From: Steward, Michelle: WCC

Sent: 25 February 2020 11:49

Subject: 38 Grosvenor Square - 19/13558/LIPN

Dear All

Please see below unredacted submissions from Richard Brown who will be representing Belinda Harley and Gavin Dein at the hearing.

Please forward a copy of this email to Members of the Committee.

Kind regards

Michelle

From: Richard Brown <licensing@westminstercab.org.uk>
Sent: 25 February 2020 10:39
To: Steward, Michelle: WCC <msteward1@westminster.gov.uk>
Cc: Belinda Harley Gavin Dein
Subject: 38 Grosvenor Square - 19/13558/LIPN

Dear Michelle,

I am representing Belinda Harley and Gavin Dein at the hearing on Thursday. Ms Harley is unable to attend, but Mr Dein will be in attendance. Both Ms Harley and Mr Dein live on Adams Row, to the rear of the premises. I should be grateful if you would forward this submission to Members and the parties prior to the hearing.

Ms Harley will have had the benefit of being shown around the premises prior to the hearing. Any further comments she has as a result of this will be provided at the hearing.

Preliminary observations

1. The application cannot be seen in isolation. The application is part of what residents see as a trilogy of separate but connected applications in a very small area of this quiet part of Mayfair.

2. The first application was in respect of Grosvenor Square Gardens. The application was granted on 5 December 2019 with the effect that 68 days of events are permitted in the Gardens, with a capacity of up to 2000 for some events.

3. The second application to be determined is the instant application for 38 Grosvenor Square. This seeks a potentially unlimited number of events for up to 300 people.

4. The final application, and much the most worrying in terms of its impact on residents, is for Adams Row Car Park (19/09959/LIPN). Planning consent and a premises licence are being sought for this space, which is accessed solely from Adams Row.

5. It is the position of the residents that these applications both individually and cumulatively will have an adverse effect on the promotion of the licensing objectives in this specific area.

Application for 38 Grosvenor Square

6. The application raises general concerns as to the impact of an events space for 300 persons in this locality. My clients would like to particularly emphasise the following:

1. 38 Grosvenor Square is not a purpose-built event space. It was formerly in use as the Indonesian embassy. This raises concerns with whether the structural integrity of the premises is such that noise generated inside the premises will not be audible outside the premises.

6.1.1 This is a particular concern for Mr Dein, who lives with his wife and two young children directly opposite the back of 38 Grosvenor Square.

6.1.2 It is noted that the applicant has applied for a wide variety of ‘regulated entertainment’ but no further detail has been provided which would enable my clients to make an educated assessment of whether, taking into account their many years of experience of the nature of Adams Row particularly in the later evening, a nuisance is likely to be caused.

2. Should the application be granted to any extent, all activity should be on the Grosvenor Square frontage.

6.2.1 Use of the rear of the premises for access or egress to/from the premises by clientele of staff, use for smoking, or for servicing the premises e.g. waste collection and deliveries of stock or event equipment would unacceptably risk harming the licensing objectives.

3. The ‘cumulative impact’ of recent applications/licences. The Licensing Sub-Committee are expressly asked to consider the ‘cumulative impact’ of licences/applications for licences in this vicinity by this applicant for similar activities and uses.

6.3.1 The residents of Adams Row would like to emphasise that Adams Row is a quiet backwater, particularly in the later evening, and that they feel that there may well be increased activity in Adams Row resulting from the operation of the Grosvenor Square Gardens, and that there will inevitably be increased activity in Adams Row from events at 38 Grosvenor Square, particularly if there is access etc at the rear of the premises whether for clientele of set up/breakdown. This must be seen also in the context of the Adams Row Car Park application.

Comments on conditions

7. The applicant has proposed a number of conditions, set out at p127 of the LSC Report. Without prejudice to my clients’ primary contention that the application should be refused, they comment on the conditions as follows.

1. Condition 9. The hours given for the premises closing conflict with the hours given in the relevant box on p.113.

2. Condition 10. The categories of use of the premises are too wide and ill-defined – particularly the references to ‘corporate events’ and ‘private parties’. There is no limit on frequency of events.

3. Condition 12. The maximum capacity (300) gives concern in terms of dispersal, particularly if egress or ingress is from/to the rear of the premises on Adams Row. Visitors will presumably have vehicles at the rear in Adams Row. It should be noted that in Adams Row, as a small mews, a crowd of even people can create a nuisance.

4. Condition 13. There is concern as to how a ‘guest list’ would operate.

5. Condition 14. Where is the ‘enclosed courtyard area’?

6. Condition 17. There is a reference to a SIA supervisor at ‘each’ entrance. If one of these entrances is on the Adams Row side of the premises, this is highly likely to cause a nuisance.

7. Condition 18. Is there a reason why the risk assessments and method statements would be available to police and the licensing authority, but not Environmental Health?  Will any of the responsible authorities actually have input into these documents?

8. Condition 31. What type of event may give rise to queuing?

9. Condition 32. How will this actually be effected? As per previous comments, the premises is not a purpose-built event space but an old building.

10. Condition 34. From where is waste/recycling moved/collected?

8. We note that the following conditions proposed by Environmental Health have not, at the time of writing, been agreed: 39, 41, 42 (NB which refers to access but nor egress) and 45 (NB which refers to external areas).

Conclusion

9. In the opinion of objectors, the application raises issues and concerns which the applicant has not yet discharged or demonstrated that they can overcome by way of conditions. They therefore ask that the application is refused.

10. In the event that the application is granted in full or in part, the objectors ask that Members ensure that measures are put in place to address the issues raised in the representations and in this submission. I am of course happy to explore this further at the hearing if necessary.

I should be extremely grateful if you pass this on the Members and the various parties.

Kind regards,

Richard

Richard Brown
Licensing Advice Project
Citizens Advice Westminster

21a Conduit Place, London W2 1HS Advice Line: 0300 330 1191 DD: 020 7706 6029 F:     020 7706 6039 E:     licensing@westminstercab.org.uk

Citizens Advice Westminster is an independent charity that helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing information and advice and by gathering evidence to influence policy-makers.

We are registered with the Information Commissioner's Office under Z6357995 and will process your personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. Please refer to our online Privacy Policy for more information on how your personal data will be processed and stored.

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority: FRN 617795

Charity Registration Number: 1059419; Company limited by guarantee, Registration Number: 03039752 England;  Registered Office: 21a Conduit Place, London W2 1HS.

P Please consider the environment before printing this email