Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
Marylebone High Street None* None**	Chiltern Firehouse,      1 Chiltern Street,    W1U 7PA	Variation to the Premises Licence	21/08705/LIPV
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 2

(“The Committee”)

 

Wednesday 2 February 2022

 

Membership:             Councillor Tim Mitchell (Chairman)

  Councillor Heather Acton and Councillor Maggie Carman

 

Officer Support:         Legal Advisor:           Horatio Chance

                                  Policy Officer:            Aaron Hardy

                                  Committee Officer:    Georgina Wills

                                  Presenting Officer:    Kevin Jackaman

 

Present also: Gary Grant - Counsel - Keystone Law - Chiltern Street Hotel Limited, Marcus Lavell – Keystone Law - Chiltern Street Hotel      Limited,

Hamish Thompson Director of Operations – Applicant, Chiltern Street Hotel

Limited Richard Vivian – Acoustics Expert, Chiltern Street Hotel Limited

Richard Brown – Westminster’s Citizens Advice (representing, J Lee, D Cook and V Cook, J Sohi and Marylebone Association (Guy Austin) J Lee, Guy Austin

Dave Nevitt– Environmental Health Services

 

Application for a Variation of a Premises Licence in respect ofChiltern Firehouse, 1 Chiltern Street, W1U 7PA 21/08705/LIPV

 

 

                                                     FULL DECISION

 

Premises

 

Chiltern Firehouse,

1 Chiltern Street,

W1U 7PA

 

Applicant

 

Chiltern Street Hotel Limited

 

Cumulative Impact Area?

 

N/A

 

Ward

 

Marylebone High Street

 

Special Consideration Zone

 

N/A

 

 

Activities and Hours applied for

 

To vary condition 46 which states:

 

46.      All tables and chairs shall be removed from the outside area or rendered unusable by 21:00 each day save that up until 30 September 2021 the hour shall be extended to 22:00 in respect of the courtyard only after which time the condition shall be reinstated and thereafter remain in full force and effect

 

To the following:

 

46.      All tables and chairs shall be removed from the outside area or rendered unusable by 21:00 each day save that up until 30 September 2022 the hour shall be extended to 22:00 in respect of the courtyard only after which time the condition shall be reinstated and thereafter remain in full force and effect

 

Opening Hours of the Premises:

 

Monday to Sunday: 00.00 to 00.00

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

 

Residents, their bona fide guests and patrons of the hotel

proprietor

 

Monday to Sunday: 00.00 to 00.00

 

Chiltern restaurant and pre-booked events in the ground floor

meeting room

 

Monday to Sunday: 07.00 to 01.00

 

Ground floor meeting room

 

Monday to Sunday: 08.00 to 23.00

 

Hotel Lounge Bar/Function Space

 

Monday to Sunday: 10.00 to 01.00

 

Representations Received

 

·       Environmental Health Service (Ian Watson)

·       5 Local Residents

 

 

 

 

Summary of Objections

 

The Environmental Health Services, Marylebone Association and five local residents had maintained representation on the prevention of Public Nuisance.

 

Policy Considerations

 

Policies HRS1 and RTN1 apply under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP).

 

Summary of Application

 

The Sub-Committee has determined an application for a Variation of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”) in respect ofChiltern Firehouse, 1 Chiltern Street, W1U 7PA by the Applicant Chiltern Street Hotel Limited. The Premises currently operates as a hotel. The Applicant sought to vary Condition 46 to allow for the usage of the external chairs and tables to be extended by an additional hour until the period up to September 2022.

 

The Premises is located within the Marylebone High Street Ward and is not situated in either a Special Consideration Zone or a Cumulative Area Zone.

 

There is a resident count of 186.

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

Mr Jackaman, Presenting Officer summarised the application set out in the report before the Sub-Committee.  He explained that the application was for a variation of a premises licence in respect of Chiltern Firehouse, 1 Chiltern Street, W1U 7PA by the Applicant Chiltern Street Hotel Limited which sought to vary the current Condition 46 on the Premises License to allow for the usage of the external chairs and tables be extended by an hour until September 2022. He further advised that additional submissions had been received from the Applicant and Environmental Health which had been circulated to all the relevant parties before the Sub-Committee hearing.

 

Mr Gary Grant, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant addressed the Sub-Committee, he  advised that the application was modest and highlighted that the Premises was situated outside of any special consideration zones. Mr Grant said  that the Applicant sought to temporarily extend the usage of the Premises courtyard for an additional hour until September 2022. He advised that the application was time limited and would only apply during Thursday to Saturday evening between 21:00 to 22:00. Mr Grant advised that representations could only focus on these extensions. The Sub-Committee were advised that Condition 58 on the Premises Licence which had been added by a previous Licensing Sub-Committee on 8 April 2021 would be affected. He advised that this Condition was added when the initial application to extend the use of the external seating was granted for seven days of the week. The Sub-Committee were informed that Condition 58 stipulated for alcohol to be served only to seated patrons which are waited. He advised that the Condition would need to be amended if the Sub-Committee were minded granting the application. Mr Grant stated that the Application was an extension of a former application and the reasons for the variation were the same as the previous request. He advised  that the former requests for a variation of the Premises Licence was during the Covid-19 Pandemic and stated  that patrons continued to prefer to be seated in the courtyard and felt safe in this area.

 

Mr Grant advised that the Applicant was still trying to recuperate the loss of trade which occurred during the Covid-19 Pandemic lockdown. The  Premises previously operated as a major fire station for a period of 160 years and closed in 2005. He advised that the building was reconstituted and refurbished into a hotel. Mr Grant advised that the windows overlooking the courtyard were hotel bedrooms and the Applicant would need to regulate noise in this area so that guests occupying these rooms are not disturbed. Mr Grant reminded that the Government had extended the Business and Planning Act 2021, and this included the provisions for external dining. Mr Grant advised that the application reflected these changes and that the Applicant had received planning permission for the operations sought and advised that Environmental Health had provided evidence at the Planning Applications Sub-Committee. He informed that Environmental Health did not object to the application and that they were satisfied with the measures set out in the Premises Acoustic Report for reducing noise impact on residents during extended hours. Mr Grant said  that the Premises Acoustic Report had since been updated and that there had been extensive noise monitoring during the evening and nights by noise experts and Premises staff. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Application would not cause any public nuisance. Mr Grant advised that there was a core group of residents who had raised concerns regarding the Premises. He said  that a wide group of individuals were consulted regarding the Premises Planning and Licensing Applications as one would expect.

 

Mr Grant said  that a number of residents were in support of the Hotel and informed that the Applicant operated a ‘Neighbourhood Scheme’. The scheme offers discounted foods and hosts bi-monthly residential meetings. The Sub-Committee were informed that a considerable number of bookings at the Premises were made by residents. The Sub-Committee were informed that the Premises was required to have a Street Warden by Condition and this staff member patrolled the area and was on duty during set hours. The hours of patrol are extended to the later hours during the end of the week. He advised that the Street Warden monitored incidents which emanated from both the Premises and other establishments. Mr Grant confirmed  that the Applicant had taken noise attenuation measures in the courtyard. He advised that these actions were indicative of the Applicant’s commitment to ensure that residents are not negatively impacted. The Sub-Committee were advised that complaints regarding the Premises were not in relation to the courtyard and it’s extended use.

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee Mr Grant reiterated that complaints received regarding noise nuisance from the Premises were not related to the courtyard. He advised that there is no recorded or live music played at the courtyard or the basement of the Premises. Mr Hamish Thompson, Director of Operations, Chiltern Street Hotel Limited informed that the Premises always had two bell staff and these employees were tasked with managing the arrival and departure of guests. There are also several host staff members who are responsible for the dispersal of guests. Mr Thompson advised that owners of ‘parade cars’ are deterred from parking near the Premises and requested to turn engines off whilst stationed near the Hotel. He advised that the Council’s Parking Enforcement Team were liaised with about managing these motorists.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that noise nuisance was subjective and that residents may be more affected from disturbances in a home setting. The Sub-Committee were informed that Enforcement Health had visited residents’ dwellings following complaints regarding noise nuisance from the Premises and had found that that audio in the home was minimal.

 

Mr Dave Nevitt, Environmental Health appearing on behalf of Environmental Health addressed the Sub-Committee, he confirmed that the Application was for an extension of a current temporary licence. He advised that the application was more modest than the current temporary licence and was in line with the planning permission that had been granted to the Applicant. Mr Nevitt confirmed that Environmental Health had liaised with the Planning Officer regarding the Applicants planning Application and rigorous questions were asked regarding potential nuisance to residents. He advised that the Applicants Acoustic Report was considered and confirmed that its contents were satisfactory. The Acoustic Report was reported to have been reviewed and adjusted. Mr Nevitt commented that focus would be put on whether the operation in the courtyard had caused any nuisance under the previous operation or would under the proposed used. Mr Nevitt confirmed that focus could only be placed on the Courtyard.

 

Mr Nevitt advised that there was nothing substantiative to indicate that the Courtyard would be a source of concern and that no additional conditions would be required, or further restrictions needed to be implemented. Mr Nevitt advised that representation had been maintained to ensure concerns of residents are addressed. The Sub-Committee were informed that use of courtyards was a contentious issue within the Borough. Mr Nevitt informed that detailed notes are written following response to calls regarding nuisance omitting from premises and judgements are made whether audio heard in dwellings are unreasonable and amount to a statutory nuisance. He advised that there were no concerns regarding the Premises which warranted for any action to be taken by Environmental Health. Mr Nevitt advised that there were no reports of Police incidents at the Premises. 

 

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Nevitt advised that the glass screen in the courtyard walkway could either reflect or screen sounds. He advised that there had been no concerns raised about the glass screen. Mr Richard Vivian, Acoustics Expert, Chiltern Street Hotel Limited advised that the glass screen acted as an acoustic barrier. Mr Vivian advised that the courtyard had soft furnishing and planting, textile finishing, upholstered seating and multi diffraction surfaces. Mr Vivian said  that these measures ensured the courtyard be made less acoustic reverberant. He advised that the large number of patrons using this area would also reduce noise leakages.

 

Richard Brown from the Westminster’s Citizens Advice appearing on behalf of the  Maida Vale Society, D Cook and V Cook, J Sohi and Marylebone Association (Guy Austin) addressed the Sub-Committee, he advised that there were more than five objectors and that individuals making submissions represented a raft of individuals which included a recognised Amenity Society. He advised that there were eight objections made in relation to the Applicants Planning Application. Mr Brown advised that further representation would have been made if residents were aware of the application and advised these individuals also had ‘representation fatigue’. Mr Brown said that Ms J Lee was personally affected by the noise emanating from the Premises.

 

Mr Brown stated  that hotel guests was less likely to be in their rooms during use of the courtyard and could not be used as a comparable to residents. He advised that residents would be affected by the prolonged use of the courtyard. Mr Brown commented that it was acknowledged that the Covid-19 Pandemic had had an adverse effect on business and that residents were sympathetic, and pragmatic regarding the previous application made by the Applicant. He advised that the Business and Planning Act 2021 had been extended and that the courtyard was currently in use. Mr Brown advised that there were concerns regarding its usage to be extended by an hour and informed that the Premises had a large external area.

 

Mr Brown informed that Ms Lee had emailed the Premises regarding noise emanating from the courtyard and this had been lodged before September 2021 and she continues to experience nuisance. Mr Brown advised that complaints made directly to Premises are not recorded by the Council. He advised that the commentary on the Planning Service Report had acknowledged the use of the courtyard would have a detrimental effect on neighbouring residents’ amenities. Mr Brown also highlighted that there was further commentary which said that the perimeter glass bolster would be unlikely to attenuate peak noise in the courtyard and that extended use in the area would increase in late noise activity. Mr Brown said  that the Sub-Committee were required to ensure that the Licensing Objectives are upheld and explore possible mitigating factors to enable this.

 

Ms J Lee, local resident addressed the Sub-Committee and referred to the complaint lodged on 2 December detailed on Page 21 of the Agenda Pack  and said that she wanted to refute the comments which stated that there was corruption at Westminster City Council. She commented that it was acknowledged that Environmental Health undertook a difficult role. Ms Lee commented that there had been a reduction in the number of residents’ complaints, and this was due to the lapse of time between which noise nuisances are experienced and when Environmental Health Officers arrive following ‘call out’. She advised that noise nuisance was intermittent and could not be heard during ‘call out’ visit and informed that residents had resorted to contact the Premises directly instead. This was either be by a telephone call or written correspondence.

 

Ms J Lee advised that she had been contacted by three other residents regarding the application and it was widely recognised in the local and neighbouring areas about the nuisance experienced. Ms Lee stated  that only a small number of letters of support had been received by the Premises. She advised that it was recognised that patrons preferred to remain in the courtyard and highlighted the conditions which were present during the previous application had now changed and that guests would be more inclined to be seated inside the Premises. Ms Lee advised that expensive ‘super cars’ were regularly parked outside the Premises, and it was fashionable for these vehicles to be photographed outside the Hotel.

 

Ms Lee advised that there was no noise emanating from the Premises whilst it operated as a fire house and that disturbances largely occurred when fire vehicles left the building during response to emergency calls. She advised that residents had been misled and that numerous emails had been sent to the Premises regarding noise nuisance. She advised that the courtyard had been reconfigured and the glass walkway had been removed and that there were noise leakages from this area. Ms Lee advised that it had been advised that noise would leak from the Premises chimney and said  that residential buildings had flat roofs. The Sub-Committee were also informed that noise from the Premises was audible in the stairway and this area in the residents building did not face the Hotel or have windows facing the front. Ms Lee stated  that Environmental Health would be liaised with to monitor noise levels in residents’ flats.

 

Ms Lee said that it had been requested for the Applicant to install more foliage in particular moss. She advised that sphagnum moss was international used and was effective in absorbing sound and pollution. The Sub-Committee were advised that the noise dampening measure implemented by the Applicant was not satisfactory. She advised that there was a Planning Condition on the Premises which stipulated that no noise should emanate from the Hotel after 18:00 and commented that this needed to be enforced. Ms Lee advised that noise leakage had considerably worsened after the Covid-19 Pandemic despite the Applicants reassurance that this would not occur. She emphasised  that this was due to poor noise dampening measures being in place and little foliage. She advised that the glass canopy reflected noise and areas where there was no coverage noise was therefore amplified.

 

Ms Lee advised that her flat had double glazing and that patrons using the courtyard were audible inside her home and caused a nuisance. She advised that noise levels escalated in the afternoon and continued until the courtyard closed. Ms Lee stated that she had to close her windows for long periods and was disturbed by both patrons and staff members of the Premises. She advised that residents amenities were affected and said that Conditions were breached. Ms Lee advised that nuisance had direct a bearing on how she uses areas within her home.

 

Mr Guy Austin, from the Marylebone Association addressed the Sub-Committee, he advised that he did not reside near the Premises and was present to provide support to residents. Mr Austin said that the locality in his opinion should not be classified as part of Central London and that Marylebone was largely a residential area and not a drink led destination. He advised that there had been numerous representations made from residents to Marylebone Association about nuisance emanating from the Premises over a long period. Mr Austin advised that the locality was quiet and mimicked a village and should be viewed as such.

 

Mr Brown advised that residents had made recommendations about how concerns regarding nuisance could be mitigated and this include there being restrictions on the number of patrons permitted in the courtyard, more noise dampening measures such as foliage and signage requesting that guests leave the Premises quietly.

 

The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to Paragraph 2.15 on Page 9 of the Revised Home Office Guidance regarding those matters that constitute public nuisance, the considerations that need to be borne in mind and deciding what appropriate action should be taken to prevent it.  The Sub-Committee noted that they were also required to consider the impact of licensable activities on persons living and working near the Premises as per the wording of Paragraph 2.15.

 

Mr Grant advised that the number of objections regarding the Premises Planning applications which was quoted had been taken from the Council’s portal. He advised that foliage in the courtyard was growing and would improve. Mr Grant advised that there was no current Condition which required for no noise to emanate after 18:00 hours and said that a similar Condition which required no noise from building excavation work was present. He advised that the restriction of numbers in the courtyard would not meet the Premises business plan and that extending its usage by an hour would ensure that the establishment remains viable.

 

Mr Grant acknowledged that a balance between residents and the business viability had to be made and said that this had already occurred. He highlighted that planning permission had been received, the number of days of the extension had been reduced to Thursday to Saturday and that the application was temporary until September 2022.  Mr Grant advised that the courtyard would also be used by residents. He informed that the Premises vicinity could not be compared to a village and that surrounding noise levels were much higher. He advised that the Applicant  continue to work with residents to mitigate concerns. Mr Thompson advised that there was signage on the Premises requesting that guests on dispersal leave the Hotel quietly so as not to cause a nuisance.

 

Mr Nevitt advised that Environmental Health made decisions concerning whether audio leakages amounted to statutory nuisance or public nuisance. He advised that it had to be determined whether noise levels were unreasonable and explored whether measures put in place by operators to address nuisance were adequate. Mr Nevitt advised that there were no issues at the Premises which warranted actions and advised that this position could change. He advised that Environmental Health would continue to liaise with the Applicant on mitigation measures that are in place, sources of noise leakages and how these areas could be improved. Mr Nevitt advised that the concerns of residents had been communicated and noted.

 

Mr Brown stated that objections regarding planning permission were lifted from the Planning Committee Reports. He advised that it was acknowledged that a balance needed to be struck between the business requirement of the Premises and resident’s needs. The Sub-Committee was advised that an unlimited number guest in the courtyard until 21:00 hours was appropriate. He advised that the impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on the hospital sector was acknowledged and advised that the Premises would have received government grants and that reasons for additional usage were not substantial. Mr Brown commented on the submission which had been provided by Ms Lee and issues that residents faced.

 

Ms Lee advised that the Applicant had received substantial grants from the Government and requested that resident’s access to Environmental Health be better improved.

 

Conclusion

 

The Sub-Committee realises that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so when determining this application. There is no policy presumption to refuse the application.

 

In reaching their decision, the Sub-Committee took into account all the committee papers, supplementary submissions made by the Applicant, and the oral evidence given by all parties during the hearing in its determination of the matter.

 

The Sub-Committee was mindful that a balancing act needs to be stuck when considering the interests of local residents when it came to the issue of potential nuisance and the Applicants ability to run his Premises in a way that will promote the licensing objectives. In seeking this balance, the Sub-Committee considered the evidence before it and took a view as to what is appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case.

 

The Sub-Committee considered whether the extension of an hour in the courtyard area would give rise to nuisance that would be unreasonable when assessing the likely impact in this area. The Sub-Committee reminded local residents that if in the event they are adversely affected by nuisance they can make contact with the management of the Premises direct and report such incidents of nuisance to the Council’s Environmental Health Department where complaints will be lodged accordingly investigated and where appropriate the relevant action will be taken. There is also the Review mechanism in the Act which can be triggered if the nuisance becomes a serious problem as well as breaches of other potential licence conditions.

 

The Sub-Committee agreed that the noise emanating from the Premises courtyard during current hours was not so substantial in which to allow for the Application to be refused. The Sub-Committee noted the actions undertaken to dampening noise from the courtyard which included planting and usage of other materials. The Sub-Committee also noted that there was a Condition which required for signage regarding the regress from the Premises. The Sub-Committee also noted that there are existing Conditions which required for noise levels to be monitored.

 

The Sub-Committee also noted that the Applicant had agreed to liaise with residents should there be problems experienced in the courtyard area so that any noise issues can be dealt with efficiently and effectively. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee concluded that the conditions attached to the licence would alleviate the residents’ concerns and were appropriate and would promote the licencing objective.

 

The Sub-Committee decided to grant the Variation application meaning that Condition 43 is now varied for a temporary period to allow for an hour’s extension in the courtyard area Thursday to Saturday until 22:00 hours up until 30 September 2022 and the agreed Conditions which are all imposed on the Premises Licence.

 

The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had provided valid reasons as to why the granting of the application with the following Conditions and Informative which are considered appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives. 

 

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

 

1.        To grant permission to vary Condition 43 specified and renumbered below on the Premises Licence up until 30 September 2022 where the hour shall be extended to 22:00 in respect of the courtyard only after which time the condition shall be reinstated and thereafter remain in full force and effect and for the avoidance of doubt this shall read “All tables and chairs shall be removed from the outside area or rendered unusable by 21:00 each day”.

 

2.        That the varied licence is subject to any relevant mandatory conditions.

3.      That the existing conditions on the licence shall apply in all respects except in so far as they are varied by this Decision.

 

4.        That the varied 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 licensing hearing

 

5.        The Premises Licence Holder shall, if requested in writing by local residents, host publicised meetings with local residents to discuss concerns relating to the operation of the Premises Licence. Notice of such meetings shall be notified in writing to local residents and other interested parties who have registered their wish to be notified to the Premises Licence Holder. The notice period shall be at least 10 days.

 

6.        The Premises Licence holder shall appoint a competent Acoustic Consultant who is registered with the Institute of Acoustics to:

(i) carry out a survey,

(ii) produce a report and

(iii) assist the Premises Licence Holder in producing a 'Noise Mitigation Policy'. The Noise Mitigation Policy shall have regard to all matters contained in the 'Guidance on Noise' Section of the City Council's Licensing Policy (currently Appendix 11 of the 2011 Policy).

 

7.        The Premises Licence Holder shall ensure that the Noise Mitigation Policy is:

(i) implemented in full to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, risk of Public Nuisance is minimized;

(ii) made available to local residents and to authorised Officers of the City Council upon request.

(iii) reviewed from time to time or in response to complaints or concerns received from local residents and, if necessary, amended. The Policy shall also be reviewed and amended if requested by the Environmental Health Consultation Team.

 

8.        A copy of the policy shall be kept at the Hotel reception and shall be available immediately upon request by any local resident or licensing officer.

 

9.        At all times the Hotel will be overseen by at least two SIA Door Supervisors.

 

10.      The licence holder shall maintain a comprehensive CCTV system that ensures all public areas of the licensed premises are monitored, including all entry points, and which enable frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. All cameras shall continually record whilst the premises are open to the public and the recordings shall be kept available for a minimum of 31 days with time and date stamping. Recordings shall be made available to a duly authorised City Council officer or a police officer together with facilities for viewing. The recordings for the preceding 31 days shall

be made available immediately on request. The CCTV system shall be operated in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

11.      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 to the public. This staff member shall be able to show Police recent recording with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

 

12.      The pavement from the building line to the kerb edge immediately outside the premises, including gutter/channel at its junction with the kerb edge, is swept and or washed, and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements.

 

13.      All refuse will be stored internally prior to collection.

 

14.      Notices shall be prominently displayed at exits requesting the public to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premises and the area quietly.

 

15.      No noise shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

 

16.      No unauthorised advertisements of any kind (including placard, poster, sticker, flyer, picture, letter, sign or other mark) is inscribed or affixed upon the surface of the highway, or upon any building, structure, works, street furniture, tree, or any other property, or is distributed to the public, that advertises or promotes the establishment, its premises, or any of its events, facilities, goods or services.

 

17.      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.

 

18.      When films are shown cinema style linked seating will not be provided except as agreed with the Environmental Health Consultation Team.

 

19.      Any special effects or mechanical installations shall be arranged and stored so as to minimise any risk to the safety of those using the premises. The following special effects will only be used on 10 days prior notice being given to the Licensing Authority where consent has not previously been given:-

- dry ice and cryogenic fog (except for food presentations)

- smoke machines and fog generators

- pyrotechnics including fire works

- firearms

- lasers

- explosives and highly flammable substances.

- real flame (except for candles)

- strobe lighting.

 

20.      No person shall give at the premises any exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism, mesmerism or any similar act or process which produces or is intended to produce in any other person any form of induced sleep or trance in which susceptibility of the mind of that person to suggestion or direction is increased or intended to be increased.

NOTE: (1) This rule does not apply to exhibitions given under the provisions of Section 2(1A) and 5 of the Hypnotism Act 1952.

 

21.      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.

 

22.      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.

 

23.      All exit doors on designated escape routes shall be available at all material times without the use of a key, code, card or similar means.

 

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

 

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

 

26.      Curtains and hangings shall be arranged so as not to obstruct emergency signs.

 

27.      The certificates listed below shall be submitted to the Licensing Authority upon written request.

- Any emergency lighting battery or system

- Any electrical installation

- Any emergency warning system.

 

28.      Except for the hotel bedrooms, the licensee shall not permit striptease in the premises. Except for the hotel bedrooms, the Licensee shall not permit nudity and all persons shall be decently attired at all times.

 

29.      With the exception of the showing of films in Hotel Bedrooms, no entertainment, performance, service, or exhibition involving nudity or sexual stimulation which would come within the definition of a sex establishment in Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as amended by the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1986 (whether or not locally adopted), shall be provided under the authority of this licence.

 

30.      With the exception of public and life safety emergency speakers, Loudspeakers shall not be located in the external entrance lobby or outside the premises building.

 

31.      With the exception of designated smoking bedrooms (if any), 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.

 

32.      Waiter or Waitress service will be available at all times.

 

33.      Capacities:

Ground floor:

The maximum number of persons accommodated at any one time (excluding staff) shall not exceed 620, with no more than;

Restaurant 200 persons

Lounge Bar/Function Bar 340 persons

<span style