Agenda and draft minutes

Park Lane Club, London Hilton, 22 Park Lane, W1 (“The Premises”)

17/05571/LIGV

Application to vary the premises licence under Section 187 of the Gambling Act 2005 so as to extend the table gaming area on the first floor of the Premises.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

There was initially a discussion about the validity of the application.  Ashiana Limited, the owner of 21-23 Curzon Street and acting on behalf of residents of that property, had included as part of the written objection to the application that it was believed that the public notice advertising the application was defective.  Mr Phillips, representing Ashiana Limited, had seen a version of the public notice which he advised lacked the necessary information including listing the people who have the right to object to the application.  Mr Woods, representing the Applicant, stated that following the 28 day consultation period for displaying the public notice, the Licensing Service had contacted him to request a copy of the notice.  He had then proceeded to send a copy of the notice and had been advised that the notice was acceptable to the Licensing Service. 

An adjournment took place where the Licensing Service, the Applicant’s representatives and Mr Phillips were able to discuss the position outside of the hearing.  In particular, the Licensing Service was given time to look back through their records to see what had been submitted by Mr Woods.  On the resumption of the hearing, Mr Phillips advised the Sub-Committee that he had now seen the public notice that had been received by the Licensing Service and he was content that the wording was correct.  He had no further objections to the hearing proceeding.

Mr Woods stated that the Casino is situated on the first and second floors within the London Hilton on Park Lane Hotel.  He advised that when the premises originally opened, the first floor consisted of the bar seating area and was set aside for table gaming.  The second floor had a restaurant area with 29 covers and an additional gaming area.  Since then there had been several changes to the layout on the first and second floors with applications having been made in respect of the gaming areas.  Currently the whole of the second floor was dedicated to gaming and the restaurant was located on the whole of the first floor except for the bar seating area.  The number of restaurant covers is currently 48.

Mr Woods explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Host Coffee, 31 Henrietta Street, WC2 (“The Premises”)

17/06102/LIPN

1.

Recorded Music: Indoors

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

The Sub-Committee had received an e-mail from Mr Brown prior to the hearing on behalf of Mrs Campin.  This had been forwarded to all parties to the hearing.  In the e-mail dated 31 July 2017, it was stated that ‘Ms Campin checked on numerous occasions for the statutory blue notice advertising the application in the window of the Premises, but did not see it at all during the consultation period’.  Mr Brown explained to the Sub-Committee that this matter had been raised in the e-mail because Mrs Camplin had been concerned that other local residents may have objected to the application had it been correctly advertised.

It became clear, as accepted by Mr Thomas, that the Applicant had not displayed the statutory blue notice in the window during the consultation period.  The Licensing Service was able to provide clarification that the Applicant had been advised in an e-mail dated 6 June 2017 that ‘in addition to advertising in a local paper the regulations require the Applicant to display a notice at the Premises in the prescribed form.  Failure to do so will invalidate your application’.  Further information could be obtained from a link on the Council’s website which advised that ‘for new, provisional statements or full variation applications a notice must be displayed on the premises for 28 days starting from the application date‘.  The public notice template on the website sets out that the ‘Display Notice must be on A4 paper, in Font 16 and be light blue in colour’. 

The Sub-Committee, taking into account advice from the Legal Advisor considered that the application was invalid as the statutory blue notice had not been displayed at the Premises for the 28 day consultation period as required by the regulations.  Failure to display the notice had the potential to disadvantage those persons who may have wished to object to or support the application.  The Licensing Sub-Committee was advised that the Licensing Service provided the relevant information to assist applicants, including in this instance.  There was no obligation on the part of the Licensing Authority to check whether applicants had put the statutory blue notice in the window.  It was the sole responsibility of the Applicant. 

It would now be necessary for the Applicant Company  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Basement, 35 The Piazza, Covent Garden, WC2

17/06018/LIPN

Application adjourned at the request of the Applicant.

Steak & Co, Ground Floor, 24 Haymarket, SW1 (“The Premises”)

17/05937/LIPV

1.

To permit off sales for external tables and chairs only, by waiter/waitress service to patrons seated at tables as ancillary to a table meal between 10:00 and 23:00 Monday to Saturday, and 10:00 to 22:30 on Sunday.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

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

Ms Wade and Mr Baylis advised the Licensing Sub-Committee that the Applicant did not own the forecourt as delineated on the plan and had been granted a tables and chairs licence and planning permission for the external area.

Mr Baylis advised that the establishment was now called ‘Steak & Co’ rather than ‘Angus Steak House’.  Ms Reid added that there were terrace areas that were part of the Applicant Company’s other sites and these were all well managed.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Sycamore on behalf of the Licensing Authority.  He stated that 24 Haymarket is located in the West End Cumulative Impact Area and that the proposed schedule of conditions agreed between the Applicant and the Police and Environmental Health should refer to the off sales consumed at the external tables and chairs being ancillary to substantial table meals and not simply ancillary to food.  Mr Sycamore explained that the Applicant had not agreed the Council’s model restaurant condition MC66 which set out the Council’s definition of a restaurant in keeping with Policy RNT2.  In the event that the Applicant was amenable to having MC66 attached to the premises licence, it was set out in the policy that it was necessary for the Applicant to demonstrate why the maximum capacity of 16 people outside would not add to cumulative impact.   

In response to Mr Sycamore’s representation and Mr Wroe’s point that the conditions on the existing premises Licence could be brought up to date, Mr Baylis offered MC66 to be attached as a condition for the entire Premises.

PC Janes addressed the Sub-Committee.  He advised that the Police’s concerns regarding the potential for crime and disorder had been addressed.  He had maintained his representation on policy grounds as there were an additional 16 people in the external area of the premises in the West End Cumulative Impact Area.

In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, Mr Baylis and Ms Reid stated that the clientele was likely to be tourists and pre-theatre customers.  Mr Baylis confirmed that he was content with Environmental Health’s proposed conditions being attached to the Premises licence relating to preventing litter and waste building up outside the Premises and also no noise emanating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Nagomi, 4 Blenheim Street, W1

17/06083/LIPV

Application withdrawn by the Applicant prior to the hearing.