Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
West End *  None ** None	16 Charles Street W1J 5DR	New Premises Licence	21/05233/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No.1

(“The Committee”)

 

Thursday 18 November 2021

          

Membership:           Councillor Jim Glen (Chairman)

Councillor Jacqui Wilkinson

Councillor Aziz Toki

 

Officer Support:       Legal Advisor:         Horatio Chance

                                Policy Officer:          Aaron Hardy

                                Committee Officer:  Kisi Smith-Charlemagne

                                Presenting Officer:  Roxanna Haq

                         

Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of 16 Charles Street London W1J 5DR 21/05233/LIPN

 

 

Present:        Mr Gary Grant – Solicitor (Applicant)

                     Mr Andrew Wong – Agent (Applicant)

                     Mr Alex Rossoz – Director General of Lou Lou Groupe (Applicant)

Ms Alexandre Santamaria – Representative of Applicant (Applicant)

Mr Andrew Bamber – Expert for Crime and Disorder (Applicant)

Mr Torben Anderson – Acoustic Expert (Applicant)

Mr Chris Blamey – RGP Transport Expert (Applicant)

Mr Gary Stanesby - Architect- Stanesby Architecture (Applicant)

Mr David Miles– Architect- Stanesby Architecture (Applicant)

Mr Ian Watson (Environmental Health)

Mr James Rankin – Solicitor (Representing Rosebery Mayfair Residents Association Limited and Balfour Property Investments (BVI) Ltd)

Mr Charles Wake (Resident)

Mr Mark Edwards and Ms Micheline Edwards (Residents)

Ms Fleur Cameron Ragan (Balfour Property Investments (BVI) Ltd)

Mr Andrew Cochrane (Rosebery Mayfair Residents Association Limited)

Mr Peter Chadwick (Resident)

Mr Justin Goad and Ms Tina Cook (Residents)

Ms Crew (Resident)

Mr Lawrence Karlson and Ms Deborah Karlson (Residents)

Shepherd Market (Association of Retailers)

Mr Scott Collier (Resident)

Mr Richard Evans (Resident)

Mr Robin Burley (Resident)

Mr Ahmed Nassar (Resident)

 

 

Premises

 

16 Charles Street London W1J 5DR

                                                

 

Applicant

 

16SC Operations Ltd

 

Cumulative Impact Area

 

None

 

Ward

 

West End

 

Summary of Application

 

The Committee determined an application for a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect of 16 Charles Street London W1J 5DR. The Applicant is 16SC Operations Ltd. The Premises intends to operate as a fine dining restaurant. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant reduced its requested hours to Westminster’s Core Hours for Restaurants (with a slightly later morning opening time). These hours are for both licensable activities and closing time, which permits a flexible winding-down period in accordance with operational needs which are likely to differ from day to day. The Premises is located within the West End Ward but is not within the West End Cumulative Area Zone nor Special Consideration Zone.

 

Activities and Hours applied for

 

Hours premises are open to the public:

 

Monday to Saturday 08:00hrs – 01:30hrs

Sunday 09:00hrs – 00:30hrs

 

Sale by retail of alcohol (On or off sales or both): Both

 

Monday to Saturday 10:00hrs – 01:00hrs

Sunday 10:00hrs – 00:00hrs

 

Late Night Refreshment: (Indoors, outdoors, or both) Both

 

Monday to Saturday 23:00hrs – 01:00hrs

Sunday 23:00hrs – 00:00hrs

 

Live Music (Indoors, outdoors, or both) Both

 

Monday to Saturday 10:00hrs – 01:00hrs

Sunday 10:00hrs – 00:00hrs

 

Recorded Music (Indoors, outdoors, or both) Both

 

Monday to Saturday 10:00hrs – 01:00hrs

Sunday 10:00hrs – 00:00hrs

 

Films (Indoors, outdoors, or both) Indoors

 

Monday to Saturday 10:00hrs – 01:00hrs

Sunday 10:00hrs – 00:00hrs

 

Representations Received:

 

·       Metropolitan Police (PC Cheryl Boon) (withdrawn 18 August)

·       Environmental Health (Ian Watson)

·       RMR Co Ltd

·       Hortense du Rouret

·       CBRE Global Investors Ltd

·       Shepherd Market Association of Retailers and Residents

·       PC Environmental Consultants Ltd

·       Pharmagie and Bruno Seguin

·       Avocats Au Barreau De Paris

·       Dancer Trust

·       Rosebery Mayfair Resident Association Limited

·       French Chamber of Great Britain

·       27 Local residents

 

Summary of issues raised by objectors:

 

Concerns were raised regarding the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance. Environmental Health Services and local residents, maintained representations raising concerns regarding the number of late-night licences permitted in the area, noise, extra traffic including deliveries and litter. The Metropolitan Police withdrew their objections.

 

Policy Position:

 

HRS1

 

·       Applications within the core hours set out below in this policy will

generally, be granted for the relevant premises uses, subject to not

being contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy.

Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in Clause C

will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies,

and with particular regard to the following:

 

The demonstration of compliance in the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1 associated with the likelihood of the effect of the grant of a licence for later or earlier hours on crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

RNT1 (A)

 

·       Applications outside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone will

generally be granted subject to the application meeting the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.

·       The hours for licensable activities being within the council’s Core

Hours Policy HRS1.

 

 

SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

 

The Sub-Committee considered an application byMr Richard Romain for a New Premises Licence  under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”).

 

The Presenting Officer Ms Roxanna Haq introduced the application and advised that the Premises intends to operate as a fine dining restaurant.  She advised that the Premises were located within the West End Ward but is not within the West End Cumulative Area Zone nor Special Consideration Zone.

 

Mr Gary Grant Counsel  appearing on behalf of the Applicant addressed the Sub-Committee, he explained that this was an application for a new premises licence to permit a fine dining restaurant to open in the historic, and once magnificent, six-floor Grade II listed building at 16 Charles Street in Mayfair. He stated that in its Edwardian heyday, number 16 was the London home of the flamboyant high-society hostess Dame Margaret Greville (the daughter of the founder of McEwan breweries). Mr Grant stated that the Premises enjoyed a reputation for hosting parties and soirees for politicians, royalty and celebrities. He stated  that following Dame Margaret’s death in 1942 the building became a gentlemen’s club and then home to Debrett’s, the society etiquette experts, before being used as offices in more recent years.

Mr Grant advised that the building had been vacant since July 2018 and, its interiors were now in a state of disrepair and were deteriorating. He added that the landlord had indicated that the building was unlikely to attract office use in the current climate and is well suited to restaurant use.  Mr Grant advised that in 2018, an unrelated application to convert the property into a 24-hour casino was refused by the Council.

 

Mr Grant advised that the Applicant for this premises licence is 16 CS Operations Limited who trade as the “LouLou Groupe”. They are an internationally renowned restaurant group with highly professional and experienced operators. Mr Grant advised that The LouLou Groupe currently operates restaurants in Paris, Val D’Isere and St Tropez. These include one at the Museum of Decorative Arts of Paris, which is part of the Louvre Museum, and Le Flandrin which is located in the heart of the 16th arrondissement in Paris, a high-end residential neighbourhood comparable to Mayfair.

 

Mr Grant stated that The LouLou Groupe were dedicated to creating long-term relationships with the communities in which their restaurants are located. He added that The LouLou Groupe wished to breathe life back into the Premises, renovate it from top to bottom and return the building to its historic hospitality use so it becomes a place for people who live, work and visit London to enjoy. Mr Grant advised that if the Sub-Committee was minded granting the application the Applicant intended to invest some £12 million into the renovations, create 120 local jobs and boost the local economy using local suppliers.

 

Mr Grant stated that the Landlord of the building fully endorsed the application and had submitted a letter of recommendation which could be found on pages 247-249 of the committee papers.  He advised  that the alternative was that the Premises would remain vacant and deteriorate further or, if a business occupier could be found and the beautiful building is used for offices from which the general public will be excluded. Mr Grant felt that given the importance of the building to the area’s heritage, that there were wider benefits that the granting of the licence application would have in preserving the building’s future.

 

Mr Grant advised that the Applicant  had submitted a bundle, including a set of revised Hours and Conditions, a Statement of Community Engagement (complete with presentation), Heritage Statement, Operational Management Strategy, photographs, expert reports, supporting letters and other supporting materials.  Mr Grant said that if it did intend to grant a licence that it should be made personal to the Applicant. He confirmed  that planning permission was in place and the certificate of use was included in the additional pack which had been circulated to all parties.

 

The Sub-Committee invited Mr Grant to take all parties through the additional conditions that had been agreed.  Mr Grant said that the residents requested  the capacity be limited to 280 people.  This was not agreed because the fire safety capacity was 491persons and the Applicant had already reduced the amount to 350 persons.  Mr Grant added that in order for the Applicant  to justify the £12 million investment the Premises would need to accommodate 350 patrons.  On the second condition regarding SIA door supervisors he  confirmed  this was agreed. 

 

Mr Grant said that condition 3 was in addition to the incident log condition and it stipulated that the log should be checked once a week.  He stated  that condition 4 had been reworded and would ensure that staff and customers do not congregate in the front doors of 14-18 Charles Street.  Mr Grant agreed conditions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  However, Condition 11 was not agreed, because this was a technical noise condition. He said that after speaking with the Environmental Health Officer, the Applicant instead proposed the Westminster preferred condition to comply with the noise criteria of NR30 (day), NR25 (night), and NR40 (LFmax).

 

The Sub-Committee queried the location of the holding bars, noise emanating from air-conditioning and plant equipment and plans for ongoing consultation with residents.  Responding to the Sub-Committee’s questions, Mr Grant confirmed the holding bars were on the second floor.  Mr Torben Anderson Acoustic Expert for the  Applicant advised that the Premises will be reusing the existing equipment there will be two kitchen extract fans, one both will be contained internally with one ducted to a lower roof at the back of the Premises and will comply with noise conditions.  Mr Grant said that there would be regular quarterly meetings with the residents in order to discuss and resolve any issues they may have.

 

Mr Alex Rossoz Director General of Lou Lou Groupe for the Applicant addressed the Sub-Committee, he advised that it was his intention to keep physical meetings and hold open discussions with the residents and neighbours of the Premises.  He added that he is proposing a WhatsApp group for instant discussions and that the general manager and his personal phone numbers will also be available.  Mr Rozzoz said  that he had invited the neighbours to review the premises in Paris that will operate in a similar way to how the Premises at 16 Charles Street.

 

The Sub-committee also queried the request for the projection of films, the delivery and waste management arrangements including arrangements for smokers.  Mr Rozzoz explained that the screening of films  would be largely for corporate events e.g. presentations. With regards to the delivery and waste management arrangements, he advised that they had experience for managing delivers and waste in residential neighbourhoods. Mr Grant confirmed the following conditions:

 

·       Condition 36: No delivery to the premises shall take place between 18:00 and 08:00.

·       Condition 37: No collection of waste or recycling materials including bottles shall take place between 18:00 and 08:00.

·       Condition 39: Any Outside smokers must be supervised by staff to ensure there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the highway.  Smokers are limited to a maximum of 5 persons after 21:00.

 

Mr Chris Blamey RGP Transport Expert for the Applicant addressed the Sub-Committee, noting the work carried out reviewing the highways as part of the deliveries and waste management operating plans. The Sub-Committee queried the capacity numbers for each floor.  Mr Grant confirmed 100 for the ground floor, 75 both for the first and second floors and 50 both for the third and fourth floors.

 

Mr Ian Watson appearing on behalf of Environmental Health addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that he had provided pre application advice to the Applicant and had undertaken a visit also to the Premises. He said that this was a quiet residential area, and the courtyard would cause nuisance issues and therefore the use of the courtyard had been removed from the application.  He agreed with the capacity numbers and advised that the noise emanating from plant machinery would need to be reassessed as the report did not advise on the existing noise levels.  Mr Watson said  there would need to be further discussion regard refrigeration for the Premises.  He stated  that the building was Grade II listed and any building works would be subject to an Heritage Officer inspection.  Mr Watson also discussed the seals and glazing of the windows and doors to prevent noise escaping and the potential internal transfer of noise no’s 15 and 17 Charles Street.

 

Mr Watson said that further discussions should take place regarding the locations of refuse points, use of internal machines and closing internal doors, he also discussed the possibility of vibration and impact noise.  The Sub-Committee asked Mr Watson if the noise criteria of NR30 (day), NR25 (night), and NR40 (LFmax) would be sufficient to protect the neighbours from noise nuisance.  Mr Watson advised that this was in line with Council policy.  Mr Watson confirmed that there was a works condition and a condition regarding vibrations and the works will only be signed off once all comply on final visits.

 

Mr James Rankin Counsel  appearing on behalf of the Rosebery Mayfair Residents Association Limited and Balfour Property Investments (BVI) Ltd) addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Rankin expressed his displeasure in the late arrival of submissions and conditions presented by the Applicants representative.  Mr Ranking commented on the level of consultation that his clients had received, names email exchanges where it was offered to remove the use of the courtyard if his clients conceded everything else.  He added that in his view there was not an extensive consultation period and the residents which he represented viewed the application with some concern.

 

Mr Rankin said that a number of the residents had lived in Charles Street for many years.  He felt that with 3 services of 350 people, there was the potential for over 1,000 people to pass through the doors each day.  He added that the movement and associated noise was quite alarming to his clients and was the reason why they sought to reduce the capacity numbers and minimise the impact of the Premises.  Mr Rankin advised that his clients had submitted a noise report, highlighting that the Premises would cause substantial noise.  He also referred to the fire safety report submitted (Page 318 refers), where it described a significant number of deviations to current fire safety guidance.

 

Mr Rankin confirmed that his clients were opposed to this application and if the Sub-Committee were minded granting the application, it required strict conditions.  Mr Rankin confirmed that his clients had agreed the condition put forward by Mr Grant, except for conditions 1 and 11.  Mr Rankin advised that the wording from condition 11 was taken from the noise report provided to his clients from the Applicant. Mr Rankin invited Mr Mark Edwards (Residents) to address the Sub-Committee to discuss his objections.

 

Mr Edwards advised that he and his wife had been residents of Rosebery Court for over sixteen years.  He confirmed that he and his wife were opposed to the application due to its size and the application not being in line with the policies adopted (Westminster Local Plan and Noise Strategy, Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan) to maintain Charles St as residential and protect the broader amenity value of Mayfair. Mr Edwards felt that the Chesterfield Hotel and English-speaking Union should not be compared to this application.  He stated  that the application was for a large and noisy restaurant in a listed building with all the comings and goings to/from the proposed restaurant likely to cause significant issues impacting on us as residents.

 

Mr Edwards stated  that he and his wife objected to the proposed projection of films, live and recorded music, provision of late-night refreshments operating between the hours of 10.00 and 01.00. Mr Edwards felt that the proposed conditions of use for the restaurant were vague, undefined and difficult to interpret. Mr Edwards was concerned that the applicant had not considered the impact of noise on neighbours and felt that acceptance of the application would lead to residents becoming local reporters of breaches of the peace.

 

Mr Edwards strongly object to the use of the Patio and Courtyard area, he added that conservatory doors and windows to or overlooking the patio windows needed to remain closed to stop noise and light emission impacting on neighbours and flats including his own. Mr Edwards advised that the buildings surrounding the outside area create an amplifier affect increasing any noise made or emitted to these outside spaces. In summary Mr and Mrs Edwards, objected to the application as it would have an adverse impact on what is primarily a residential street and the amenity value of the area.

 

Mrs Deborah Karlson addressed the Sub-Committee and confirmed that she and her husband agreed with everything that Mr Rankin and Mark Edwards had said.  Mrs Karlson expressed her concerns regarding the number of patrons visiting the restaurant and the noise from plant which had not been determined.  She also raised concerns regarding the main point of access and regress for over 1,000 patrons and 75 members of staff.  Mrs Karlson was also concerned with persons smoking outside of their flat as it is right next door to the entrance. She also was concerned that patrons and smokers would try to gain shelter for adverse weather from the door cover outside her front door. 

 

Mr Peter Chadwick (Residents) addressed the Sub-Committee he stated that since 1987 the Premises has been an office, so not used after 18:00or at weekends, whereas the restaurant is to function from 10:00 to 01:00, 7 days a week, meaning there will be a total change in the environment for the 35 homes which surround it.  Mr Chadwick stated  that no matter how considerate the operators of the restaurant seek to be, it will create nuisance.  He said that there would be noise and vibration from kitchen equipment, noise from serving meals, noise from customers (indoors and in the courtyard), noise from deliveries and waste removal, noise & vibration from ventilation equipment, odour from all those sources, light pollution from illuminating the rooms and courtyard at night, and smoke (from customers moving outside for a cigarette/cigar). All in a residential area which has not had that sort of disturbance previously.

 

Mr Chadwick said that he was an officer of the company that employed the caretaker/porter for Rosebery Court who had been in post since 1998.  He advised that in his capacity as an employer he had a duty of care under the Control of noise whilst at work regulations to ensure that it does not damage his health.  Mr Chadwick confirmed that this employee lived on the premises and his hours of employment started at 07:00, and lives in a small flat with a party wall with no. 16 Charles Street.  Mr Chadwick confirmed that the ventilation of the flat came from a window that opens into the courtyard of No16 Charles Street. 

 

Mr Grant invited Mr Gary Stanesby Architect (Stanesby Architecture) and Mr Torben Anderson Acoustic Expert both for the Applicant to address the concerns raised by the residents.  Mr Stanesby confirmed that secondary glazing would be used throughout the building approved by historic England.  He added regarding the rooms for the vault and the bottle crushers will be lined; and trolleys and carts that move goods will also have suppressant rubber to reduce noise.  Mr Stanesby confirmed that on the upper floors independent lining can be added to the walls to improve the acoustics.  Regarding the carters/porters flat, he  confirmed that they would be looking a secondary measure to absorb the sound within the fabric of the room.

 

Ms Crew advised that she agreed with the points raised by Mr Rankin and wanted to add the voice of Tina Cook to those comments.  Ms Crew said  that they were long standing residents and were not informed about the details of the application for a great length of time and received it on 16 November.  Ms Crew advised that it had dealt with some of their concerns, however, still maintained their objection on the basis of public nuisance.

 

Mr Rozzoz confirmed that he would be contracting a commercial waste company to collect his waste and that the hours would be in line with planning permission hours i.e. 08:00 to 18:00 and there would be fixed slots.  The Sub-Committee thanked the residents objecting for their submissions and comments.  The Sub-Committee invited the residents supporting the application to address the Sub-Committee.

 

Mr Ahmed Nassar (Resident), confirmed that he had lived on Charles Street for fifteen years and he was aware of the LouLou restaurants from his travels.  Mr Nassar felt that the Premises  had been empty for some time and he would much prefer an operation like LouLou considering the clientele that they attract as oppose to Mayfair Hotel area.  He confirmed that he was very much in support of the application.

 

Mr Chance the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee discussed the issue of the proposed conditions. Mr Chance confirmed the wording for condition 34 concerning the non-use of the courtyard, he confirmed that Condition 41 would be removed.  He  suggested a slight amendment to condition 35, by adding the words the “Premises licence holder”.  He also suggested that Condition 11 should be replaced with the Westminster model condition.  Mr Chance suggested that for condition 7, a copy of the dispersal policy should be provided to the responsible authorities. Regarding making the licence personal he said that this would be in direct conflict with the transfer provisions contained within section 42 of the Act and should be resisted. 

 

Mr Grant confirmed that they agreed to the resident’s condition 6 regarding the use of the courtyard and wanted to maintain this.  He disagreed however, with making the licence personal to the Applicant. Mr Rankin agreed that he would like the resident’s condition 6 to remain.

 

Conclusion

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises is not located within the West End Cumulative Impact Zone so there is no presumption to refuse the application.

 

The Sub-Committee realises that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits which it did so for the purposes of this application. It noted that a great deal of objection had been made to the application. These representations  were both in favour of the application and against it. The Sub-Committee was pleased to note that the Applicant had engaged extensively over a period of many months with local residents and the responsible authorities and had detailed very comprehensively in terms of the vision for the Premises and this was expressed eloquently by Mr Grant in his oral and written submissions to the Sub-Committee.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had reduced its requested hours to Westminster’s Core Hours for Restaurants (with a slightly later morning opening time). These hours are for both licensable activities and closing time, which permits a flexible winding-down period in accordance with operational needs which are likely to differ from day to day.

 

The Sub-Committee considered the Applicant’s detailed written Submission prepared by Mr Grant together with a raft of proposed conditions and various policies and expert reports to mitigate the concerns raised. These were all explained during the hearing and provided clarity on those matters objected to by local residents.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises would be operated first and foremost as a fine dining restaurant which would be food led and alcohol sold as ancillary to a table meal with Model Condition 66 imposed on the Premises Licence slightly amended to take account of the holding bar areas.  There was a requirement for patrons to be seated and for waiter service to be provided and this is also covered by the conditions.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the designated areas on the second floor (shaded in orange on the plans) are intended to serve as holding lounges. They are the only areas where customers can enjoy an alcoholic drink prior to having a substantial table meal. These holding lounges will not be visible from the street and are not at street level. The holding lounges are primarily intended for guests waiting for their table who wish to have a pre-dinner drink. This ensures guests are able to wait inside the restaurant and not left queuing outside on the street leading to nuisance The Sub-Committee has imposed conditions that ensure these areas cannot be used as vertical drinking bars and all alcohol in these areas must be served by waiters and waitresses to seated customers only.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the various concerns raised by local residents when it came to the issue of nuisance. However, the Sub-Committee sought to strike the right balance when considering the needs of local residents and the Applicants ability to run and manage his Premises in a way that does not undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee took comfort from the fact that the Applicant would be a responsible operator that would run the Premises to a very high standard and would seek to work with local residents on any potential issues. The Sub-Committee imposed Model Condition 24 which requires the number of the manager of the Premises to be publicly available.

 

The Sub-Committee noted also that the external courtyard area which is located to the rear of the Premises is no longer a bone of contention as this was removed from the application and has been conditioned on the Premises Licence that this area is not to be used. In this regard the Sub-Committee was pleased that the Applicant had listened very carefully to the views of residents when considering the use of this area and the potential noise problems that could have ensued and impacted residents.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the Premises Licence Holder’s assurances and various undertaking that the Premises given its historical nature as a Grade II listed building would be well run in accordance with the established practices and procedures already in bedded over time that exist within the Applicants premises portfolio that are to be applied and adopted for these Premises which would ultimately have the effect of promoting the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Metropolitan Police who originally objected to the application had withdrawn their objection after agreeing a number of conditions that would help promote the crime and disorder licensing objective. Similarly, the Licensing Authority did not objection to the application and this was noted by the Sub-Committee.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant had prepared an Operational Management Plan which also incorporated a dispersal policy to manage patrons leaving the Premises particularly at the terminal hour where nuisance as most likely to occur.  Policies had also been provided regarding deliveries, waste management and servicing and conditions have been imposed on the Premises Licence in this respect to prevent nuisance arising by restricting deliveries and waste collections to the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 so as not to disturb residents.

 

The Sub-Committee welcomed that the Applicant had prepared an Entertainment Policy and had also offered a noise-limiter condition that will ensure that all amplified music will be played at a level capped by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. This will ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to local residents by the playing of music within the premises, particularly the restaurant area where the playing of music is to complement the diners experience. This is also strengthened by Model Condition 12 which has been imposed on the Premises Licence to ensure that vibrations from plant machinery is kept to a minimum.

 

The Sub-Committee considers that the safeguards put in place by the extensive use of conditions will deal with the concerns raised by residents regarding public nuisance. In any event the Environmental Health Service is to undertake an inspection of the Premises before licensable activities can take place and this will address the issue of the works to the Premises and capacity to be limited to 350 persons as well as address noise issues emanating from the Premises with plant and machinery.

 

The Sub-Committee wishes the Applicant the very best in restoring the Premises to its former glory after it being left vacant for years. It, however, would stress upon the Applicant to work well with residents given the concerns raised and to develop a harmonious relationship with local residents where both parties can work together efficiently and effectively to ensure the smooth running of the Premises.

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had provided valid reasons as to why the granting of the application would promote the licensing objectives.  

 

Having carefully considered the committee papers and the submissions made by all the parties, both orally and in writing, the Sub-Committee has decided, after taking into account all of the individual circumstances of this case and the promotion of the four licensing objectives: -

 

1.        To grant permission for Recorded Music, Live Music, Exhibition of Films, Sale by Retail of Alcohol (Indoors and Outdoors) Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:30 Friday to Saturday 10:00 to 00:00 Sunday 10:00 to 22:30 hours

 

Seasonal variations.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

 

2.        To grant permission for Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors) Monday to Thursday 23:00 to 23:30 Friday to Saturday 23:00 to 00:00 Sunday N/A

 

Seasonal variations: 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

 

3.        To grant permission for the Opening Hours of the Premises Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:30 Friday to Saturday 10:00 to 00:00 Sunday 10:00 to 22:30 hours

 

           Seasonal variations: Opening Hours 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

 

4.        That the Licence is subject to any relevant mandatory conditions.

 

5.        That the Licence is subject to the following additional conditions imposed by the Committee which are considered appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

 

Conditions imposed by the Committee after a hearing

 

6.        Except for the areas shaded orange on deposited plans, the premises shall only operate as a restaurant:-

 

(i) in which customers are shown to their table,

(ii) where the supply of alcohol is by waiter or waitress service only,

(iii) which provide food in the form of substantial table meals that are prepared on the premises and are served and consumed at the table using non disposable crockery

(iv) which do not provide any take away service of food or drink for immediate consumption,

(v) which do not provide any take away service of food or drink after 23.00, and

(vi) where alcohol shall not be sold or supplied, otherwise than for consumption by persons who are seated in the premises and bona fide taking substantial table meals there and provided always that the consumption of alcohol by such persons is ancillary to taking such meals.

 

Notwithstanding this condition customers are permitted to take from the

premises part consumed, and resealed bottles of wine supplied ancillary to their meal.

 

7.        During the hours of operation, the licence holder shall ensure sufficient measures are in place to remove and prevent litter or waste arising or accumulating from customers in the area immediately outside the premises, and that this area shall be swept and or washed and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements by close of business.

 

8.        Substantial food and non-intoxicating beverages, including drinking water, shall be available in all parts of the premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises.

 

9.        Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the area quietly.

 

10.      All waste shall be properly presented and placed out for collection no earlier than 30 minutes before collection times.

 

11.      Loudspeakers shall not be located in the entrance lobby or outside the premise building.

 

12.      Notices shall be prominently displayed at any area used for smoking requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and use the area quietly.

 

13.      The premises licence holder shall ensure that any patrons smoking outside the premises do so on an orderly manner and are supervised by staff so as to ensure that there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the public highway.

 

14.      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.

 

15.      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.

 

16.      A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system set at a level determined by and to the satisfaction of an authorised officer of the Environmental health Service, so as to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to local residents or businesses. The operational panel of the noise limiter shall then be secured by key or password to the satisfaction of officers from the Environmental health Services and access shall only be by persons authorised by the Premises Licence Holder. The limiter shall not be altered

without prior agreement with the Environmental health Service. No alteration or modification to any existing sound system(s) should be effected without prior knowledge of an authorised officer of the Environmental health Service. No additional sound generating equipment shall be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter device.

 

17.      No fumes, steam or odours shall be emitted from the licenced premises so as to cause a nuisance to any persons living or carrying on business in the area where the premises are situated.

 

18.      (a) The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team.

(b) All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition.

(c) The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises and will include the external area immediately outside the premises entrance.

(d) All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping.

(e) Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.

 

19.      A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises is open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

 

20.      An incident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of the City Council or the Police, which will record the following:

a) All crimes reported to the venue;

b) All ejections of patrons;

c) Any complaints received concerning crime and disorder;

d) Any incidents of disorder;

e) All seizures of drugs or offensive weapons;

f) Any refusal of sale of alcohol.

 

21.      There shall be no striptease or nudity and all persons shall be decently attired at all times unless the premises are operating under the provisions of a Sexual Entertainment Licence.

 

22.      A challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification are recognised photographic identification cards such as a driving licence, passport or proof of age card with the PASS hologram.

 

23.      The approved arrangements at the premises, including means of escape provisions, emergency warning equipment, the electrical installation and mechanical equipment, shall at all material times be maintained in good condition and full working order.

 

24.      The means of escape provided for the premises shall be maintained unobstructed, free of trip hazards, be immediately available and clearly identified in accordance with the plans provided.

 

25.      All emergency exit doors shall be available at all material times without the use of a key, code, card or similar means.

 

26.      All emergency doors shall be maintained effectively self-closing and not held open other than by an approved device.

 

27.      The edges of the treads of steps and stairways shall be maintained so as to be conspicuous.

 

28.      Curtains and hangings shall be arranged so as not to obstruct emergency safety signs or emergency equipment.

 

29.      No licensable activities shall take place at the premises until the Environmental Health Consultation Team has determined the capacity of the premises and the Licensing Authority has replaced this condition on the licence with a condition detailing the capacity so determined and in any event up to a maximum of 350 customers excluding staff.

 

30.      Before the premises open to the public, the plans as deposited will be checked by the Environmental health Consultation Team to ensure they are an accurate reflection of the premises constructed. Where there are minor changes to the premises layout during the course of construction new plans shall be provided to the Environmental Health Consultation Team and the Licensing Authority.

          

31.      Within the areas shaded orange on deposited plans the supply of alcohol shall be to customers seated and by waiter or waitress service only.

 

32.      Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke or make a phone call, shall not be permitted to take glass containers with them.

 

33.      A copy of the premises’ dispersal policy shall be made readily available at the premises for inspection by a police officer and/or an authorised officer of Westminster City Council.

 

34.      A minimum of 2 SIA licensed door supervisors shall be on duty at the premises from 21:00 hours and they must correctly display their SIA licence(s) when on duty so as to be visible.

 

35.      The external courtyard at the rear of 16 Charles Street shall not be used by members of the public at any time.

 

36.      The third and fourth floors of the premises shall only be used for private dining.

 

37.      No deliveries to the premises shall take place between 18:00 and 08.00 hours on the following day.

 

38.      No collections of waste or recycling materials (including bottles) from the premises shall take place between 18:00 and 08.00 hours on the following day.

 

39.      Any outside smokers must be supervised by staff to ensure there is no public nuisance or obstruction of the highway. Smokers are limited to a maximum of 5 persons after 9pm.

 

40.      The doors and windows in the building on the west side of the courtyard (identified in green on the Ground Floor Plan labelled LIC1) will remain closed (other than for emergency exit or staff/contractors to access and maintain the courtyard or the building) at all times.

 

41.      There will be no customer use at any time of the courtyard at the rear of 16 Charles Street.

 

If problems persist then a Review of the Premises Licence can be made.

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee

18 November 2021