Agenda item

Ward CIA* SCZ**	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
Marylebone   *  None   ** None	Chiltern Firehouse 1 Chiltern Street W1U 7PA	Premises Licence Variation	23/08839/LIPV
*Cumulative Impact Area ** Special Consideration Zone

 

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE NO.

(“The Committee”)

 

Thursday 21 March 2024

 

 

Membership:           Councillor Robert Eagleton (Chair),

Councillor Concia Albert and

Councillor Ed Pitt Ford

 

Officer Support:       Legal Adviser:         Steve Burnett 

Policy Officer:          Aaron Hardy 

Committee Officer:  Jonathan Deacon 

Presenting Officer:   Kevin Jackaman 

? 

Other Parties:          Mr P Kolvin KC (Applicant’s Counsel) 

Marcus Lavel – Keystone Law (Solicitor for the Applicant)

Mr Hamish Thompson (Managing Director for the Applicant) 

Mr Richard Vivian (Acoustic Expert for the Applicant)

 

Anil Drayan (Environmental Health Service - EHO) 

Janet Lee, Gloria May, Heather Adlam (Interested Parties) 

Camilla Johnson-Hill (Interested Party attending virtually)

Richard Brown (on behalf of the Interested Parties named above and Jasmin Sohi) 

 

FULL DECISION

 

Application for a variation of Premises Licence in respect of Chiltern Firehouse, 1 Chiltern Street, London W1U 7PA - 23/08839/LIPV.

 

Premises

 

Chiltern Firehouse

1 Chiltern Street

London

W1U 7PA

 

Applicant

 

Chiltern Street Hotel Limited

 

Ward

 

Marylebone

 

 

 

Cumulative Impact

 

None

 

Special Consideration Zone

 

None

 

There is a resident count of 186.

 

Application

 

This is an application for a variation of a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”).  The premises currently trades a hotel and has had the benefit of a Premises Licence since 2012.

 

This application is made in line with the Westminster Council's recent decision to grant a variation of the conditions attached to the Planning Permission for this site, under Planning Application 23/02315/FULL, and is to amend the wording of Condition 46 on the current Premises Licence, to:

 

46. All tables and chairs shall be removed from the outside area or rendered unusable by 21:00 daily Sunday to Wednesday, and 22:00 daily Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

 

The current Condition 46 reads:

 

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.

 

Representations Received

 

·       Anil Drayan – Environmental Health Services (EHS)

 

·       4 Objections - Resident.

 

·       6 Support – Resident.

 

Issues raised by Objectors.

 

The EHS states the application will lead to an increase in public nuisance.

 

The objecting resident state a grant of the application will cause an impact until the courtyard is closed. It has an impact on health and sleep. Any grant should again be temporary until a proper assessment has been conducted.

 

The supporting residents state matters not relating to the Licensing Objectives

Westminster City Council’s Licensing Policy Considerations

 

Policy HRS 1,

 

A. Applications within the core hours set out below in this policy will generally be granted for the relevant premises uses, subject to not being contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

Hotel Core Hours:

 

Monday to Thursday: 9am to 11.30pm.

Friday and Saturday: 9am to Midnight.

Sunday: 9am to 10.30pm.

Sundays immediately prior to a bank holiday: 9am to Midnight.

For the sale of alcohol to guests for consumption in

hotel/guest rooms only: Anytime up to 24 hours.

 

HOT1

 

A.    Applications outside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone will generally be granted subject to:

B.     

1. The application meeting the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.

2. The hours for licensable activities being within the council’s Core Hours Policy HRS1.

4. The sale by retail of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late-night refreshment must be an ancillary function to the primary purpose of the venue as a hotel.

6. The application and operation of the venue meeting the definition of a Hotel as per Clause C.

 

C.    For the purposes of this policy a Hotel is defined as a premises that is primarily used as an establishment providing overnight accommodation for customers.

 

Policy C1 states in order to prevent public nuisance, it will be necessary to consider the extent of eating and drinking that will take place outdoors and the measures that may be appropriate to ensure that nuisance is not created. Outdoor eating and drinking and the congregation of people at night is likely to cause nuisance and conditions are likely to be imposed to limit the hours when this takes place. It also increases the potential for criminal activity. This may require staff to control or prevent people going outdoors with food or drink, either some or all of the time. Where appropriate, conditions will be imposed to manage or, if appropriate, prevent outdoor eating and drinking.

 

 

 

 

 

SUBMISSIONS

 

1.     The Presenting Officer, Kevin Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the application to the Committee. 

 

2. Mr Kolvin, representing the Applicant, informed the Committee that the application was for a variation to the premises licence to extend the use of the Hotel courtyard from 21:00 hours to 22:00 hours on Thursdays to Saturdays inclusive.  He emphasised that this did not give rise to a general review of the Premises Licence.  He commented that this was the sixth time the Sub-Committee had considered the one hour extension for the courtyard area.  There had been applications for temporary extensions in 2021 (for 7 nights a week) and 2022 (for 3 nights a week) which had both been granted.  Mr Kolvin described the proposed extension as being well tested across 330 nights of trade.  He also mentioned the permanent one hour extension for the courtyard on Thursdays to Saturdays granted by the Council’s Planning Applications Sub-Committee in November 2023 and that Environmental Health had not objected to that application, or the conditions and noise management plan.  He added that the objections at the Planning Applications Committee closely mirrored those at the current hearing.

 

3. Mr Kolvin explained that the Applicant was not making the case that activity in the courtyard was never audible.  However, given the nature, the hours and the days of the use, it fell significantly short of causing a public nuisance.

 

4. Mr Kolvin referred the Committee to the Applicant’s responsibilities regarding the conditions which had previously been attached to the premises licence for the Hotel and the courtyard area.  These included an obligation to host residents’ meetings if requested by residents, appointing a competent Acoustic Consultant to produce a Noise Mitigation Policy, have a copy of the Noise Mitigation Policy at the Hotel reception, prominently display notices for the public to leave the premises quietly, no noise being permitted to emanate from the premises, no loud speakers in the external entrance lobby or outside the premises building, no regulated entertainment within the courtyard area except for unamplified live music for events between 10:00 and 21:00, supervision of the courtyard by at least one SIA door supervisor or dedicated/trained duty manager, between 21:00 and 22:00 hours the consumption of alcohol in the courtyard being to seated persons and by waiter/waitress service and a street warden being required to patrol the vicinity of the premises from 17:00 to midnight on Monday to Saturday and 17:00 to 23:00 on Sunday.

 

5. Mr Kolvin commented further on Environmental Health’s position in respect of the applications in 2021 and 2022 for the temporary extension of the terminal hour in the courtyard.  He stated that Mr Watson had suggested at the 2021 meeting that Environmental Health was agreeable to a terminal hour of 22:00 and with the proposed conditions being attached to the premises licence.  Mr Kolvin stated that it had been noted that in the 2022 Committee meeting, Environmental Health had visited residents’ dwellings following complaints of noise nuisance from the premises and found audio in the home was minimal.  Mr Nevitt had advised at that meeting there was nothing substantive to indicate that the courtyard would be a source of concern.  The Committee had found then that the noise emanating from the courtyard during the operating hours was not so substantial to justify the application being refused.

 

6. Mr Kolvin drew the Committee’s attention to there having been an extensive consultation by his client prior to the current application with 1,392 people having been written to in order to invite them to a community event to discuss the planning and licensing applications.  Sixty-one had attended and twenty-six feedback forms had been submitted.  Mr Kolvin described these as being overwhelmingly supportive and spoke of the Marylebone Association and two adjoining residents as having been content with the application.

 

7. The conclusions of Mr Vivian’s technical report on behalf of the Applicant was that there had been no substantiated complaint and no detrimental impact from the use of the courtyard.

 

8. Mr Kolvin commented on 50 video clips recorded on a mobile phone of the Hotel, including the courtyard area, which had been submitted by a local resident objecting to the application.  A response had been provided by Mr Vivian explaining that sounds heard on a mobile phone were not a reliable indicator of actual noise and that the recordings had taken place outside the window.  Mr Kolvin expressed the view that the recordings of the courtyard area only demonstrated talking and no shouting or music emanating specifically from this area.

 

9. Mr Kolvin stated that his client sought to be a good neighbour, including having run residents’ meetings, logging every communication and complaint and offered discounts off food, drink and hotel bookings which had been taken up multiple times by residents of Chiltern Street during 2023.  He remarked that it was clear that the Applicant had not been able to please all of its neighbours all of the time but the fact that there were four objectors after thirteen months of the latter use of the courtyard area appeared to tell its own story.  He concluded with the points that the Hotel courtyard was not in the CIZ, the later hours were within Core Hours, the sound was contained in the courtyard and the area was properly constructed, soft furnished and supervised.  Its use had been reviewed by professional officers, including three Environmental Health officers and fell significantly short of being a public nuisance.

 

10. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Thompson advised that there was always a SIA door supervisor located at the front gate and up to a maximum of three at any one time.  From 17:00 to 01:00 a street warden was employed to patrol the area.  There were also two managers dedicated to the courtyard area at all times.

 

11. Mr Vivian responded to a question from the Committee as to whether he had taken up any offers from residents to do an acoustic assessment from their homes.  He stated that the Hotel had been in operation for approximately ten years, and he had visited a number of residents’ properties over the course of those years.  He had not visited any in recent years. This was primarily because he had not been given access.  He said that he had been asked to leave by a local resident when being of the view that the sound levels did not constitute noise nuisance.  He added that Council officers were able to visit residents’ properties too.  There was historic information from approximately five years ago of the noise level in residents’ flats until 21:00 hours.  Mr Vivian was of the view that there would not be a significant difference in noise levels between 21:00 and 22:00 hours.

 

12. Mr Vivian was asked by the Committee to provide further detail in relation to a specific aspect on the courtyard in his report.  He advised that over the courtyard there were a number of glass canopies and there was a vertical wall at the front of the courtyard.  The canopies covered the critical perimeter edges and there was canvas which acted as a form of sound attenuation.  He was of the view that there was a small number of residents who had a line of sight to part of the courtyard but not the entirety.  Mr Vivian confirmed that he had monitored noise measurements from within the Hotel at the equivalent height of residents’ flats.  He had found that an individual voice from the courtyard would be no louder than an individual walking down the street and, in many cases, they would be obscured by the brick wall.

 

13. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Kolvin replied that in 2023 there had been 11 complaints to the Hotel and 10 had been made by a local resident.  In 2022 there had been 23 complaints and 18 had been by the same local resident.  In relation to the courtyard, Mr Kolvin believed that there had been three complaints from the local resident.  One related to shouting in the courtyard at 21:30 hours in February 2022, another on 2 March 2022 at 19:30 hours when a private event was held and a third on 10 March 2022 that the courtyard had been noisy all day.  Mr Kolvin wished to emphasise that the complaints had been raised with the restaurant manager at the time and that there had been no evidence found to date by Council officers of noise nuisance emanating from the courtyard.

 

14. Mr Kolvin clarified to Members that his client offered meetings when asked by local residents as required in the condition on the premises licence.  He stated that these took place up to May 2022 and the owner of the Hotel had attended the most recent meeting.  The small number of local residents who had attended had informed his client that they did not want any further meetings.  He added that his client would be willing to start the meetings again.  The Applicant had also offered a WhatsApp group for the residents in the event of any issues, but residents had expressed concerns about providing their details.

 

15. Mr Kolvin made the point that the application related purely to the courtyard.  However, he acknowledged that there was an area behind the courtyard called the ‘Ladder Shed’ where music was permitted to be played and there had been complaints that there was noise breakout.  He advised that Hotel management were investigating this in conjunction with Environmental Health officers.  He stated that if it was found to be necessary, the noise limiter would be reset.

 

16. Mr Vivian clarified that the nearest noise sensitive premises were the rooms in the Hotel and management therefore had to ensure that the activities did not impact on the hotel residents as well.  The calculations that he had previously undertaken were in relation to the local residents’ homes opposite.  He had assessed the courtyard sound levels from Room 11 of the Hotel. 

 

17. The Committee heard from Mr Drayan on behalf of the Environmental Health Service (EHS).  He confirmed that he had responded to the planning application for the additional hour sought in the courtyard in November 2023.  He advised that he had been satisfied with the information provided.  Mr Drayan clarified that he had not asked the Applicant to conduct an acoustic assessment inside a resident’s home in respect of the current licensing application because it would not be known how many people would be in the courtyard in the event this took place.  He had therefore requested an assessment on the courtyard being at full capacity and its impact on the flats opposite.  He added that based on the information provided it had shown that the courtyard was well managed and was not used for amplified music or entertainment purposes.  It had demonstrated that the use of the courtyard would not result in public nuisance. 

 

18. Mr Drayan advised Members that for the additional hour sought on Thursdays to Saturdays residents would hear something from the courtyard but at that time of day anyone living in a mixed use area should expect some level of activity in their area.  If similar noise levels took place after 23:00 hours they would probably be deemed to be a public nuisance which was the reason this was a cut off point for tables and chairs licences.  After this time, it would potentially impact on residents’ ability to sleep.

 

 

 

19. Mr Drayan confirmed that City Inspectors had assessed the level of noise from outside and inside residents’ homes and had found that the use of the courtyard did not amount to public nuisance.  He commented that he would not normally have maintained his representation, but he was aware of residents’ objections and was in attendance to assist the Committee and answer any questions.  He was aware of one noise complaint received by Environmental Health on 13 July 2023 that was reported to have resulted from the use of the courtyard.  The City Inspectors had visited later but the courtyard area was not being used at that time.

 

20. The Committee was addressed by Mr Brown, representing four local residents objecting to the application.  He stated that the residents were mystified by the suggestion that residents did not have a line of sight to the courtyard from Wendover Court as there clearly was. 

 

21. Mr Brown mentioned that the residents of Wendover Court were tired of objecting to regular licensing and planning applications and that it was very stressful for residents to appear at the hearings.  The four residents had objected to the current application in order to seek a balance between the residents’ needs and the business’ needs. It was the Wendover Court residents’ core submission that an extra hour in the courtyard for a hotel with other entertainment provided including a nightclub could only be a small benefit for the Applicant whereas it was a major disbenefit for the residents living opposite.

 

22. Mr Brown referred to there being three major differences between the current application and the two applications previously submitted in 2021 and 2022.  The first was that the current application was not affected by Covid whereas it was felt that the 2021 and 2022 applications were.  Although residents had submitted representations to the previous applications, it was understood that the Council was morally bound to support the applications because of the situation which was in existence at the time where the courtyard could not benefit from the deregulation of off sales as it was an on sale.  This was not the case now.  Mr Brown stated that secondly, the application was permanent and not temporary as the two previous applications had been and thirdly, there was video evidence produced from a resident’s mobile phone.

 

23. Mr Brown commented that residents of Wendover Court had in some cases lived there for many years prior to the establishment of the Chiltern Firehouse Hotel.  He referred to Chiltern Street as not having been particularly affected by mixed use development with the Planning Officer’s report for the additional hour in the courtyard application in November 2023 confirming that Chiltern Street was a relatively quiet location.  Mr Brown provided a quote from the same report that the extent of the extended use of the courtyard would result in an increase in later noise and activity.  He added that there had been fourteen objections to the planning application.

 

24. Mr Brown expressed the view that there appeared to have been a reliance on the acoustic report in relation to the planning decision and that whilst there had been a site visit, residents’ flats had not been visited.  He added that there had been a similar reliance on the acoustic report by the Applicant for the current application and there had been no response from the Applicant to two resident objectors to the licensing application offering the opportunity to take sound measurements from their flats.  He was not aware of any attempt by the Applicant to contact the objectors in respect of the current application.  Mr Brown asked the Sub-Committee to look at the acoustic report in the context of the video evidence captured by a local resident on a mobile phone which was meant to provide a fuller picture.

 

25. Mr Brown explained that the application would impact on residents because it was an extra hour when they would not get the peace that they would expect during the later evening.  It was not the case that it was a given for outside areas to be granted later hours and these decisions were often taken as a balance between the interests of residents and businesses.

 

26. The Committee was provided with clips of footage from the local resident’s mobile phone.  Three of these were shown at the hearing.  The first video was taken at 20:47 hours on 17 August 2023.  The second was taken at 20:34 hours on 14 March 2024 and the third was taken at 18:42 hours on 16 March 2024.  The resident referred in the third video to noise coming mostly from people located at the front in the glass walkway.

 

27. The local resident described the courtyard as the largest daily outside hospitality place in the Marylebone area with a capacity of up to 120 people.  Reference was made to the noise level rising at around 12:30 hours, then rising another level at 17:30 and continuing there until the end of the operation in the courtyard area.  It was stated that despite what the acoustic report had set out the noise was sufficiently loud to be an ongoing nuisance to residents opposite.  The noise could be heard through open windows, and it was also audible through double glazed, sound insulated, closed windows and at the back of the resident’s room.  The Committee was advised that the local resident had not been able to record on the mobile phone from the back of the room. 

 

28. The local resident referred to the personal impact of responding to a number of planning and licensing applications and making complaints in response to noise which was having an adverse effect on a daily basis.  It was stated to be worst Thursdays to Saturdays, including when the Hotel nightclub (in the Ladder Shed) was in operation and especially during the Summer.  The local resident explained that it was felt that promises had not been kept by the Portman Estate when they had asked residents to support the change of use to commercial at the site.

 

29. Concerns were expressed by the local resident that the additional hour in the courtyard Thursdays to Saturdays would have an adverse impact on a baby and young children residing in flats overlooking the street.  It was emphasised that complaints were not received from residents because they were tired of doing so and not all residents knew how to complain.  It was also felt that there were improvements on occasion in terms of what residents experienced but that there was ‘slippage’ and the noise became worse.

 

30. A second resident objecting to the application addressed the Sub-Committee. Members were advised that the local resident lived directly opposite the courtyard and had never had any communication with anyone at the Hotel, including in relation to the WhatsApp group and any potential discounts for local people.  The resident described noise from the courtyard as a constant anxiety.  There was a sight line under the canopy and it could be seen who was making the noise.

 

31. The Committee sought clarification as to whether the Applicant was aware of an invitation to visit residents’ flats in order to make an acoustic assessment.  Mr Kolvin replied that his client was not aware of an invitation and there had been a history of being asked to leave residents’ flats.  However, the Applicant would be prepared to undertake an acoustic assessment from residents’ flats.  He added that it was highly likely that the assessment would be the same as Mr Vivian and Mr Drayan had indicated and the sound would be a low rumble and not a public nuisance.  He believed the resolution was for the Committee to rely on the condition already attached to the premises licence that ‘no noise shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance’.

 

32. The first resident made the point that whilst there had been an upsetting aspect to communications with Mr Vivian which had meant he had been asked to leave the flat previously, the invite to take measurements from the flat did still stand.  It was noted that the second resident had also offered to have an acoustic assessment undertaken.

 

33. Mr Drayan advised the Committee that he would not class the video footage captured by the local resident’s mobile phone as a statutory or public nuisance, taking into account the times of the recordings and that there had not been evidence of a constant noise such as shouting, laughing or singing.  He commented that he fully sympathised with the residents of Wendover Court because they had previously lived in an area that had been quieter in nature and which had become increasingly mixed use.  

 

34. In response to a question from the Committee, the first resident stated that children of relatives could no longer stay at the front of the property due to noise from the Hotel and it impacted on having visitors.  Another resident had to sleep in the sitting room when events took place in the Hotel.  The point was also made that whilst there were definitions of public and statutory nuisance, both children and adults needed winding down time and children might need to go to bed before 22:00 hours.

 

35. In answer to a question from the Committee’s legal adviser regarding the condition 49, that ‘There shall be at least 1 SIA door supervisor or a dedicated and trained duty manager in the courtyard to manage the courtyard area whose primary purpose is to ensure that the four licensing objectives are promoted in particular that of prevention of public nuisance’, Mr Kolvin agreed for the condition to be amended so that there was a requirement for there to be at least 1 SIA door supervisor and a dedicated trained duty manager to manage the courtyard area in order to provide additional assurance.

 

36. In his summing up, Mr Brown stated that public nuisance was not defined in the Licensing Act.  The Guidance mentioned that it may include the reduction of the living and working amenity and environment of people in the area of the licensed premises.  Mr Brown commented that was the experience and evidence of a number of residents and what was perceived in the videos.  Mr Brown re-iterated the differences between the current application and the previous applications in 2021 and 2022 and that a permanent extension of the terminal hour for the courtyard area Thursdays to Saturdays was not appropriate.

 

37. Mr Brown clarified that the residents were not saying, and the videos were not showing, that there was bad behaviour.  This he believed could be addressed by a duty manager or a management plan.  He made the point however that the regular noise of 115 people would not be addressed.  He therefore recommended that there was a balance between the needs of residents and the business and that granting an additional hour would push the balance too far.

 

38. In his summing up, Mr Kolvin stated that there had been 330 nights of testing of the extended hour of courtyard use.  He referred to the Section 102 Guidance and that the Environmental Health Officers were probably the most experienced in the country at evaluating the balance of residential and commercial needs.  The specific officers who had attended the three meetings in 2021, 2022 and 2024 were particularly experienced. 

 

39. Mr Kolvin mentioned the Applicant’s technical acoustic memo which had set out that mobile phones were not a reliable recorder of sound level.  He commented that Mr Drayan’s reaction had been that when the courtyard space was well managed, there was no regulated entertainment or constant shouting, laughing or singing, in a mixed use area it did not amount to a public nuisance.

 

40. Mr Kolvin disputed previous decisions of the Committee had been based on other considerations such as Covid.  He explained that in respect of the 2022 decision, Members of the Committee had set out their approach, being mindful that a balance needed to be struck and had reminded residents there were mechanisms to report noise in the event they were adversely affected by nuisance.  However, they had not found that the noise emanating from the courtyard was sufficiently substantial for the application to be refused.  Mr Kolvin added that more technical evidence had been provided since then by Mr Vivian.

 

41. Mr Kolvin also responded to Environmental Health’s log of having received a noise complaint on 13 July 2023 that was reported to have resulted from the use of the courtyard.  He stated this was a Temporary Event Notice for a stand-up reception and people then proceeded to go inside the Hotel.  He did not believe that this was in keeping with the current application where customers would be seated.

 

42. Mr Kolvin reiterated that there were conditions that his client was required to meet, that the Hotel had offered to provide an additional member of staff in terms of managing the courtyard and that his client was keen to communicate with residents.  He recommended that the Committee encourage both parties to re-engage and reiterated that the Applicant was content to undertake acoustic assessments from residents’ flats.  Mr Kolvin asked that the Committee note the expert opinions of Mr Vivian and Council officers.

 

DECISION

 

43.The Committee has determined an application for a VARIATION of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003.The Committee is aware that it has a duty to consider each application on its individual merits and did so when determining this application.

 

44.The Committee regard to the fact that planning permission had been granted for the permanent extended hours on Thursdays to Saturdays and that the test for nuisance to residential premises in the vicinity under the Planning regime, is a stricter test than that under the Act.

 

45.The EHO, has also supported the application and stated that noise nuisance from the Courtyard reported by the residents had not been substantiated. The EHO also confirmed that he and the EH department were of the view that the grant of this application will not cause a Public Nuisance at the times requested, with good management and in an area which is mixed commercial and residential use.

 

46.It was noted that a majority of the complaints related to noise/music escape from the Premises but not from the Courtyard. Noise escape from inside the Premises is currently being addressed.

 

47.Noise from the courtyard is, in the main, noise from customer speech but noise which the Acoustic expert, the EHO and his colleagues historically confirmed to Planning and Licensing Committees, does not amount to a public nuisance.

 

48.The Committee had regard to the report and evidence from Mr Vivian, but this would have carried more weight if there was partnership working between the Applicant and residents and the acoustic assessment had been conducted using reading from inside residential properties.

 

49.The Committee noted the number of staff present in the courtyard when used, which includes SIA registered door staff and that there is no substantiated occurrence of public nuisance caused as a result of the trade of the Courtyard.

 

50.Attempts have been made by the Applicant to engage with residents and Mr Kolvin KC reiterated that the Applicant welcome future partnership working with local residents, and this is encouraged.

 

51.However, the Committee heard the resident’s concerns, which in the main concerned the escape of noise from within the Premises. The video footage and pictures were noted and the fact that previous extensions were permitted during the COVID period to support businesses. The Committee would encourage the residents to work with the Applicant to appease their concerns. However, should the residents have ongoing issues in relation to the Premises Licence or breaches of conditions, then they are entitled to apply for a Premises Licence Review.

 

52.The Committee noted that there are a number of conditions on the current Premises Licence which aims to support residents, namely conditions 11, 12, 13, 21, 45, 46, 49 and 58.

 

53. The Committee balanced the needs of the business with the needs of residents and considered that the operation of the Courtyard promotes the Licensing Objectives based on the evidence. The Members have carefully considered the Act, the Guidance issued under sec 182 of the Act, Westminster’s Statement of Licensing Policy, committee papers, the additional papers, video evidence and the submissions made by all of the parties orally.

 

 

 

54. The Committee is satisfied that, the Applicant have shown on the balance of probability that they have systems in place, and a sufficiently conditioned Premises Licence to promote the four licensing objectives. It is appropriate and proportionate, in all the circumstances, to GRANT the application: -

 

1.     To amend the wording of Condition 46 on the current Premises Licence, to:

 

46. All tables and chairs shall be removed from the outside area or rendered unusable by 21:00 daily Sunday to Wednesday, and 22:00 daily Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

 

2.     To amend Condition 49 to:

 

49. There shall be at least 1 SIA door supervisor and a dedicated and trained duty manager in the courtyard to manage the courtyard area whose primary purpose is to ensure that the four licensing objectives are promoted in particular that of prevention of public nuisance.

 

3.     Retain current and relevant Mandatory Conditions.

 

4.     Retain all other conditions on the existing Premises Licence, insofar as they are not amended by this application:

 

This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith.

 

Licensing Sub-Committee

21 March 2024