Agenda item

Thirty Eight Grosvenor Square, Basement, Ground and First Floors, 38 Grosvenor Square, London, W1K 2HW (“The Premises”)

19/13558/LIPN

This was a time-limited application until 28^th February 2022

1.

Sale by Retail of Alcohol – On and Off Sales

Monday to Sunday: 08:00 to 23:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

The hours on New Year’s Eve will be from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was advised by the applicant that the sale by retail of alcohol related to on and off sales.

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Grosvenor West End Properties (“The Applicant”) for a new premises licence in respect of Thirty Eight Grosvenor Square, Basement, Ground and First Floors, 38 Grosvenor Square, London, W1K 2HW.

The Licensing officer introduced the application and confirmed that the Police had withdrawn their representation following the agreement of conditions with the applicant.

Mr Whur, representing the applicant, advised the Sub-Committee of the following minor amendments to the application:

• When the application was initially submitted an external space had been included in the area where regulated entertainment was sought. Mr Whur confirmed that regulated entertainment would now only take place internally.

• The provision for indoor sporting events had been withdrawn.

• This was a time limited application which had received planning permission allowing the Premises to operate as an event space until 28 February 2022 only.

• The maximum capacity of 300 persons at the Premises would include staff.

Mr Whur explained that this Premises was the only one owned by Grosvenor, the applicant, which was located on Grosvenor Square. It was therefore a significant property in their portfolio which it was hoped could be used for vibrant purposes until February 2022. Events held at the Premises would be operated by a company called Venue Lab who had already held a number of successful high-end events at the venue under Temporary Event Notices (TENs). It was acknowledged that residential concerns had been raised over the application however it was hoped that the applicant would be able to provide confidence to them that any events held at the Premises would not negatively impact on them.

Mr Whur advised that Venue Lab were highly experienced operators who were one of the largest and highly regarded companies at managing event spaces. Mr Whur provided examples of the operations Venue Lab had previously been involved with including many located within London. Grosvenor would still have overview of any potential events planned at the Premises and provide a high level of control which included the use of its own bespoke security company. It also operated its own health and safety department to assess events and help create tailored entrance and egress management plans. The capacity at the Premises would be restricted to a maximum of 300 persons, including staff, and it was envisaged that most events would have approximately fifty plus guests with no queuing permitted outside. These figures would be strictly monitored to ensure the capacity was never exceeded.

The Sub-Committee was informed by Mr Whur that Environmental Health (EH) and the Police had both visited the Premises and objectors to the application had been invited to take a tour of its facilities. Additional conditions had been agreed with the Police which complemented the conditions already proposed by the applicant. These conditions were considered appropriate for the style of operation and reflected the type of operator Venue Lab were. People would only attend an event at the Premises if they had been invited and were on an approved guest list. No passer-by’s would be allowed to attend an event and a strict time frame would be provided when they could attend. Many events involved the building to be externally dressed which would be carried out without any impact on residents and the Sub-Committee was informed that TENs had already been operated without any complaints arising.

Mr Whur then addressed the following proposed conditions:

• The applicant had proposed for no waste to be moved outside, or deliveries to the Premises, between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00. It was not envisaged that this would cause any nuisance to residents but an objector had proposed to amend the hours to between 20:00 and 08:00. The applicant was happy to accept these hours if it was considered necessary.

• The applicant was content to agree the majority of the conditions proposed by Environmental Health, but several amendments were suggested. EH had requested that access and egress by guests to the venue should be limited to the Grosvenor Square entrance only and the applicant was content to agree this.

• A request that at least one personal licence holder be on site during operational hours be altered slightly so this only apply when alcohol was a component of the event.

• The requirement for staff engaged outside the entrance to the Premises to wear high visibility jackets be altered so that they be required instead to wear high visibility arm bands. High visibility jackets did not suit the nature of the operation, which was to host high end, quality events.

Finally, to address any concerns regarding customers smoking outside Mr Whur explained that an external basement area and an internal outside courtyard area would both be designated smoking areas supervised by CCTV. This would therefore prevent any smokers standing outside in front of the building causing any noise disturbance to residents.

In response to a query regarding the regulated entertainment applied for Mr Whur advised that it was his understanding that these activities could not be deregulated for events where no alcohol was provided. Mr Whur also confirmed that the applicant would accept the Police’s amended CCTV condition.

Mrs Fabbricatore, representing Environmental Health, confirmed that no complaints had been made against the Premises during the operation of its TENs. Residents had expressed concern over the use of the rear entrance at the Premises located on Adams Row, however the condition agreed with the applicant that access and egress by guests would be limited to the Grosvenor Square entrance hopefully alleviated these concerns. Mr Whur also confirmed that all servicing at the Premises would take place from Grosvenor Square. The applicant had the ability to pay to suspend the parking spaces located at the front of the Premises and this allowed them to ensure no servicing took place from Adams Row. Mr Whur also confirmed that the applicant was content for a condition to be placed on the licence restricting the use of the Adams Row entrance as a secondary means of escape only. Mrs Fabbricatore finally explained that EH were content with the rewording of the capacity condition subject to the appropriate works condition.

Mr Brown, representing local residents, highlighted the key concern which related to the impact the application could potentially have on Adams Row, a quiet residential area. Residents already experienced disturbance from customers to other nearby premises being dropped off and picked up in the area and it was feared this application would only exacerbate this problem. Therefore, it was requested that the application be refused. Mr Brown expressed disappointment that Grosvenor, who owned the freehold of the building and who would be the licence holder, was not present to explain their own methodology. Particular concern was expressed over Condition 10 which it was felt lacked clarity over what type of events would be held at the Premises. For example, events held during the day were potentially very different from those promoting a private party which finished at 23:00.

Mr Brown described in further detail the Adams Row area and how there were no parking restrictions in place already resulting in a clutter of vehicles congregating in the area to service other premises. It was requested that the application not be looked at in isolation especially in light of the fact that a recent application had been submitted to licence Adams Row car park, which if granted would result in a lot more activity on Adams Row. Mr Brown then highlighted concerns over the following proposed conditions:

·       Condition 9 – It was proposed for the Premises to close at 23:30, however the planning permission had only granted 23:00. This was a concern as it was recognised in the policy that later events were more likely to create public nuisance.

·       Condition 10 – It was felt this was an ill-defined condition which permitted a wide range of events which could potentially take place 365 days a year.

·       Condition 13 – The use of guest lists seemed to suggest that events would consist of private parties.

·       Condition 14 – It was questioned where the enclosed courtyard area was located. Mr Whur described the layout of the Premises and explained that the courtyard was situated in the middle of the building, fully surrounded, and therefore ideal as a smoking space.

·       Condition 17 – The condition stated “each entrance” yet there should only be one, located on Grosvenor Square.

·       Condition 18 – It was suggested that any risk assessments should be agreed by the responsible authorities, including EH.

·       Condition 31 – This condition had been addressed through the applicant’s assurances that no queuing would take place outside the Premises.

·       Condition 32 – The Premises was not a purpose built event space and it was questioned what measures had been put in place to prevent any noise escape.

·       Condition 34 – It was suggested a condition restricting the times of collections be also imposed as this was a separate issue to the timings for presenting any waste. The commitment by the applicant to restrict collections and deliveries to the Grosvenor Square frontage was welcomed.

·       Condition 41 – Mr Brown was pleased to note that all external doors and windows facing Adams Row would have to be kept closed whenever amplified music was played at the Premises.

Mr Brown highlighted that in terms of the hours applied for these were compliant with the core hours policy, except on Sundays. The application had to be judged on its merits and bearing this in mind regard had to be given to the noise expected to be generated later in the evening from events which was problematic especially as Adams Row was a quiet residential area. If the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application it was requested that appropriate conditions be imposed on the licence in order to protect residents.

Mr Dein, a local resident, hoped that an amicable solution with the applicant could be found but expressed concern that the application would impact on the health and safety of residents located on Adams Row, in addition to increasing levels of noise pollution. Parking on Adams Row was already an issue and the congested nature of it was a serious concern, especially with the number of children living on the street. The Sub-Committee was urged not to judge the application in isolation due to the proximity of other premises in the vicinity and the impact an additional 300 people in the area could have on local residents amenity.

Mr Whur advised that the applicant had liaised with residents located to the right of the Premises, on Grosvenor Square itself, and no representations had been received from them. The applicant expressed a desire to fully engage with the residents at Adams Row. Condition 18 would require a dispersal policy to be implemented and the applicant would ensure it was also circulated to EH for comment. Most guests attending events would arrive by foot, but parking bays located at the front of the Premises could be suspended to help ensure vehicles would not use Adams Row. The applicant wished to work with local residents and provided assurances that a direct telephone number would be circulated accordingly.

In response to questions raised Ms Scott, representing the operators Venue Lab, explained that it was envisaged that only one or two events would be held a week, some of which would run over a couple of days. Very few would finish later in the evening and in reality, it would not be expected that 300 guests would attend regularly for any single event. The building was an expensive venue to hold events, no permanent bar was in situ and each event was bespoke requiring significant planning.  Events would be by invitation only with the Premises advertised through existing relationships and their own- and third-party websites.

To address further concerns raised over how guests would arrive at the Premises and how dispersal would take place Mr Whur advised the Sub-Committee that it was unlikely that many events would be held with a 300 capacity. Even if there was an event with a large capacity not all the guests would be leaving the Premises at the same time. Depending on the event eight SIA staff could be employed, significantly above what would normally be expected. They would operate in the style of meeters and greeters and help assist with dispersal. The system had worked efficiently during the operation of the TENs and no complaints had been submitted regarding guests leaving events. There was no direct evidence that during the TENs taxis had been waiting in the local area but a provision to prevent this could be built into the management plan. It was also recognised that condition 10 was a cause for concern to residents and therefore to provide more clarity on what events it was anticipated to hold at the Premises it could be reworded to the following:

“The premises shall only be used as an event space, providing licensable activities at pre-booked events, exhibitions, product launches, corporate events and private dinners. The supply and consumption of alcohol must be ancillary to the primary use of the premises as an event space.”

Mr Whur also explained that on the planning permission granted for the Premises a condition had been imposed restricting access to the property from Grosvenor Square with Adams Row to be used for waste collection and a secondary means of escape only. Mr Whur advised that to help address any concerns the applicant was content for this condition to be included on the licence. Overall, the application could be considered appropriate for the local area due to the nature of the operation, the number of stringent conditions to be placed on the licence and the fact that no crime and disorder issues had been raised. Mr Whur therefore advised that the application was fully compliant with policy PN1. Some of the representations had requested that the application not be viewed in isolation because there were some potential licensing applications in the area being submitted, however this application had to be judged on its own merits. The applicant wanted to ensure it was a considerate neighbour and would work with local residents going forward to address any potential issues. Finally, Mr Whur confirmed that Grosvenor had not been present at the hearing on his advice as he believed that it would be more beneficial for the Sub-Committee to here from the potential operators, Venue Lab.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and welcomed the levels of constructive dialogue which already occurred between the applicant, responsible authorities and local residents. It was noted that the Premises was not located within a CIA and therefore the application had to be judged on its merits. It was recognised that the application was also for a limited time period, expiring on 28 February 2022. It had been confirmed that the Police had withdrawn their application following the agreement of conditions with the applicant and that various conditions had also been agreed with Environmental Health, particularly with regard to the capacity of the Premises.

In response to the discussions between all parties the applicant had agreed to add a number of conditions on to the licence. Particular regard was given to the conditions restricting access and egress to the property from Grosvenor Square, restricting the capacity of the Premises to a maximum of 300 people, including staff, and the requirement for a dispersal plan to be completed and made available to the responsible authorities. The rewording of the condition restricting the supply of alcohol to be ancillary to the space being used as an event space for pre-booked events was noted. The Sub-Committee also took into consideration the amendments to the application which included the removal of any external regulated entertainment and the removal of indoor sporting events from the licence. The agreement for reduced hours permitting the removal of waste and deliveries to the Premises was also welcomed. The Sub-Committee considered that these conditions addressed concerns raised by residents located in Adams Row that the application could negatively impact on them. A mandatory condition was also added to the licence relating to the exhibition of films and admittance of children to the Premises. The applicant had been made aware of residential concerns in Adams Row regarding parking, cars idling and general dispersal throughout the area and it was therefore expected that these areas would be addressed in the dispersal plan formulated.

Having taken into account all the evidence (with consideration being given to the representations received from local residents), the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application was suitable for the local area and had addressed the concerns raised. The applicant had demonstrated that the application was appropriate, with the conditions proposed restrictive enough to ensure that it promoted the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee therefore granted the application accordingly.

The Sub-Committee welcomed the constructive discussions which had taken place between all parties however it was also recognised that clear concerns, highlighted in the representations, had emerged with regards to the potential impact the application could have on residential amenity in Adams Row. These concerns had been raised and it was expected that the operator would ensure that they did not become an issue during the operation of the Premises.

2.

Performance of Plays, Exhibition of Films, Indoor Sporting Events, Live Music, Recorded Music, Performance of Dance and anything of a similar description to live music, recorded music or the performance of dance – Indoors

Monday to Sunday: 08:00 to 23:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

The hours on New Year’s Eve will be from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year’s Day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The Sub-Committee was advised by the applicant that the provision of external recorded music and indoor sporting events had been withdrawn. The application for internal recorded music remained.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).

3.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Sunday: 08:00 to 23:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

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.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The applicant advised the Sub-Committee of a correction to the hours stated in the report which should have stated: Monday to Sunday: 08:00 to 23:30.

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

The Sub-Committee granted the application (see reasons for decision in Section 1).