Agenda item

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 that the Applicant was now seeking approval to have two more gaming tables located on the first floor with the restaurant on the first floor being reduced to 28 covers.  The Applicant wished to reduce the size of the restaurant because a larger restaurant had failed to attract more diners.  He added that there had been no objections from the Responsible Authorities.  He had written to Ashiana Limited offering to meet and explain the proposals in the application. 

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Mr Phillips.  He stated that the objections of his client were twofold (these were also set out in Ashiana’s written objection).  Firstly, by taking out a large part of the restaurant on the first floor and replacing it with two gaming tables, it was asserted that there was a loss of the physical and functional separation between the bar/restaurant area and the gaming area of the Premises.  Secondly, Mr Phillips made the point that there was a detrimental impact on the licensing objectives (under the Gambling Act 2005) from the reduction of the covers at the restaurant by approximately 50% on the first floor.

Mr Phillips referred to the plans and in particular that currently the bar/restaurant area was located on a separate floor from the gaming areas with the exception of the ‘Salle Prive’ area which was located behind a closed door on the first floor.  He said that in the event the application was granted, the separation would be lost and there would be what Mr Phillips described as largely an open plan arrangement except for a temporary screen between the bar/restaurant area and the gaming area.  This he believed would have an adverse impact on the licensing objective to protect vulnerable adults.  He referred to an evidential link between the consumption of alcohol and problem gambling as set out in the Gambling Review report produced by the gambling review body chaired by Sir Alan Budd.  This included as set out in the report that alcohol reduces inhibitions and that ‘there is convincing evidence that it impairs judgement about gambling and can cause people to gamble excessively’.  Mr Phillips made the additional point that by taking away the separation between the bar/restaurant and gaming areas and also reducing the number of covers by approximately 50%, this could not be viewed in any positive sense in respect of promoting the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee asked a number of questions.  These included Mr Woods being asked whether the Casino offered a minimum non-gambling area equivalent to at least 10% of its total gambling area under the new proposals.  Mr Woods replied it was in the region of 12% to 13%.  Mr Nelson clarified that in addition to staircases, there were two seating areas which constituted recreational areas which were readily available to customers.  There was one with tables and chairs above a staircase and one in an alcove with sofa seating near to toilets which ensured that the non-gambling area was above 10%.  Mr Nelson confirmed the reference in the report to the non-gambling area increasing slightly on the first floor in the event the application was granted.      

Mr Woods was also asked by the Sub-Committee whether the screen was movable.  He replied that the screen could be moved.  It was six feet high and not transparent.  A customer who was sitting in the restaurant would not be able to see the gaming tables.    

The Sub-Committee, in granting the application, considered that the Applicant was an experienced operator.   The Applicant had been able to operate with an arrangement when the Premises had originally opened where the first floor consisted of the bar seating area and was set aside for table gaming and the second floor had a restaurant area with 29 covers and an additional gaming area.  The Applicant was now offering to provide some separation between the bar/restaurant area and the gaming tables with the use of a six foot high screen so that customers would not be able to see the gaming area when seated in the bar/restaurant area.  The Sub-Committee did not consider that the licensing objective under the Gambling Act 2005 requiring the protection of vulnerable adults would be undermined as a result of granting the application.

The Sub-Committee noted that in the Council’s report, paragraph 1.6 states that ‘there is no restriction in the legislation or associated regulations regarding the size of the table gaming area or the proportion of the premises it occupies provided that the mandatory condition requirement to provide a non-gambling area is observed’.  It had been confirmed at the hearing that the non-gambling area had increased slightly on the first floor.