raised under condition 14, Mr Spieglar stated that there were no kitchen facilities at the Premises. Mr Mind advised that there will be a Deli in the Library venue and it is his intention that club members can go across to the restaurant in the Library; and canapés be brought across to the Arboretum for events.

Mr Mind advised that the distance between the two premises was approximately 10 steps, the distance was confirmed by Mr Drayan, who also advised that there would be greenery and a canopy to cover the area. Mr Spieglar stated  that if the  Sub-Committee were minded to grant the application, he hoped that they would be the hours the Applicant had applied for, and if not, then the Applicant would be open to consider core hours for the last entry time, meaning no further entry after 23:30 hours Monday-Saturday, Midnight Friday to Saturday and 23:30 hours  on Sunday.  With regard to the last point of concern on (page 122 of the Committee papers), Mr Spieglar agreed that the Applicant would be happy to undertake this as an action or as a condition, Mr Drayan advised that there was a suitable model condition namely model condition 80.

Addressing the Sub-Committee Mr Drayan advised that it was for the Sub-Committee to decide if the application based on the evidence before it came within the exceptionality rule. He advised that from a public safety perspective he was satisfied, that the added works conditions had been applied for and currently a maximum capacity of 300 had been agreed, however once the inspection was completed and the work order is cleared, the capacity figure could indeed be lower. Mr Drayan felt that the biggest potential for public nuisance would come from the events. He felt that the vast majority of events could potentially cause nuisance to local residents if they are similar to the events that were held in April. Mr Drayan also felt that the events most likely to cause nuisance would be those with music and operated to a late hour. He concluded that it was for this reason that Environmental Health Services wanted a noise limiter fitted in the Premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had agreed to all the Environmental Health conditions.

Mr Drayan advised the Sub-Committee that he had given his contact details to the residents so that they could be present when he sets the level for the noise limiter, he felt that this would help to address concerns, as there was the potential for noise transferences. Mr Drayan said that the second condition proposed 45 was in relation to the Event Management Plan, he felt that the plans should be assessed annually to ensure the best dispersal, access, if security is needed and which entrance to use so as not to cause nuisance.

Ms Roxanne Haq addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that she had had some helpful discussions with the Applicant, however had maintained their representation due to the number of resident’s objections and the hours were outside of policy. Ms Haq suggested limiting the number of private events which would address some of the resident’s concerns. She felt that the Applicant should be permitted to host 20-25 events after core hours and 15 TENs per annum was suitable for the Premises.

Mr Brown addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed which residents were in attendance with him.  He confirmed the uses of the categories 1-3 and that the principal objection was with category 3 (events), he stated that the residents had become frustrated with not being able to meet with the Applicant and was disappointed that no contact details had been provided until today’s meeting. Mr Brown advised that with regard to categories 1 and 2 (office and private members club) the residents were not particularly concerned with the concept, as long as it was a well-run, quiet premise that didn’t disturb and cause nuisance to local residents.

Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that the main points of the resident’s concern were set out in the representation pages of the report, he advised that the major differences between this Premises and the Library club was the party wall between the Arboretum and the resident flats (East side of Arboretum) and the potential to impact via noise transference. Mr Brown also stated that the servicing courtyard as a source of resident’s concerns.  Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that with all the will in world and good intention, the Applicant could not promise that there would be no noise transference.  Mr Brown stated that even though there was a number of event in April, residents either were not home or did not know the events were taking place, Mr Brown advised that the Sub-Committee needed to be reassured by the Applicant that the Premises would not cause a nuisance.

Mr Brown advised that the servicing courtyard had been raised in the representations and it had been very helpful to see the map and the route that would be taken from the Library to the Arboretum. Mr Brown advised that residents were also concerned with windows being open during the summer months, he also queried what the food offer would be.  Mr Brown referred to the functions and what was meant under the application, the Premises would be able to have functions until 12:30 am every night of the week in the cumulative impact area which is directly contrary to policy, he felt that the Applicant would need to prove exceptional circumstances.

Mr Brown did not feel that the concept Arboretum crossed the threshold for exceptional circumstances as far as distinct ability regarding the private events. Mr Brown suggested that the Sub-Committee could look at the number of private events permitted, he advised that residents felt that if private events are going to be granted that it should be done under the TENs regime.  Mr Brown did not have confidence that the Applicant would uphold the promotion of the licensing objectives. He raised concerns with the capacity of 300 people during the later hours was far more likely to (paragraph 2.4.11 of the SLP) to contribute to the CIA in the busy Charing Cross area. Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that residents would be happy if the hours remained at core hours, he advised that the Library venue had no direct resident neighbours, unlike the Arboretum and was not a new premises licence, but a converted licence from the old Agency Club.

Mr Brown went through the conditions that he had proposed, he confirmed that conditions 1 and 2 and were still not agreed, conditions 3 and 4 were agreed, but he still had issues with conditions 5 and 6 regarding the servicing courtyard. Mr Brown advised that resident’s required condition 7 which stipulated closure of windows and doors by 06:00 hours and was not yet agreed. Mr Brown confirmed that condition 8 was agreed, 9 agreed however nothing had been fixed. Mr Brown advised the Sub-Committee that condition 10 had not been agreed and with regard to conditions 11 and 12 (model condition 35) regarding the movement of waste, residents would like to stick with the hours that they proposed. Mr Brown stated that with regards to condition 13, residents wanted this restricted to core hours with dispersal happening through the furthest door away from residents at 06:00 hours.  Mr Brown concluded by saying that he and the residents were not against well run premises at core hours, however the Sub-Committee would need to be satisfied with exceptional circumstances although contrary to policy.

Mr Tom Haskins (Local Resident) advised that he shared a wall with the Premises and had concerns regarding loud music and live recorded music. He advised that he could not comment on the specific events in April as he was away and did not know about them. Mr Haskins advised that he welcomed the installation of a noise limiter and was concerned because not all noise or music used amplification systems. Mr Anil Drayan (Environmental Health Officer) advised the sing Sub-Committee that it was unusual for music from percussion instruments to transfer through the building. Mr Haskins also raised concerns regarding the entrance as it was close to his building entrance, he also felt that no entrance after 9pm was far too late.

Mr David Lamoury (Local Resident) addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that he was unsure of the Arboretum concept and had concerns regarding the private events for up to 300 people in a busy area, he felt that this should be kept to a minimum. He was also concerned with anti-social behaviour such as smoking, drunk individuals and disorder generally. Mr Lamoury raised concerns regarding the side door next to the main entrance and 06:00 hours restrictions, as the doorway had had problems in the past with rough sleepers. He raised further concerns regarding the potential for noise and requested further information on the different type of events.

Mr Steve Ward addressed the Sub-Committee advising that the number of events should be limited to 15, he suggested that the Applicant could apply for TENS. He was also concerned with the proximity of the door and the servicing courtyard being used to access to the Library. Mr Ward explained that he had concerns regarding the kitchen and the food on offer, he felt that the Arboretum was a large space and had the potential to be turned into a vertical drinking space. Mr Ward raised further concerns regarding the noise emanating from bottle collections, odours coming from the courtyard and if the courtyard would be used for smokers. Mr Ward queried if the Applicant provided the Event Management Plan, would they also decide what entrance is used? He also felt that the noise limiter would be useful. 

Mrs Lamoury repeated the concerns raised by her fellow residents and added that some consideration and respect should be given to the local area (Cavell House and National Portrait Gallery). She advised that the area was very beautiful and should be maintained in that way.

Mr Spieglar advised that the licence for the Library was post the CIA policy and whilst the Library had no residential neighbours, it did have a hotel above it. Mr Spieglar advised that with regard to category 3, policy 2.4.10 and 2.4.11 of the City Council’s SLP applied to proprietary clubs, he again advised that these were not the characteristics of the Arboretum. With regard to the number of events, Mr Spiegler advised that 15 events per year was not enough, he also agreed with the Environmental Health Officer’s suggestion that there should be no limit on events before core hours. 

The Sub-Committee sought clarification as to whether the promoted events would attract outsourcing to external promoters. Mr Spieglar confirmed that there would be no promoting of events or any outside promoters.  He confirmed that all activities would be ancillary to the function of the club as the agreed proposed condition. Mr Mind sought to reassure the Sub-Committee and informed the Members that he had been a responsible operator for over 10 years, without any complaints and that he was very open to go back with the residents and engaging in open dialogue.

The  Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee  requested that Mr Spieglar provide four key points outlining why the application should be regarded as an exception to policy, Mr Spieglar referred to policy 2.4.10 and 2.4.11 of the City Councils SLP, stating that the policy did not apply to this application as it was not a propriety club, however did hold private functions and events.

1. The type of values promoted with the venue
2. These were not the type of events which would contribute to the CIA
3. The location is tied in with the office therefore self-policing, model cannot be used in any other way because of the policy.
4. The conditions imposed restrict how the premises could be used, ancillary to the function of the club

The Sub-Committee noted that the papers provided by the Applicant could have been better presented but this did not affect the determination of the application by the Sub-Committee because points of clarification were obtained on any issue of ambiguity The Sub-Committee noted that this was not the usual preparatory club and that the club promoted environmental values and was self-policing. After carefully considering the evidence before it on its individual merits the Sub-Committee granted the application accordingly with core hours only. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the conditions it had imposed on the Premises Licence would have the overall effect of promoting the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted the concerns raised by local residents but was persuaded by the Applicant in his submissions that he was an experienced Operator that would run his business in a professional manner that would lead to the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee encouraged the Applicant to rebuild relations with residents going forward and this was helped by the conditions imposed.

2.

Late Night Refreshment:

Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 00:00

Friday to Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30

Sunday: 23:00 to 23:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-standard timings: 00:30 on Sundays before Bank Holiday Mondays. From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

3.

Live Music:

Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 00:00

Friday to Saturday: 10:00 to 00:30

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-standard timings: 00:30 on Sundays before Bank Holiday Mondays. From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

4.

Recorded Music:

Monday to Thursday: 10:00 to 00:00

Friday to Saturday: 10:00 to 00:30

Sunday: 12:00 to 23:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-standard timings: 00:30 on Sundays before Bank Holiday Mondays. From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

5.

Hours Premises Open to the Public:

Monday to Thursday: 08:00 to 00:00

Friday to Saturday: 08:00 to 00:30

Sunday: 08:00 to 23:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-standard timings: 00:30 on Sundays before Bank Holiday Mondays. From the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.