Agenda item

Belgrave Square Garden, Open Space, Belgrave Square, SW1

17/14880/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Prior to the hearing, the Applicant advised all parties that there were amendments to the application.  Firstly, under “conditions consistent with the operating schedule” in the Licensing Sub-Committee report (condition 11), the number of events for which licensable activity would be necessary was reduced from 15 to 12.  Secondly, in terms of non-standard timings, it had originally been proposed that there should be a maximum of 5 occasions per calendar year when licensable activity may continue until 01:30. The applicant now proposed to reduce this to a maximum of 3 occasions per calendar year when licensable activity may continue until 01:00.

The Sub-Committee was addressed at the hearing by Mr Baylis.  He disputed that there had been any element of ‘subterfuge’ or a lack of consultation in relation to what was sought from the application as he believed may have been suggested by Belgravia Society’s written representation.  He clarified that he had been instructed by Grosvenor Estate.  The Applicant was Belgrave Square Garden Events Committee and the application was being fully supported by Grosvenor Estate who own the Belgrave Square Garden Open Space.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Hughes.  Mr Hughes explained that residents of Belgrave Square are automatically entitled to use the Garden and are keyholders.  Anyone who lives on the Belgrave Estate can apply as a concession to be a keyholder for the Garden.  An e-mail had been sent to all keyholders in June 2017 that Grosvenor had e-mail addresses for, setting out the original proposals.  A letter had also been placed in the Garden.  There had been one objection from the keyholders and three or four emails requesting further information.  Belgravia Society issued a newsletter about the application and Grosvenor asked their agents to respond which subsequently appeared in Belgravia magazine.  The Chair of the Belgravia Society had been invited in the response to meet with Grosvenor’s agents to discuss the application.  Mr Hughes added that this meeting had unfortunately not taken place.

Mr Hughes wished to emphasise that Grosvenor did not want to jeopardise the use of the Garden.  The Grosvenor family had owned the freehold of Mayfair Belgravia for 340 years, Grosvenor had looked after 200 acres of the estate for 200 years and he had personally been responsible for looking after Belgrave Square for the last 30 years.  He was proud of the Garden and it had won a number of awards, including in recent years.

Mr Hughes advised those present that there had been an incident where an individual was injured at an event in 2016 on land owned by Grosvenor (it was not specifically a Grosvenor event).  There had been a health and safety review undertaken by Grosvenor and they had decided to employ an overall consultant to advise on events.  We Are The Fair Ltd had been selected and had been involved with Grosvenor events across the United Kingdom, including for the garden squares that Grosvenor are responsible for.  We Are The Fair had recommended that where there were more than one or two events proposed at a site per year Grosvenor should seek a premises licence.  Mr Hughes explained that Grosvenor had operated events under Temporary Event Notices (‘TENs’) for the last seven or eight years and there had been no complaints.  He believed that there would be greater consistency, governance and an ability for residents to see what was happening if a premises licence was applied for.

Mr Hughes stated (and this was re-iterated by Mr Baylis) that he did not envisage a change in the nature or type of events that would be held at Belgrave Square Garden in comparison to those held previously in the event the application was granted.  The plan was to hold an open air opera in 2018.  It would be no different to other low key, low impact events.

The Sub-Committee also heard from Mr Dudley who was from We Are The Fair.  He said that since We Are The Fair had been appointed, events held at the Garden had included London Open Squares Weekend, a networking cocktail party, an annual Belgrave residents’ barbeque, a dog show and a children’s sports day.  Mr Dudley was responsible for due diligence of events and had submitted the required TENs.

Members of the Sub-Committee had requested and had been given a complete record of the TENs held at the Garden, starting in 2009.  It was ensured that the parties to the hearing had access to the same information.

Mr Baylis expressed the view that the conditions offered, including those discussed with Environmental Health were comprehensive.  In making the point that there had been no issues raised in relation to the TENs that had been held, he referred to an event from 21 to 23 June 2017 which included one item which concluded at 01:30.  Mr Dudley clarified that this had been the residents’ barbeque held in a small marquee in the inner Garden.  Twenty to thirty people had been on the premises by 01:30.   Attendees had been given a table, chefs had prepared the meal, alcohol had been provided as part of the ticket price and there had been a cash bar and disco with amplified music.  It was Mr Dudley’s assessment, having walked around Belgrave Square during the event, that music could be heard at times but not particularly loudly.  Traffic noise and the trees in the Garden played a part in shielding what music could be heard.

Mr Wroe asked Mr Baylis what the likely capacity was in relation to the application.  Mr Baylis replied that this had been discussed with Mr Nevitt for Environmental Health.  Environmental Health took into account means of escape and toilets.  Portable toilets were being supplied for the events.  It was the case that Belgrave Square was capable of catering for thousands of people.  The capacity requested in respect of the premises licence was one thousand.

The Sub-Committee noted that one event had been held at the Garden in both 2009 and 2012 and the maximum held in any one year had been four in 2015.  Three events had been held in both 2016 and 2017.  The Sub-Committee asked why the Applicant was now seeking twelve events per year.  If the desire was to regularise in the premises licence what the Applicant had been doing previously when applying for TENs, why did the Applicant not limit the number of events to five rather than twelve or the fifteen originally sought?  There had also not been three late events held in any one year previously.  Mr Hughes replied that there were a number of different types of events that were sought.  There were potentially events which may be envisaged as private but could involve alcohol and a cash bar.  There needed to be some flexibility and it was possible that ad hoc events would be required that were not foreseen at the current time.  These were not for profit events.  It was invested back into the Garden.

The Sub-Committee made the point that the Applicant could still submit up to fifteen TENs per year in addition to the number set out in the premises licence if the Sub-Committee was minded to grant.  Further clarification was sought as to what the events that would take place if the premises licence was granted might involve.  Mr Hughes responded that he could not be more specific in terms of what the events might involve as the nature of these were not known a year in advance.  Mr Hughes and Mr Baylis added that they were willing to give assurances that no further TENs would be applied for if the application was granted.  Mr Panto commented that whilst the Council would expect the Applicant and Grosvenor to abide by their assurances, they would not be legally bound by them.

Mr Baylis wished to clarify that there would be no change envisaged in the type of events rather than the number of events.  He commented that the advantage to the premises licence if granted would be that there would be conditions attached to it which would have to be complied with.  Breaches of conditions could potentially lead to a review of the premises licence.

The Sub-Committee also asked the Applicant what the capacities had been for previous events held.  Mr Dudley replied that the maximum number for the barbeque in June 2017 had been 420.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Nevitt on behalf of Environmental Health.  Mr Nevitt said that he had conveyed to Grosvenor and the events management company representatives Environmental Health’s three concerns.  These were firstly that the increase in number of events per year would potentially create an increased risk.  Secondly, there was the lateness of the terminal hour sought.  Thirdly, it was possible to have a much bigger capacity than 499 which is the maximum number permitted under a TEN.  Mr Nevitt explained that he had advised those involved with the application to look at holding any late events as TENs if they were not seeking capacities over 499.  This would bring the application back to approximately Core Hours for the bulk of the activities with larger capacities.  If there were any difficulties caused by late night activities from Temporary Event Notices it would not put the premises licence at risk.

Mr Nevitt accepted Mr Baylis’ point that Belgrave Square is very large and it is possible for thousands to be located there at any one time.  He expected that the event organiser would submit for prior approval an event management plan and a capacity would be decided on the information provided.  Environmental Health’s concern would be what the premises licence would allow.  Would it include the Applicant holding a major rock concert in the Open Space? 

Mr Nevitt stated that the ancillary operational aspects for the events were also important including the set up and break down arrangements after the events take place.  Mr Nevitt referred to there being a lack of public transport available in the immediate vicinity.  More people attending the events would have to disperse through the surrounding streets and this would have to be addressed.

Mr Nevitt confirmed that the TENs had been operated without any recorded complaints.  He concurred with Mr Dudley’s view that traffic noise and the trees in the Garden played a part in shielding what music could be heard by residents who were some distance away from the centre of Belgrave Square.  It was likely that employing the same events management company would result in a consistent approach towards the events.  Mr Nevitt observed that having conditions on a premises licence would create better regulation than undertakings on a Temporary Event Notice.

Mr Panto asked Mr Nevitt whether he was satisfied with the conditions proposed by those involved with the application as Environmental Health had not put forward any of their own.  Mr Nevitt replied that in general he was content with what conditions were being offered subject to what arose at the hearing.  The key element was the requirement to produce an event management plan.  Specifically in respect of the capacity, the numbers in terms of public safety were acceptable.  However, it would depend on how the events management company managed the thousand people, including the dispersal from the event.

The Sub-Committee heard from PC Guerra on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.  He stated that the Applicant had applied for a range of activities which could be interpreted in a number of different ways by those scrutinising the application.  Low risk events had generally been held in the Garden in the past and these had been assessed on a case by case basis when the TENs had been submitted.  If the current application was granted there would be an event management plan submitted setting out what the event entailed.  However, the number of events would increase and the question was how the use of the Garden area would develop and what numbers were likely to attend.  The Police had not proposed conditions to date as it was not clear how the events would develop and what conditions would be appropriate.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Mr Brown, representing the Belgravia Society.  Mr Brown explained that the Belgravia Society’s position was that the application as presented should be refused.  It was not felt that the application promoted the licensing objectives.  One reason for this was that the terminal hours were considered to be very late for an open space.  Hyde Park in comparison had a significantly earlier terminal hour. 

In terms of the number of events per year, Mr Brown said that these were far in excess of those sought as TENs over the last few years.  He made the point that whilst it could be the case that the nature of events might not change, the granting of the current application would enable those involved with the application to change the way in which the events were operated.

Mr Brown emphasised that it was likely that events would take place mostly during the Summer.  Dismantling of equipment was often noisy and would, it was felt, drag on over an extended period.  The use of the Garden for keyholders was likely to be curtailed.  Mr Brown queried whether the events could therefore be described as occasional.  He expressed the view that the type of activity could not be more open ended.  Performance of dance, live music and recorded music were all sought as activities after they became licensable at 23:00.

The Belgravia Society was also of the view that a capacity of one thousand was excessive, both in terms of potential noise from a crowd at the event and the dispersal afterwards.  Mr Brown commented that Belgrave Square and the locality is a very residential area.

Mr Brown queried why the Applicant had applied for off sales.  The Belgravia Society believed that the proposed conditions were not sufficient.  It was also felt that the Applicant should have commissioned a noise impact assessment, particularly as there were events which could take place until 01:30 in an open space.  Mr Brown highlighted the problems at Hyde Park as an example of noise not being predictable and adversely affecting different areas at different times.

Mr Brown stated that the Society was not accusing those involved with the application of ‘subterfuge’.  However, he did believe that there were some valid questions to be answered in terms of the transparency of who the Applicant was in this case.  Whilst the Applicant was the Belgrave Square Garden Events Committee, the Sub-Committee had only heard from representatives of Grosvenor and We Are The Fair.  He expressed the view that it was vital for the Sub-Committee to know who the premises licence was being granted to.  It was, he believed, peculiar that there was a proposed condition that ‘all events taking place in the Garden will be approved in writing by either Grosvenor or the Belgrave Square Garden Events Committee’.

Mr Brown referred to the London Squares Preservation Act 1931.  He mentioned that the Act set out that a protected square could only be used for an authorised purpose which was as an ornamental pleasure garden or for play, rest and recreation.  No structure could be erected except in furtherance of that purpose.  He made the point that condition 9 required the sale of alcohol to be ancillary to the primary use of the premises as an event space and this was erroneous as the Garden was an open space and not an event space.  If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application, the number of events granted would be relevant in terms of the materiality of the use.

Mr Brown wished to clarify that the Belgravia Society did not oppose low frequency events such as the residents’ barbeque.  It was the Society’s view that the barbeque had not meant to be a precedent for many more late night events.  The fact that the Applicant could also apply for TENs in addition to the premises licence was a significant concern for the Society.

Mr Brown recommended that the application was refused and that TENs were submitted for any events.  He appreciated the argument that a premises licence could be seen as beneficial in some cases due to conditions being attached.  However, he disagreed in this case.  A particular issue was the doubling of capacity from 499 for TENs to 1000 for events if the premises licence was granted.

Mr Brown suggested that in the event the application was granted, the maximum number of events granted was five.  This he believed would be consistent with Mr Dudley’s assurance to Mr Waite of the Belgravia Society in a letter included in the report that ‘we are not proposing a significant increase in the number of events held in the Garden’.  These would only be events with licensable activities.  There was no restriction on the Garden being used for events with non-licensable activities.

In relation to the terminal hour for events, Mr Brown suggested 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 21:00 on Sunday.  It was requested that no regulated entertainment was permitted, that there were no off sales and the maximum capacity for events was 250. 

Ms Reignier-Leigh, Trustee and Secretary of the Belgravia Society spoke in respect of the application.  She commented that Grosvenor had not made an attempt to have a meaningful dialogue with the Society about events.  She was keen for the Garden to remain the best small park in London for the use of local residents and not taken over by licensable activities.  She expressed the view that 499 people for an event was too many for a residential garden and was concerned how the numbers of events had increased over the years.  Ms Reignier-Leigh queried why if there were 20-30 people remaining for an event at 01:30 in the morning, the application did not limit events to Core Hours at the latest.

 Mr Waite, Chair of the Belgravia Society, made the point that most of the houses in the neighbourhood of Belgrave Square are divided into flats and very few of the houses have gardens.  There was a reliance on Belgrave Square Garden as many keyholders did not have their own private gardens.  He also wished to draw the Sub-Committee’s attention to the Events held at the Garden having previously been organised by the community.  Now he believed they were of a size that the events were becoming commercial.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Lucas, a resident and keyholder of the Garden and Belgravia Society member.  He stated that the Garden was supposed to be a residential garden square and should not descend to commercial activity.  It should not follow a similar path to Hyde Park.  He was concerned at the number of days it would take to set up and dismantle the equipment and the two day events proposed.  Mr Lucas believed the events were a breach of the 1931 London Squares Preservation Act and that if the application was granted the hours should be consistent with those specified for resident organised events of 21:00.  The maximum capacity should not exceed 50.

Mr Bower said that he is a member of the Belgravia Society.  He expressed the view that a maximum of five events would be an appropriate solution in respect of the application.

Ms Morgan Thomas stated that she is not a Garden keyholder and was not a member of Belgravia Society.  She was concerned that the application would add to the stress the area was already experiencing from traffic and parking and was one of the most polluted areas in London.  She stated that the residential association in her block was vehemently opposed to the application.  The application did not set out what would happen before or after the events and dispersal resulting from a huge increase in footfall was of huge concern.  She did not believe that alcohol should be provided at the site and for off sales and was concerned about an adding to noise late at night.  Ms Morgan Thomas also was of the view that there was potential for crime and disorder and harm to children, including from potential drink and drug use.

Mr Baylis was given an opportunity to respond to the comments made by the objectors.  He advised that Mr Hughes was content for the application to be amended so that all events would be in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.  The number of events would be reduced to a maximum of seven.  The maximum capacity sought remained at 1000.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Baylis why off sales were sought.  He replied that it was envisaged there might be wine tasting stalls and the opportunity provided to customers to buy a bottle of wine.  It tended to involve sponsors of the event selling bottles.  Mr Dudley added that this had occurred in the past at an event permitted as a TEN.

Mr Brown was given the opportunity to respond to the amendments made to the application.  He re-iterated that the Belgravia Society’s view was that the proposed capacity was still far too high.  Seven events was still too high but was better than twelve.  Ms Reignier-Leigh added that the Society believed there should be no more than five events.  Mr Brown confirmed that the Society was still seeking an earlier terminal hour for events. 

With regard to the capacity, Mr Baylis commented that having an attendance of 1000 people would not be the norm.  Mr Dudley informed those present that the maximum number who had attended a non-licensable event was 700 for the networking, cocktail party. 

Ms Reignier-Leigh made the point that up to 700 hundred people walking on the garden was too many.

Mr Baylis responded to some of the other points raised by the objectors.  This included that the set up and break down of equipment was already carried out in relation to events held under TENs.  The conditions would give residents greater protection.  He believed that objectors were speculating on what was a worst case scenario.  What was actually being proposed was similar to what had taken place before but in a more regulated environment.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Nevitt and PC Guerra whether they were seeking any further conditions based on what had been discussed at the hearing.  Mr Nevitt replied that he would like a clear capacity figure on the premises licence.  He was also seeking that the Applicant notified Environmental Health of the events and that Environmental Health was required to give final approval for the Applicant’s event management plan before events took place.  PC Guerra requested that off sales were in sealed containers.

Mr Brown requested that the Council’s Model Condition 12 was attached to the licence in the event the application was granted.  This is that no noise shall emanate from the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.  This condition was agreed by Mr Baylis.  Mr Brown also asked that any event management plan took into account dispersal.  He believed that a written dispersal policy should be retained by Grosvenor / We Are The Fair and be available to relevant officers on request.  Mr Baylis was content with Mr Brown’s proposed condition.

It was confirmed by Mr Baylis and Mr Dudley that no events would take place over a two day period following the amendment to the application that the proposed hours would be in keeping with Core Hours.

Mr Brown requested SIA trained personnel to monitor dispersal until one hour after the event.  It was not felt that the stated aim that the DPS would oversee dispersal was sufficient.  He asked that any live or recorded music did not carry on for longer than four hours.  An assurance was sought by the Belgravia Society than TENs would not be applied for in addition to any events granted as part of the premises licence.  Mr Brown also requested that the Council’s Model Condition 24 was attached to the licence requiring a direct telephone number of management to be made publicly available whilst the premises is open.

Mr Brown made the additional point in response to Mr Baylis’ earlier comment that whilst the Sub-Committee could not take into account speculation, it was able to take into account the likely effect of granting the application.

Mr Baylis referred to conditions 21 and 22 in the operating schedule that events would be risk assessed to see if SIA staff were required.  He requested that the Sub-Committee did not impose a requirement to have SIA staff for every event, no matter what it involved.  There was access to Grosvenor security who would be able to give appropriate advice.

Mr Baylis disputed that there were any issues with transparency in terms of the Applicant being Belgrave Square Garden Events Committee and mentioned some of the names of the members of the Committee.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the written representations received and the comments made at the hearing.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that Grosvenor and the Applicant had good motives in submitting the application, seeking a premises licence to improve the regulation of events held at Belgrave Square Garden Open Space. 

Members of the Sub-Committee appreciated that they could not take into account speculation.  They would only take into account the likely effect of granting the application.  It was the Sub-Committee’s role to take into account the comments of the parties, including Environmental Health and the Police.  They had raised some concerns about the proposed capacity which had to be taken seriously.  The Sub-Committee accepted the advice from Environmental Health that from a public safety point of view Belgrave Square was capable of coping with a large number of people.  However, the Applicant was seeking to have a capacity of a thousand people dispersing from the premises.  The previous maximum capacity for any of the events with licensable activities, including the sale of alcohol, submitted under TENs had been 420.  The Sub-Committee permitted a maximum capacity for events of 500.

The Sub-Committee granted the application on the basis that there would be a maximum of five events held per calendar year.  The rationale for this was to take those involved with the application at their word in terms of replicating for the premises licence what had been sought in previous years in relation to the TENs. 

The Sub-Committee granted Core Hours as sought by the Applicant following the amendments to the application.  Members had given careful thought to the requests of residents, including the Belgravia Society, for an earlier terminal hour.  However, the Sub-Committee considered it was an appropriate balance to grant Core Hours for licensable activities for a maximum of five events per year.            

The Chairman stated that the decision made was without prejudice to other matters such as the London Squares Preservation Act 1931.  He also emphasised that the Sub-Committee had no jurisdiction over the non-licensable events.  He thanked all parties for the written representations received and the comments made at the hearing.  He expressed the wish that all parties would improve the lines of communication in the future.  It was clear to the Sub-Committee that all parties cared deeply about the area.

The Sub-Committee considered that it was appropriate to attach the condition that ‘licensable activities and the consumption of alcohol at the premises shall only be provided ancillary to the primary use of the premises as a Garden Square’.   The Sub-Committee also decided to amend the Event Management Plan condition so that it was required to be submitted to the Licensing Authority, Environmental Health and Police a minimum of 10 working days prior to the event.  As requested by Mr Brown on behalf of the Belgravia Society, the details of the Event Management Plan would include the setup and break down arrangements for the event and the dispersal of customers at the end of the event.  As agreed between Mr Brown and Mr Baylis, the Council’s Model Conditions 12 and 24 were attached to the premises licence.  This would ensure that no noise would emanate from the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.  MC24 was amended to the requirement for a direct telephone number for the management to be made publicly available at all times whilst licensable activities are taking place.

2.

Sale by retail of alcohol (On and Off)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The application had been amended on behalf of the Applicant to Core Hours with core terminal hours for off sales.  The hours for off sales were therefore reduced to 10:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 12.00 to 22.30 on Sunday.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the hours applied for in relation to on sales and core terminal hours for off sales, namely 10.00 to 23.00 on Monday to Saturday and 12.00 to 22.30 on Sunday, subject to conditions as set out below.

3.

Plays (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below.

4.

Films (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below.

5.

Live Music (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below.

6.

Recorded Music (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below.

7.

Performance of dance (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below.

8.

Anything of a similar description (Indoors and Outdoors)

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Granted, subject to conditions as set out below.

9.

Hours premises are open to the public

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The application had been amended on behalf of the Applicant to Core Hours.  The terminal hour is 23:30 Monday to Thursday, midnight Friday to Saturday and 22:30 on Sunday.

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

The Sub-Committee granted Core Hours for the opening hours to the public.

10.

Seasonal variations / Non-standard timings

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

Prior to the hearing for all non-standard timings set out above, the Applicant amended the application so that there should be a maximum of 3 occasions per calendar year that could potentially finish at 01:00.

During the hearing the application was amended further so that all events would be in keeping with the Council’s Core Hours policy.  This meant that this aspect of the application for non-standard timings was therefore in effect withdrawn by the Applicant.

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

The Sub-Committee was not required to consider this aspect of the application as it had in effect been withdrawn by the Applicant.