Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
St James's West End None	Trocadero Hotel - Sky Bar & Restaurant Trocadero 13 Coventry Street London W1D 7DH	New Premises Licence	20/12016/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.1

                                                   (“The Committee”)

 

                                                          Thursday 22 April 2021

    

Membership:           Councillor Matthew Green (Chairman), Councillor Susie Burbridge and Councillor Maggie Carman 

 

Officer Support:       Legal Advisor:     Horatio Chance

                                Policy Officer:     Kerry Simpkin

                                Committee Officer:     Cameron Maclean

                                Presenting Officer:     Jessica Donovan  

                              

Application for a Premises Licence – Trocadero Hotel, Sky Bar & Restaurant Trocadero 13 Coventry Street London W1D 7DH – 20/12016/LIPN

                                                     FULL DECISION

 

Premises

 

Trocadero Hotel, Sky Bar & Restaurant Trocadero 13 Coventry Street London W1D 7DH

 

Applicant

 

Trocadero Hotel - Sky Bar & Lounge

 

Cumulative Impact Area?

 

West End

 

Ward

 

St James’s Ward

 

Proposed Licensable Activities and Hours

 

Live Music (Both)

 

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 03:00 hours

 

Seasonal Timings: Hotel residents and bona fide guests – 24 hours. On the morning of British Summertime, the terminal hour shall be extended by 1 hour.

 

Further information: Unamplified and amplified music played internally and on the

terrace.

 

Recorded Music (Both)

 

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 03:00 hours

 

Seasonal Timings: Hotel residents and bona fide guests – 24 hours. On the morning of British Summertime, the terminal hour shall be extended by 1 hour.

 

Further information: Unamplified and amplified music played internally and on the

terrace.

 

Performance of Dance (Indoors)

 

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 03:00 hours

 

Seasonal Timings: Hotel residents and bona fide guests – 24 hours. On the morning of British Summertime, the terminal hour shall be extended by 1 hour.

 

Further information: Dancing by performers and/or staff

 

Late Night Refreshment (Both)

 

Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 03:00 hours

 

Seasonal Timings: Hotel residents and bona fide guests – 24 hours. On the morning of British Summertime, the terminal hour shall be extended by 1 hour.

 

Further information: Hot drinks and hot food provided to customers on the

premises and to hotel residents and bona fide guests

 

Retail Sale of Alcohol (On sales)

 

Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 03:00 hours

 

Seasonal Timings: Hotel residents and bona fide guests – 24 hours. On the morning of British Summertime, the terminal hour shall be extended by 1 hour.

 

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

 

Monday to Sunday 00:00 to 00:00 hours

 

Representations Received

 

·       Metropolitan Police Service (PC Bryan Lewis)

·       Environmental Health (Ian Watson)

·       Licensing Authority (Roxsana Haq)

·       Clive Davidson (local resident)

·       Amy Lame (City Hall)

 

Summary of Objections

 

·       MPS considered that the application would undermine the licensing objectives, noting it is in the West End CIA where there is traditionally high levels of crime and disorder;

·       EHS considered the hours requested for supply of alcohol, late-night refreshment and provision of regulated entertainment would increase public nuisance and the latter two would also impact public safety within the West End CIA:

·       Local resident expressed concern about the hours and use of amplified music, particularly on the terrace.

 

 

Summary of Application

 

The Premises intends to operate as a hotel with bar, restaurant and entertainment facilities and is located within the West End Cumulative Impact Area. The 12th floor is proposed to operate as a lounge bar and restaurant. The 13th floor is sought to incorporate an entertainment space with a separate private booking space room. The proposed maximum capacity of the premises is 1000 persons. The premises currently benefit from a premises licence (reference 18/00656/LIPN) granted in 2018 with the following licensable activities and operating times:

 

Playing of recorded music:

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 02:00 (12th and 13th floors)

 

Late Night Refreshment:

Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 02:00

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (on the premises):

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 02:00

 

However, as part of this application, the Applicant proposes to surrender premises licences 15/02410/LIPT, 14/11478/LIPDPSR and 18/00656/LIPN should this application be granted. Licence 14/11478/LIPDPSR lapsed on 18 June 2019 and is therefore incapable of being surrendered as part of the application.

 

Policy Position

 

Under Policy CIP1, applications within the West End CIA will be refused unless they are to vary hours or to reduce capacity. Other applications will be subject to other policies and must not add to cumulative impact.

 

Under Policy HRS1, applications outside the core hours set out will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies, and with particular regard to the matters identified in Policy HRS1.

 

Under Policy MD1, applications within the West End CIA will be refused unless they are to vary hours or to reduce capacity. 

 

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

 

Ms Jessica Donovan, Senior Licensing Officer, outlined the application. Ms Donovan confirmed that representations had been received by Environmental Health, Licensing Authority and the Metropolitan Police as well as two other interested parties. The Premises is situated within the St James’s Ward and the West End CIZ.

 

Ms Lisa Sharkey Solicitor, appearing on behalf of the applicant addressed the Sub-Committee and, referred to a licence granted in 2018. This application was to replace that licence and then the applicant would surrender that licence. Ms Sharkey explained it is a joint application by the operator of the hotel and the operator of the 12^th and 13^th floor. She stated TAO are an expert in operating food and beverage businesses – they do not operate businesses in the UK at the moment.

 

Ms Sharkey stated that the fit-out cost for 12^th and 13^th floors is £20,000,000 so it is a substantial investment on their part. They are looking for a high-quality finish. Ms Sharkey stated they are accustomed to operating premises within hotels. She further stated they are accustomed to operating in sensitive locations – suggesting Westminster is quite like New York.

 

Ms Sharkey said the applicant is also owned by Madison Square Gardens and they can rely upon their security team.

 

Ms Sharkey stated this applicant is part of the community, noting community projects that they get involved in. She said they work with communities to provide what is needed locally, as well as doing charity work in their premises. She submitted they are an operator and it’s a premise for all.

 

Ms Sharkey stated  that in 2018 the applicant promised a world-class open-air rooftop garden restaurant and bar and that it what is being proposed here. The 12^th floor is a lounge bar with substantial seating. The 13^th floor would have two parts to its operation. One part would be a club, although there would be seating, and this wasn’t being designed as a young person’s venue but for everyone. There was also a private event room.

 

In relation to the entrance on Rupert Street, Ms Sharkey said the applicant took on board concerns raised by Environmental Health. The applicant has acquired a unit next to the entrance which they will use as a lobby so that creates as much internal queuing as possible – the district surveyor confirmed it can have up to 130 people in it. Further, after midnight people will exit the venue by a single door that exits on to Shaftesbury Avenue.

 

In relation to public nuisance, Ms Sharkey stated  they had submitted a dispersal policy. There would be 24-hour security personnel in the hotel. Conditions had been proposed in relation to traffic marshals and on-street marshals to direct people when they are leaving. Ms Sharkey advised  certain conditions hadn’t been agreed with the Police, which include searching and ID scan as they didn’t want to search or ID scan every single person after 23:00 hours (Ms Sharkey then referenced page 29 of the policy where these were linked to serious crime and disorder, which was not the case here).

 

Ms Sharkey stated  the applicant didn’t want a door supervisor in every lift.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee:

 

(a)  Ms Sharkey said an exception under Policy should be made for the application. Ms Sharkey referred to D15 and F87. Ms Sharkey stated in the original application in 2018, the applicant proposed two licences to be surrendered as part of the application – two licences for a nightclub in Leicester Square which were both 03:00 hours licences with a total capacity 1,770. At that stage, the operator was stating they didn’t intend to introduce a large-scale night club which is why they converted the premises into a hotel but they wanted the Sub Committee to take the benefit of those licenses into consideration when determining the application for 12^th and 13^th floor. Ms Sharkey stated the Sub Committee are still allowed to take those licences into account. Ms Sharkey referred to Novus Leisure and paragraph 24, where it was said if unable to use a licence the benefit is lost but that did not prevent the loss of those being raised in an application for a new licence or an application to vary. It could be part or all an exceptional circumstance as part of what the licensing authority should grant;

(b)  Mr Jackaman confirmed that the terminal licence for the current licence is 02:00 hours and the terminal hour for One London is 03:00 hours;

(c)   Ms Sharkey confirmed they are proposing to surrender a 02:00 hours licence and a 03:00 hours licence. Ms Sharkey further confirmed there was a third licence which they allowed to lapse as they were going to surrender it in any event as part of the Trocadero being granted;

(d)  Mr Jackaman stated that a lapsed licence is relevant to D15 – it is not a licence that is capable of being surrendered but does have some relevance;

(e)  Ms Sharkey confirmed there are currently licences for Hotel Indigo, there being a licence for residents and there is a bar / restaurant on the top floor. Ms Sharkey said she believed the terminal hour is either 00:00 hours or 01:00 hours;

(f)    Ms Sharkey said limiting the licence to being within core hours would make the Premises unviable. She explained that they had applied for a licence until 03:00 hours because they felt the stature of the Premises warranted it – the applicant felt that customers visiting the Premises would want to stay;

(g)  Ms Sharkey stated the capacity for the outside terrace is part and parcel of the capacity they are being given for the 12^th floor which is 750 people. There is no maximum on the outside terrace. Ms Sharkey stated a sound consultant had been engaged by the applicant to ensure the terrace was not a disturbance, and this has been done via conditions to ensure there isn’t impact on residents. The capacity of the terrace would be managed by security staff;

(h)  Ms Sharkey explained there is waiter and waitress service throughout the 12^th floor wherever customers sit, noting a substantial kitchen on the 12^th floor. There is no area set aside and reserved for diners, the applicant wants to mix people together with people dining throughout the Premises. Mr Tepperberg explained that the idea is to serve food on the 13^th floor as done on the 12^th, at the bar (served by bartenders) and at tables (served by waiters and waitresses). Ms Sharkey confirmed that waiter and waitress service will be provided on 12^th and 13^th floor, but they do not want a condition restricting to that as they want customers at the bars on the 12^th and 13^th floors. Ms Sharkey confirmed the application is for seating 70% of the occupancy. People not seated wouldn’t be served food.

 

Mr Ian Watson on behalf of the, Environmental Health Service addressed the Sub-Committee and explained that the  Premises benefitted from a licence that allows them to operate until 02:00 hours with a maximum capacity of 1,000 people. This new application is to increase those hours until 03:00 hours, keep capacity of 1,000 people.

 

Mr Watson stated  the core staircases are not changing which can support up to 1,000 people exiting in an emergency. Mr Watson stated he was wary of having stated capacities because the final capacities on each floor will be based on the layout of the Premises. Mr Watson stated his preference was to revert capacity condition to model condition 90 which allows for capacity to be determined by EHS.

 

Mr Watson referred to the placement of speakers on the plan and the noise report. His concern is the location at Rupert Street and the Noise Report shows 88dB at terrace would not have impact on the surrounding areas.

 

Mr Watson stated one of his concerns was the impact on residents on Rupert Street. He noted the applicant had said they could acquire one of the units on Rupert Street next to the entrance to take people off the street – Mr Watson said he would like a condition requiring this to be provided and part of the Premises.

 

In response to questions from the Committee:

 

(a)  The condition using the Rupert Street building for queuing is not currently in the additional conditions suggested by the applicant. Mr Watson stated it would need to be added to the Premises plans;

(b)  Ms Sharkey said  the additional area is referenced in the additional conditions (condition 4);

(c)   Mr Watson confirmed that if the applicant fully enclosed the terrace with a retractable, then regulated entertainment may be able to go on longer than conditioned in the report. This is a proposal for the future and not part of the application;

 

 

Mr Kevin Jackaman appearing on behalf of the Licensing Authority addressed the Sub-Committee and explained that the main representation was that the Premises falls within the West End CIZ. The relevant policy grounds are set out in the representation.

 

Mr Jackaman stated the Licensing Authority welcomed the conditions suggested and noted the proposed surrendering of the non-lapsed licences. However, the Licensing Authority had maintained their representation due to the location of the Premises within the West End CIZ. Under Policy CIP1 –

 

“It is the Licensing Authority’s policy to refuse applications within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone for pubs and bars, fast food premises, and music and dancing and similar entertainment, other than applications to vary the hours within core hours under policy HRS1, and/or vary the licence to reduce the overall capacity of the premises.”

 

Mr Jackaman stated it is for the Applicant to demonstrate that there are exceptions to Policy CIP1.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee:

 

(a)  Mr Jackaman said he considered the surrender of the two licences means that policy D15 can apply and override Policy CIP1 but that is a matter for the Sub Committee to determine as to whether it does.

 

PC Bryan Lewis appearing on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service addressed the Sub-Committee and stated his concern is that the Premises looks like a nightclub and nightclubs are high risk. PC Lewis advised  his colleague dealt with the 2018 licence which is being surrendered but has never been operated. The applicant is now seeking an additional hour and PC Lewis stated  the conditions sought are less restrictive. PC Lewis said the ratio of security on the 12^th floor has been reduced from 1:50 to 1:100. This is particularly important because the lifts mean the Premises is high risk. PC Lewis stated that in his experience lifts are very taxing on security measures.

 

PC Lewis stated the two main conditions not agreed, apart from relating to lifts, are searching and ID scan. PC Lewis explained that searching was in fact agreed on the current licence. PC Lewis stated that in his experience search policies do not work – the licence gets granted and then there is no search policy in place. In his view, the condition needs to state what is required on arrival. The other condition not accepted is the model condition relating to ID scanning. PC Lewis stated ID scan is important in that it provides a huge deterrent, checks the age of a customer to ensure they can lawfully purchase alcohol (or have it purchased for them), as well as being able of feeding into a database and also checks ID is legitimate.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee:

 

(a)  Ms Sharkey stated that the Applicant would be using ID scan but didn’t want to have to ID every single guest as that would slow down entry. She noted ID scan was requested by the Police for the previous licence but not imposed by the Sub Committee;

(b)  Ms Sharkey stated the Applicant had offered a condition that from 21:00 hours the lobby will be monitored by a security guard. The lifts will be covered by CCTV. In high-risk times door staff will ride the lifts. Ms Sharkey said there is a burden in having a staff-member in a lift at all times which the Applicant did not think would be appropriate;

(c)   PC Lewis noted that it didn’t need to be SIA staff in the lift, and it could be a member of staff. PC Lewis further stated that a variation could be sought if such a condition were imposed;

(d)  Ms Sharkey explained the previous licence had different searching conditions. What the Applicant were expecting and hoping to agree with the Police was a general search policy based on a number of factors. If they have to search every guest it gives the Applicant no flexibility, will slow down access and could cause upset and annoyance.

 

In response to further questions from the Sub-Committee:

 

(a)  Ms Sharkey stated the Applicant had offered a condition with regard to 70% seating on the 12^th floor. This would be a reduction in seating from 90% as provided for by the licence in place;

(b)  Ms Sharkey confirmed the 12^th and 13^th floors will be operated as a separate premises from the hotel but it is the only part of the hotel which will be licenced;

(c)   Ms Sharkey did not have information on the number and type of events.

 

Conclusion

 

The Sub Committee considered an application for a premise that intends to operate as a hotel with bar, restaurant and entertainment facilities and is located within the West End Cumulative Impact Area. The 12th floor is proposed to operate as a lounge bar and restaurant. The 13th floor is sought to incorporate an entertainment space with a separate private booking space room. The proposed maximum capacity of the premises is 1000 persons. The premises currently benefits from a premises licence (reference 18/00656/LIPN) granted in 2018 with the following licensable activities and operating times:

 

Playing of recorded music:

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 02:00 (12th and 13th floors)

 

Late Night Refreshment:

Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 02:00

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol (on the premises):

Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 02:00

 

As part of this application, the Applicant proposed to surrender premises licences 15/02410/LIPT, 14/11478/LIPDPSR and 18/00656/LIPN. As accepted by the Applicant during the course of the hearing, Licence 14/11478/LIPDPSR lapsed on 18 June 2019 and is therefore incapable of being surrendered as part of the application.

 

The Premises is within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone. Under Policy CIP1, applications within the West End CIZ will be refused unless they are to vary hours or to reduce capacity. Other applications will be subject to other policies and must not add to cumulative impact. Accordingly, the application is contrary to Policy CIP1. Similarly, the Sub Committee considered the application to be contrary to Policies PB1 (public Houses and Bars) as it is located within the Cumulative Impact Zone. The Sub Committee did not consider the application could be considered under the hotels policy due to the fact, as made clear during the Hearing, the 12^th and 13^th floors are operated independently of the Hotel. Finally, the Sub Committee concluded the application was contrary to Policy HRS1 as the terminal hours applied for are beyond the Core Hours for a pub / bar or music and dancing venue.

 

Having regard to the policy presumption of refusal unless the applicant can demonstrate a true exception to policy paragraphs D15 and F87 of the SLP the question the Sub Committee had to determine was whether the applicant had demonstrated that they have proved this application to be an exception.

 

Accordingly, the Sub Committee had to consider whether there were exceptional reasons which meant that the premises licence should be granted in light of the fact that the application was contrary to Council policy and within the West End CIA. The sole reason the application should be considered ‘exceptional’ by the Applicant was this application would cause less detrimental impacts than the operation of the licences the Applicant was offering to surrender. The Sub Committee accepts the principle that surrendering licences can constitute exceptional circumstances.

 

However, in this instance the Sub Committee concluded that this offered surrender did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The Sub Committee considered it clear that the premises licence for One London (15/02410/LIPT) was offered by the applicant in 2018 and this was part of the reason why the Committee granted the original licence. Furthermore, the Penthouse Licence (14/11478/LIDPSR) had already lapsed and therefore could not be surrendered. Finally, there is a question whether the current licence could be used as condition 9a of the Trocadero licence 18/00656/LIPN required that the licence that has now lapsed be surrendered before the licence could be used.

 

Accordingly, the Sub Committee were of the view that the applicant cannot offer to surrender the One London premises licence again as the benefit of the licence being surrendered had already been considered as part of the 2018 grant – in other words, that exceptional circumstance had already been used to justify the grant of 18/00656/LI. The Sub Committee’s view was that the only licence that can be offered for surrender is the current Trocadero premises licence 18/00656/LIPN.

 

However, as noted during the Hearing, the application before the Sub Committee would have greater impact on the West End CIA than the 2018 licence. The application sought additional licensable activities, a greater terminal hour, a considerably greater number of people able to vertically drink and it also sought to diminish some of the restrictions placed on the current licence. Therefore, even though the current licence is being offered up to be surrendered if this application were to be granted it could not be considered as exceptional. The current licence hasn’t been used, the new licence would likely cause a greater detrimental impact and is unlikely to promote the licensing objectives. Accordingly, surrender of the 2018 licence itself was not sufficient to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and no greater cumulative impact on the West End CIA.

 

As such, the Sub Committee was not persuaded by the Applicant that an exceptional to policy had been proven and that the application would not add to negative cumulative in the West End Cumulative Impact Zone leading to the undermining of the licensing objectives in particular the public nuisance public safety and crime and disorder licensing objectives. 

 

The Sub Committee decided in all the circumstances of the case that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives and therefore refused the application.

 

 

This is the Full Decision reached by the Licensing Sub-Committee. 

This Decision takes immediate effect.

The Licensing Sub-Committee

22 April 2021