Agenda item

10 AM: LSC (4) Rooftop Terrace & Bar, Paddington Square Development, 31 London St, 9 Winsland Mews & 128-144 Praed St

Ward
CIA*
SCZ**

Site Name & Address

Application
Type

Licensing Reference No.

Hyde Park

N/A

N/A

Rooftop Terrace & Bar, Paddington Square Development -31 London St, 9 Winsland Mews & 128-144 Praed St

New Premises Licence

21/00851/LIPN

*Cumulative Impact Area
** Special Consideration Zone

This will be a virtual meeting. Members of the Public can view the live broadcast using the media links on the Council’s website.

Minutes:

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE [LICENCE NUMBER: 21/00851/LIPN]

Premises

Bar & Rooftop Terrace at Units 2 & 46, Paddington Square Development: 31 London Street; 9 Winsland Mews; & 128-144 Praed Street, London

Applicant

Great Western Developments Ltd represented by Craig Baylis, Solicitor, Kingsley Napley LLP and Jonathan Ring of the Applicant Company.

Cumulative Impact Area (CIA)/Special Considerations Zone (SCZ)

CIA:   N/A

SCZ:  N/A

Ward

Hyde Park

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION

The application was for New Premises Licences for a at Units 2 & 46 of the Paddington Square Development.

Representations Received

Representations were received from –

1.     The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2.     The Environmental Health Service (EHS)

3.     Paddington Waterways & Maida Vale Society (PWMVS)

4.     Southeast Bayswater Resident’s Association (SEBRA)

5.     A Local Business

6.     A Local Resident

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Mr Kevin Jackaman, Senior licensing Officer – Presenting Officer

Mr Kevin Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer, presented the report of the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before the Sub-Committee. In so doing, he noted that the applicant had applied for both live and recorded music until midnight, and not just live music, as stated in the report.

Presentation by Mr Craig Baylis, Solicitor, Kingsley Napley LLP on behalf of the Applicant

Mr Baylis stated that many of the issues considered by the Sub-Committee in the previous application were applicable to the current application. He confirmed that, as with the previous application, the Applicant wished to amend the application to reduce the Hours for the Sale of Alcohol, as follows –

Sunday to Wednesday:      10:00 hours to 23:30 hours

Thursday to Saturday:        10:00 hours to 00:30 hours

This would allow a “drinking up time” of half-an-hour before customers had to be off the Premises.

Mr Baylis then referred to the illustrations in the Additional Information Pack to describe the layout of “The Pavilion” building which was a stand-alone building sitting substantially in the public realm. He stated that the building had a limited amount of outdoor seating and it was proposed that drinking would be permitted in this area subject to numerous conditions which had been agreed with the Police, including Condition 29 which stated –

“The Premises shall develop and operate a Noise Management Policy and Dispersal Policy. Copies of these policies shall be made available upon the request of Police or authorised officer.”

Mr Baylis stated that these particular Premises were more bar oriented than the other Premises [within the Development]. However, there remained a requirement that there be a substantial food offering at these Premises.

In response to questions by Members of the Sub-Committee, Mr Baylis provided the following information.

(a)  The Premises comprised a ground and first floor operation as well as a rooftop terrace with the tenant taking all three floors.

(b)  Until the Premises were occupied, it was not possible to determine the capacity of the Premises.

Presentation(s) by Responsible Authorities

Environmental Health Service (EHS)

Mr David Nevitt, Environmental Health Officer, stated that, although this was a more modest application in terms of the applied-for Hours of Operation, the EHS iterated similar concerns to those expressed in relation to the first application. Particular issues included the use of the outside space and dispersal of customers late at night, and the hours permitted for the use of the outdoor seating.

[In response to Mr Nevitt’s concerns about the use of the outdoor tables, Mr Baylis referred the Sub-Committee to the Plan on Page 59 of the Additional Information Pack which illustrated the layout of the outdoor tables. Mr Baylis stated that the applicant would be willing to accept a condition whereby the outdoor tables and chairs were rendered unusable by 23:00 hours].

Questions by Members of the Sub-Committee

In response to questions by Members of the Sub-Committee, Mr Baylis provided the following information.

(a)  The outdoor seating area could accommodate up to 10 customers and it was anticipated that the capacity of the Licensed Premises within the Pavilion Building would be no more than 150.

(b)  Because this was more of a bar operation, there would be an option for “vertical drinking” on both the Ground and First Floor Premises, should the tenant wish to offer this type of operation

(c)  The suggested capacity of 150 for the Premises excluded Members of Staff, the number of which would be dependent upon the type of operation of the Premises. However, it was proposed that there should be a Premises Licence condition requiring that table service be available in which case it was probable that there would be a likely requirement for a minimum of 10 Members of Staff.

(d)  There would be no Off Sales of Alcohol and only those customers seated outside would be permitted to drink outside the Premises.

Representations On Behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

PC Bryan Lewis, on behalf of the MPS, stated that, as with the previous application, the MPS had maintained its representations due to there being insufficient Premises Licence conditions. As the Applicant had now agreed to the Premises Licence conditions proposed by the Police, there were only a few points he wished to make in relation to this application viz.

(a)  The operations Management Plan (OPM) should refer to the conduct of patrons in the rooftop areas; and

(b)  The outdoor seated area should be covered by CCTV.

The Sub-Committee had no questions for PC Lewis.

Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Project (On Behalf of SEBRA and PWMVS)

Mr Brown stated that the comments he had made on the previous application also applied to the present application. However, there were a number of specific points pertaining to this particular application given the different style of operation proposed for these premises vis-à-vis the previous application.

(a)  The proposed hours remained beyond the Council’s Core Hours which raised a particular concern as it was proposed that the Premises would operate primarily as a bar.

(b)  The proposal for live and recorded music presented a different proposition in terms of licensable activities when considering live and recorded music in a vertical drinking bar as opposed to a bar where customers were seated listening to background music.

(c)   As vertical drinking would be permitted at these Premises, capacity was a key issue should the Premises Licence application be granted. Also, it would be unusual for Westminster City Council to permit vertical drinking Premises to operate until 1 AM, notwithstanding that the Premises were not located within a stress area.

(d)  As with the previous application, the lack of certainty [as to how it was intended that the various Premises would operate], raised the question of whether the Sub-Committee could be reasonably sure, on the balance of probabilities, that granting the application, as submitted, would promote the Licensing Objectives.

It was the view of SEBRA and PWMVS that, without more information, the Sub-Committee could not be sure that granting the application, as it stood, would promote the Licensing Objectives. It may be that, when Operators applied for a variation to the Premises Licences, the Sub-Committee might be satisfied the Operators could operate the various Premises until 3 AM and promote the Licensing Objectives.

(e)  Regarding the suggested capacity of 150 for these Premises, if this was agreed, it would be necessary to amend the relevant proposed condition to reflect this as a maximum capacity as the Plans of the Premises on Page 41 of the Agenda Pack suggested a proposed total number of covers of 214 for these Premises.

(f)    Regarding Off Sales, as it was proposed that there would be no Off Sales, except to customers seated outside the Premises, it would be necessary to impose a condition similar to that provided for in MC66 which stated –

 “… customers are permitted to take from the Premises part consumed and re-sealed bottles….”.

In conclusion, Mr Brown stated that the general points made on behalf of SEBRA and PWMVS in relation to the previous application also applied to this application i.e., that the hours of operation should be restricted to the Council’s Core Hours, and that it was for the Premises Licence Holders to seek a variation to the Premises Licences, if granted, to extend the Hours of Operation, if so desired.

Mr John Zamit, Chairman, SEBRA

Mr Zamit stated he was concerned that there was no proposed “Last Entry” condition on the current Premises Licence application that would prevent customers from seeking last-minute entry to these Premises after other venues had closed, notwithstanding that there would be door staff supervising entry to the Premises.

It was his view that it would not be unreasonable to impose a condition on the Premises Licence stating there would be no entry to the Premises, say one hour or half-an-hour, before the Terminal Hour for the Sale of Alcohol.

Regarding Off Sales, he agreed there should be no Off Sales except for those to customers who had already purchased alcohol and who wished to take part consumed resealed bottles of alcohol with them when they left the Premises.

[In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Baylis stated he would not be prepared to accept a “Last Entry” condition as part of the current application].

Mr Zamit regretted that there had been no consultation with Residents’ Associations prior to today’s hearing when such issues could have been discussed, including Refuse Collections proposals which, he noted, had been excluded from today’s considerations due to the lack of detail in the Operations Management Plan (OMP).

[In response to a proposal by the Chairman that this was a “Skeleton” Premises Licence that would be revisited in due course by the Sub-Committee when Operators applied for a variation to the Premises Licence, Mr Zamit stated he was concerned that any provision made within the OMS, as per the requirements of the Planning Consent, may subsequently be excluded from further consideration by the Licensing Sub-Committee if the requirements of the Planning Permission[1] were incorporated into the Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee and the Conditions attached to the Premises Licence.

[In his summing up, Mr Nevitt stated that, in relation to the discharge of Planning Conditions, including items such as waste disposal and noise nuisance, Planning Officers consulted the Environmental Health Service (EHS) and that it was at that stage that EHS would make comments to the Planning Officers regarding issues that may have arisen during the consideration of licensing applications].

Horatio Chance, Legal Officer

In response to a request by Mr Chance for confirmation that, during the proceedings, the Applicant had agreed to Premises Licence Condition 14, in the following terms –

“The number of persons permitted in the licensed areas of the premises at any one time shall not exceed 150 persons excluding staff.”

Mr Baylis stated that this condition had not been agreed by the Applicant and he referred to the comments by Mr Brown that the Planning Permission for the Premises, as shown on the Plans for the Premises, referred to a capacity for 214 covers.

Mr Baylis went on to say that at, but the previous week’s Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) considerations of the Premises Licence applications in respect of this Development, and today’s considerations by the LSC of Premises Licences applications for the same Development, he had been at pains to emphasise that the Plans were indicative as, without more, the Applicant did not know what the likely capacity would be of the respective Premises. What it was for this reason that the applicant had agreed to accept proposed Condition 14 whereby the EHS would determine the capacity of the Premises after completion of the fitting out of the Premises by the Operator.

In response to a question by Mr Chance regarding proposed Premises Licence Condition 29, which was in the following terms –

“The Premises shall develop and operate a Noise Management Policy and Dispersal Policy. Copies of these policies shall be made available upon the request of Police or an authorised officer”

and a proposal that the reference to a Dispersal Policy be deleted as this was covered under a separate Premises Licence Condition, Mr Baylis stated that the Applicant would be willing to accept any changes to the proposed conditions as determined by so the Sub-Committee. He stated that the purpose of offering Condition 29 was to give the Sub-Committee extra comfort in relation to these stand-alone Premises.

Mr Baylis also confirmed that the applicant would be willing to accept MC18[2] and MC24.[3]

SUMMING UP

The Chairman invited the various parties to sum up their presentations.

Adjournment

Having heard those parties who wished to sum up their presentations, the Chairman closed the live part of the meeting to allow the Members of the Sub-Committee to adjourn to consider their decision.

DECISION

It was the Sub-Committee’s decision to APPROVE the application as set out in the Full Reasoned Decision drafted by the Licensing Sub-Committee’s Legal Adviser, which is attached as an Appendix to these Notes of the Meeting.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having read the report by the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before it; the written submissions of the applicant and those parties objecting to the application; and, having heard presentations and representations by, and/or on behalf of, those parties present at the proceedings, as well as the responses by those parties to questions put to them by Members of the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that, in accordance with the Home Office Guidance,[4] and on the evidence before it, it was reasonable, appropriate and proportionate, in all the circumstances, to APPROVE the application.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took the following matters into consideration -

1.      The Applicant had agreed to –

(a)  The Premises Licence Conditions proposed by the Metropolitan Police Service;

(b)  That the terms and conditions of Paragraph 35c) of the Planning Consent would be incorporated into a Premises Licence condition applicable to each of the Licensed Premises; and

(c)  A condition for each Licensed Premises that there would be no dedicated dancefloor area or areas, thereby reassuring the Members of the Sub-Committee that it was not the Applicant’s intention that any of the Premises would operate as a nightclub.

2.      The Environmental Health Service (EHS) was –

(a)  Satisfied that the Operational Management Plan (OMP) submitted by the Applicant was sufficiently detailed for the purposes of these “Skeleton” Premises Licences, and that it would be kept under review and updated as work on the Paddington Square Development and the Licensed Premises progressed;

(b)  Of the opinion that the use of the Rooftop Terrace by customers was unlikely to be a source of nuisance to local residents; and

(c)  The Applicant’s proposal that there would be SIA door staff on the Ground Floor to assist in the dispersal of customers from the Premises as they exited the two lifts taking customers to and from the 17th and 18th Floors was sufficient given the transport links in the immediate vicinity.

3.      The submission by Richard Brown that, if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the Premises Licences applications, given the current lack of detail in the OPM -

(a)  It would not be possible to assess the impact these applications would have on the Promotion of the Licensing Objectives should the Sub-Committee be minded to grant the Hours of Operation as set out in the Premises Licence application.

(b)  Therefore, the applications for both the 17th & 18th Floors and the Rooftop Terrace & Bar if granted, they should be restricted to Core Hours.

 



[1] Specifically, the inclusion of Condition 35 of the Schedule of Planning Conditions requiring Premises Licence Holders to abide by the terms and conditions of the Operations Management Plan, in accordance with the Planning Permission for this development.

[2] MC18: Alcohol consumed outside the premises building shall only be consumed by patrons seated at tables.

[3] MC24: A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises is open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

[4] Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, April 2018

Supporting documents: