Transcript

Welcome to an online meeting of RBKC's Licensing Subcommittee, where we are considering an application for the grant of a new premises license for the roof gardens. I'm Councillor Janet Evans, and I will be chairing this meeting. I would like to make a representation that I was invited with other counsellors and leadership team to a Christmas drinks at the roof garden. This is just in the spirit of transparency. I did not discuss this case, and it was not discussed at all, this application. Thank you. I am accompanied by Councillor David Lindsay and Councillor Abdullahi Noor. Councillors, can you please introduce yourselves and confirm whether you have any declarations to make, and please turn your cameras off afterwards, as this helps with connection issues. David Lindsay, Councillor for Norland Ward. I have no declarations. David Lindsay, Councillor Abdullahi Noor. I have no interest on this case. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, colleagues. I confirm that this hearing is being held via Microsoft Teams, and it is also being streamed live. We are joined remotely by Paul Phelan from the Council's licensing team, our legal officer, Heidi Titcombe, and Holly Weaver, Daniela Healy, and Tommy Hanmur from our governance team, who will be monitoring all our connections and helping with any technical issues we may ask. Holly, can you please run through the list of the persons who will be speaking today? Can you confirm that they are in attendance? Wonderful, wonderful. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And so, going through the list, as I see it, so from the Atcom side, we have Stephen Walsh, Alan Thomas, Sue Walter, Rob Seale, Richard Charland, David Pearce, and David Nevitt. From the side of the objectives, we have Corey Evans, Alex Sterling, Mariella Pissioti, Maria Luisa Sicognini, Peter Oyen, James Beery, and his wife, Candy Beery, who is his witness, Catherine Coutet, Caroline Carey, and then Rayan Suna. And then to the side of the supporters, we have Hannah Greenwood, Nick Hornby, and Yusuf Hamad. I believe that's everybody. If anybody has been missed, please feel free to say so now. We'll make sure that your attendance is recorded today. But I believe that should be everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who was expecting to speak but has not been mentioned on the list? Okay, let's move on. We will start with... Please don't write in the chat because we do not include it when we're being live-streamed. Okay, before we start the hearing of the case, I will mention a few ground rules. Please keep your microphones on mute until you are invited to speak. Please make sure mobile phones are off. And on silent. Please feel free to turn on your cameras when you are speaking, unless this causes connection problems that could happen, especially when there are so many people here. Please note that this is a public meeting, so please ensure you mute yourselves when you are not speaking. The team's chat function, as I mentioned, is not monitored, so please do not use it. The quorum for this meeting is two. As there is always the possibility that I may lose connection temporarily during the broadcast, I am nominating Councillor Lindsay to be appointed as a substitute chair. Members, please confirm whether this nomination is seconded. Councillor Lindsay, Councillor Noor. Chair, I'm happy to second it. Happy to. Thank you very much indeed. I confirm that Councillor Lindsay has been appointed substitute chair. Now, before we carry on, we have received a late request for an adjournment to this hearing. There are several points here, but one, the committee should not be contacted directly, especially at this late day, at any time. But at five to nine this morning or a quarter to nine to contact the committee is usually it's not acceptable. I would like to see, basically, that I'd like to hear from both sides as how they feel about an adjournment. So, Kensington Residents Association, Kensington Square Residents Association, I'd like to hear from you and then from Stephen Walsh, please. So, let's start with the Kensington Square Residents Association. Good morning, Councillor Evans. Thank you very much for addressing us. First of all, we do apologize for sending this email at a late hour. The reason for sending the email at the late hour and sending it also to the committee, first of all, we were not aware of any rules that stated that we should not be contacting the committee. So, we apologize for that. Having said that, the reason for the late hour is because this morning, when we logged in to ensure that all the materials were updated online, we found that the materials were missing. This is the reason for the late representation. And this is the reason for the request for the adjournment, because we feel that the licensing committee, the U.S. councillors, do not have the full evidence. And the report states there's only three complaints logged by RBKC, when, in fact, there's more than 38 complaints logged by RBKC. Thank you. And, again, apologies for contacting you directly. There were a lot of emails on this case back and forth. Could you introduce yourself, please? Oh, I apologize. This is Mariella Piciotti. Okay. Thank you. It's not showing up on my screen here. Okay. Stephen Walsh, would you like to comment and see if you agree to an adjournment or not? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Can you hear me all right? Not well. Please speak up or move closer to the microphone. Right. Okay. The first thing to say is that as far as we knew, because that is the material which has been disclosed, there are only three complaints, as far as we know, made to the environmental health team. The noise team, and those have been logged. If what is being referred to are other complaints, which are contained in a log, which is compiled and shared between the roof gardens and the Residence Association, which is also disclosed to environmental health. As I understand it, you have that log in your papers today. So you'd have all of those complaints. So nothing is missing. Perhaps I should ask, am I right about that? Because I've no doubt that environmental health will say they have disclosed that which they have, which relates to actual complaints to environmental health where the noise team visited the premises. But the remainder of the complaints or issues, as they arose, are in the log, which I think you have. So I don't think anything is missing. I'll ask our solicitor, Heidi, to come. Can you please comment on that? Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I think we do need to hear from Environmental Health, and also that's Matt McIlroy, and also Paul Phelan, for their comments in relation to what has been said by the Residence Association. Before we can comment further, so perhaps Paul can go first and then Matt, secondly, can you both confirm that you've had a chance indeed to read that email? If you haven't had an opportunity to read that email, then you may want to adjourn for 10 minutes to look at it and to make some inquiries. So can you please let us know if you need extra time in order to be able to let the committee know what has actually happened? Good morning, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Dickham. This is Paul Phelan from the licensing team here. Just to confirm, I've read the email and I'm prepared to proceed. Yes, so what is your comments about why, do you agree with what Mr. Walsh has just said, that only three complaints were made to the council, and the other complaints are separate between the operator and the Residence Association? Or are there other points to this? That's correct. Essentially, the council records indicate that there have been three complaints in the previous 24-month period. Appendix F reflects accurately the council database. The additional document from the KSRA has been circulated, but Appendix F is an accurate reflection of the council's records, i.e. what has been logged in terms of a complaint. Yeah, so you don't agree that the report is inaccurate then? No, the report is accurate. Okay, thank you. And can we hear from Mr. McIlroy, because he may have some comments as well. Yeah, good morning, Chair. So, I would agree with Paul, from looking at the records, I've read the email this morning, I've looked back at the records. There are additional cases that have been created, but those are in response to emails with logs that have been received and appear to have been shared with the premises between residents. But the complaint logs that have been provided as Appendix F are the cases that are relevant and the complaints that are relevant that have been logged at the time that we were able to undertake visits or investigations. And so, I believe Appendix F is an accurate representation, and therefore, there wouldn't be any reason to change those records. Sorry, can you just clarify what you meant there were additional cases? I'm not clear on that one. So, when we receive emails from residents or anyone else in relation to a case, if there's not an open noise case specifically, then our admin team will create a new case. So, looking through those, there are a few cases that have been created and a few references that have been created, which just show a log of emails between various parties. So, they're not specific complaints on the night that we were able to investigate. Thank you, and are you able to confirm what the date of those cases, do they relate to a particular time? So, looking at one in particular, there was an email received on the 20th of May, which appeared to relate to various allegations through April and May. So, not specific issues that were logged at the time for us to investigate, but communication between residents and the premises in regards to concerns, generally about external management and staff talking and things like that. But that's, yeah, that hasn't been logged as a service request at the time, because it's just correspondence after the fact. Were there any others? You mentioned a couple. So, there's a couple of cases that have been created based on that same email. So, whenever responses have gone back and forwards, a few other cases have been created. But that is the fundamental case that I can find in relation to correspondence between the events. But the actual appendix F are the cases that relate to actual service requests. OK, that's helpful. So, therefore, Mr. Walsh, can, in view of what's been said, can you let us know what your view to the adjournment is? Well, at the moment, I can't see any reason for an adjournment for this reason. But I think what has just been referred to as email communications on the 20th of May and so on, there is an exit, I'll say it again, there is an existing log which is maintained by KSRA and the roof gardens, which provides a pretty comprehensive record of concerns which are raised and things which the roof gardens does to address them. And it's not a narrative because it's in the form of a log, but that log is is disclosable and disclosed to the environmental health department. So, that's, I think, what is being referred to. But that log has been, as I understand it, has been submitted to this hearing and should be in the committee papers by KSRA. So, that's the totality of all the information, complaints and so on. There's the three complaints which are dealt with over the last 24 months by the environmental health department and then the log, which is more comprehensive. Thank you. So, therefore, in a nutshell, are you opposing the request for an adjournment? Yes. Yes, we are. Thank you. I've just noted that. Can I just ask Holly, Holly, are you able to confirm when that log was circulated to everyone? Yes, I will just find out now. One minute. Thank you for your patience. So, the log was initially sent to us on Thursday the 15th of May and this was then circulated to all parties on the 15th of May and it was also subsequently then resent to all parties again on the 22nd of May as there was some concern that somebody hadn't received it. Thank you. Thank you. Therefore, in view of that, can I just ask the Kensington Square Association whether in view of what has been heard? I mean, the documents are in the evidence that has been produced. The council has explained why they are not official logs that have come to the council. That's why they would not be in the council database. So, on that basis, the committee and everyone has seen the log. So, are you still pursuing your request for an adjournment, bearing in mind the evidence is before the committee and we've been told that it was circulated on the 15th of May and again on the 22nd of May. Thank you very much for asking us. We do not agree with the assessment that these are not official logs. These were addressed to RBKC environmental noise as well. And we understand that Mr. Felon and Mr. McIlroy have not formed any representation on the basis of these. We understand that Keith Mahaffey was the person that advised us to put together these logs and send them to RBKC to ensure all our complaints are logged. And we find ourselves in a situation today where you're saying these are not properly logged. So, we disagree with the assessment. Thank you. Thank you for that explanation. Mr. Mahaffey is not here. So, it's inappropriate for us to comment on what Mr. Mahaffey may have said because we don't know whether he would agree with what you have said or whether he would agree. So, the committee can't really take that forward. So, Madam Chairman, I think we've heard what all the parties have said. So, I think you as a committee should adjourn to reach a decision as to whether you consider the adjournment application should or should not be granted. Yes, I agree. Yes, I agree. Could I just point out that whether or not it was proper or not proper submission, the point is that we did see it. That may well be a reason for your decision. Exactly. I just wanted to point it out that we have seen it. Yes. Okay. So, shall we adjourn, would you say, for 10, 15 minutes? Exactly. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, the committee are formally going to adjourn this hearing for 15 minutes so that they can reach a decision on the adjournment request. I would remind all the parties that as this is a streamed live broadcast, that you need to mute your buttons. Otherwise, if you speak to your colleagues, that will be picked up and we don't want anything to be said or recorded that shouldn't be recorded in this committee. So, Chair, are you happy to adjourn the case? Yes, we'll be back at 10.45. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. Is everyone back? Holly, can you confirm that our solicitor is back and the full committee? Wonderful. Heidi, can I just double-check that you're there? Perfect. Yes, I'm here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lindsay and Councillor North. Councillor Lindsay is here. Do you want to see my face? Yeah, we're here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That will suffice. Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll go back to live now on the live stream and then we can carry on the hearing. Thank you. Thank you. The committee has come to a decision. I will defer to our solicitor, Heidi Tidcombe, to read our decision. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The committee has considered the request for an adjournment made by the Kensington Square Residence Association and has also taken into account the comments made by Matt McIlroy and Paul Phelan and heard the response by Mr. Stephen Walsh, KC. And the committee has decided that the record in the report is an accurate reflection of the complaints which were formally lodged at the council, as stated by Mr. McIlroy and Mr. Phelan. The committee has seen the log, which is a log of complaints between the premises and the Kensington Residence Square Association. It is in the bundle of evidence which has been served to all parties and the committee has this before them. So they've come to the conclusion that they have all the information necessary to determine this application and therefore the request for an adjournment is refused. So, Madam Chairman, I will then move back to you to explain the procedure going forward concerning the hearing. Thank you, Councillor. Yes, everyone should have received the procedure for this meeting, including details how to connect back in if you lose connections. However, I will summarize the procedure as follows. The presenting officer will give a brief outline of the application and objections. The applicant will present their submissions for up to a maximum of 10 minutes. Members will ask questions of the applicant, followed by our legal advisor and any objectors. The objectors will have five minutes each to ask questions. Members will ask questions of the objectors after the last objector has spoken. The objectors, of course, will have 10 minutes each to make their submissions. Our legal advisor will then be able to ask the objectors, followed by the applicant who will have five minutes to ask questions. There are no representations from responsible authorities, but we may ask Matt McElroy from noise and nuisance questions if we need any matters clarified. I will then ask our legal advisor to read and deal with any questions she may have regarding conditions. There is no summing up. I would like to remind the parties that the members have read all the papers, including any additional papers submitted, so there is no need to repeat their content. Is everyone clear? Okay. I would like to remind everyone that the committee has read the papers, so there is no need to repeat their content, but please do draw our attention to certain points and pages. Now, let's get going. Paul Phelan, please outline the application and can you please outline the additional papers received? Thank you. And actually, I would like to interrupt here of Holly. Could you please put up the diagrams? Can you have them to hand? But can you please first put up the first diagram showing the premises? And the vicinity? Yeah. Thank you. I will defer to Mr. Phelan to share them for the time being as he'll be making his presentation, but later on in the hearing, should it be required, we can pull them back up. That's absolutely fine. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Okay, Mr. Phelan. Okay, Mr. Phelan. Yeah, members of the subcommittee. Good morning. The matter before you today is an application by Kensington RG Limited for the grant of a premises license in respect of the roof gardens. Fifth to eighth floor, 99 Kensington Street, London, W85SA. The premises previously operated under Virgin Clubs Limited, but were closed between 2018 and 2024, and they reopened in 2024 under the current operator. The premises is currently licensed for a range of licensed activities across the sixth and seventh floors. The existing license permits the sell by retail alcohol, live and recorded music, dance, entertainment similar to music or dance, and film, and the provision of late night refreshment. It is important to note that while this is a new grant application, there are no changes proposed to the existing license for hours or activities on the sixth and seventh floors, other than making permanent the current temporary extension of hours until 3am on Thursdays to Saturdays. This application seeks to include the fifth floor, which is proposed to be used as two members, lounges, a library, and a workspace. Remove conditions 69 and 70, which currently allow for a time limited extension on the terminal hours on Thursdays to Saturdays. This extension is now sought on a permanent basis. Introduce minor layout changes across all three floors, including the addition of a kitchen and sushi counter on the seventh floor, amendments to the back of house space on the fifth floor, and expansion of the kitchen area on the sixth floor. A detailed comparison of the current and proposed license activities and those hours is provided on pages seven to 11 of the main report in today's agenda pack. The application has attracted nine representations in opposition, including one from the Kensington Square Residence Association. A summary of these representations is provided on pages 12 to 13 with full copies attached to the appendix D. The licensing authority has also received 15 representations in support of the application. A summary of those can be found on pages 13 to 14 with full copies provided at appendix E. The council records indicate that three noise nuisance complaints have been recorded in the past 24 months. In addition, the premises has been a subject of three temporary event notices within the past year. A comment from the planning department has not been received. Finally, I can confirm that the following additional documents were circulated ahead of today's hearing. The first was the KRSA complaint log circulated on 15th of May. The second were photos of an event at the Kensington Roof Garden circulated on the 23rd of May. The third was video evidence, again, which was circulated on the 23rd of May. From the applicant, there was an index PDF circulated on the 23rd of May and the applicant's additional bundle, which again was circulated on the 23rd of May. You will now hear from the applicant and those who have made representations. I remain available to provide any further clarification as required. Thank you, Chair. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you very much, Mr. Phelan. Mr. Walsh, good morning. You now have 10 minutes to present your submission and any evidence from your witnesses. Please do turn your camera on if you wish. Yes. Thank you very much, Chair. Chair, you've been given quite a lot of documentation to consider, and there is a fair bit to go through. I may, if I'm permitted to do so, stray beyond the 10 minutes, but no longer than 15 minutes, but I'll do my very best. Do you have any other witnesses that you're using? Well, yes, there are people here who I won't actually be calling to give evidence, but they're here to give evidence in the way of answering questions. So there is Sue Walter, the CEO of the Roof Gardens, Robert Seals, also of the Roof Gardens. And we have also on line David Nevitt, who is the environmental health consultant, Richard Charland, the acoustic expert, and Mr. Pearson, Mr. Bond, who are the transport and parking experts, as well as Alan Thomas. All of those persons may be useful in answering informatively questions that you or anyone else may have, but otherwise I'm not going to call anybody. It's just going to be me in opening. Chair, if I may just interject, it's Heidi here. Because the application includes extending areas or altering areas and adding a floor, I think it might be helpful for Mr. Walsh to refer to the plan so that everybody knows exactly what is being sought and what is not being changed. So it would be helpful if a little more time could be given to Mr. Walsh so that he has time to explain the extent of the application and changes. And also, if you do give extra time to Mr. Walsh, you will need to give the same amount of time to the other parties because everybody has to have equal time. So I'm just advising you that it is within your gift to extend the time available to Mr. Walsh. Yes, I agree with your point. That's why I wanted the drawings to be put on the screen straight away. And Mr. Walsh, if you can constantly refer to it so we can follow you. Yes, yes, of course. OK, then let's I will grant 15 minutes. Thank you very much. I'm very grateful, Chair. So in order to help you navigate all the documentation that you have, we provided a summary of proposals and proposed conditions at pages 58 to 70 of the main agenda, which address the matters you're asked to determine today. There is also extensive further evidence in your bundle in the applicant's supplementary bundle, a detailed statement from the roof gardens. The roof gardens CEO, Sue Walter at pages 7 to 26, which deals with the management and operational measures which roof gardens has put in place. It's opening last year, including an account of particular events which have taken place. And there is also supporting evidence in the form of the operational management plan, a number of example of minutes of the monthly meetings held with local residents, expert transport, transport and acoustic reports and a report from the environmental health consultant, Mr. Nebit. Now, but before I turn to the elements and go to the plans and merits of the application, though, it's important briefly to set out the historical background to place places application context. The roof garden. The roof gardens. I'm speaking quite quickly, aren't I, but that's because I want to get it in the 15th. The roof gardens has been licensed for at least the last 48 years as a venue. We've set out a summary of the important historical context in the overview document. But in short, it comes to this. The pre 2024 license that is before the review by the police in 2016 had permitted a terminal hour of 3 a.m. six days a week on Mondays to Saturdays. The 2016 review brought by the police following a sustained period of antisocial behavior and criminal activity by customers of the venue was found by the licensing committee to have been the result of very serious mismanagement by the license holders at that time. Noting that substantial negative impact on residential immunity, the facility had been caused by that mismanagement. The committee reduced the 3 a.m. Terminal hour to 2 a.m. on Thursdays to Saturdays and left in place the 3 a.m. Terminal hour on Mondays to Wednesdays due to a lack of evidence of disturbance at those times on those days. But when this applicant applied last year, February, the applicant volunteered to reduce the 3 a.m. Terminal hours permitted by the license on Mondays to Wednesdays to 2 a.m. But of course, continued to seek and were granted the reinstatement of the 3 a.m. Terminal hour for Thursdays to Saturdays and consented for their consent was required that it should be for a period of 18 months maximum. But obviously it's open to the applicant to apply to remove the temporary requirement. And that's part of the application today. As to the timing of this application, we should be very open about this. It was the applicant that indicated last year that it would not apply for a variation of the hours earlier than three months before the end of the 18 month period in the form of an informative. The date of surrender of the pre 2024 license was the 4th of June of last year. Now, that was, of course, a genuine expression of intention at the time, but not part of the terms of the license. And in essence, there were two reasons for the applicant's change of view on the timing of this application. First, an application had to be made to authorize the proposals for the fifth floor, which I will explain shortly. And it was convenient to include the hours issue within one application. And secondly, but rather more importantly, there had been ongoing liaison for the Environmental Health Department, particularly Mr Mahaffey, who, to put it neutrally, though Sue Walter expands on the reasons in her second statement, had no objection to the application being made in the early spring. And of course, no objection has since been made from environmental health or any other responsible authority, either as to the timing of the application or to it being granted on the merits. And we say that that is significant because Mr Mahaffey, on behalf of the Environmental Health Team, raised a number of serious concerns in the course of the application in February of last year. At that time, his main concern was for the potential for public nuisance that could be created to neighbouring residents from members and guests departing late at night, especially. And we therefore say it is significant that no objection is now raised after having observed the way in which the premises have been run for the last year or so. Now, we, of course, take very seriously all of the representations made by certain residents. But it can't be said that in case it is that the applicant in any way kept anyone in the dark about the application as the minutes of the monthly meetings for March and April of last year of this year show. And you can see that in the supplementary bundle and look, we obviously accept that we're in your hands on this issue, but whatever you decide the intention to make close relations with the residents and to take seriously their concerns remains a strong commitment of the roof gardens. So turning then to the 2024 licence, it was granted last year, granted by the committee, which, to use their words at the time, was accompanied by a plethora of new conditions. And it was based on a promise by the applicant, supported by those conditions that the premises would be operated as a bona fide and exclusive members club. The ethos of which was to provide a multifunctional and inclusive environment for members throughout the week, days and evenings, which, of course, includes entertainment, excellent food, but also of a wide variety of other issues. And of course, there has been a major refurbishment of the premises. That promise, we say, has demonstrably been kept, as can be seen for the representations in support of the application at the main agenda, pages 93 to 109. But the applicant remains conscious of the understandable fear which local residents in the immediate vicinity have that this new incarnation will simply be a repeat of what went before. The applicant is firm in its commitment to ensure that it will not. Now, I come now to the elements of the application, three elements. First, as I've said, authorities sought to remove the effect of conditions 69 to 70, which restricts the terminal hour of 3am on Thursday to Saturday to a temporary period not exceeding 18 months. That would run out in December. So, here's the point. Here's the point. It's the simple point. It has always been the applicant's simple case, which actually was referred to by the committee in the 2016 review. Whether the terminal hour is 2am or 3am, premises which are managed to a high standard are likely to promote the licensing objectives far more effectively than those which are badly managed. And in respect to the hours, of course, which is part of the application today. Now, we say this quite robustly. As far as can be determined from the evidence in this case, no sustained pattern of issues of nuisance or disturbance to residents appears to arise, which point to the 3am terminal hour on Thursdays and Saturdays as being the cause. And certainly nothing that undermines the crime prevention licensing objective. I come now to the second element, which is where you need to look at the plans. Would you mind looking, please, at page 71 of the main agenda? And could that be put up? That should be the fifth floor. While it's formulated. Yes, there we are. So the applicant seeks the application seeks to add part of the fifth floor to the licensed area, which you can see there, you can see there are two areas in outlining red. They are to be two member lounge spaces on the same terms of the sixth floor. The purpose is to provide an area to accommodate member programming and events as well as a library and workspace. And it's actually now been granted planning permission to do that. It's important to know that while the use of these spaces will represent about twelve and a half percent increase in licensed area. There is no increase in capacity intended or to be applied for. They are to provide spaces for the existing membership and particularly those which may involve sound because they are fully enclosed. It was certainly the main one in the middle there. The concerns expressed, in fact, by residents relating to the potential for noise breakout or overlooking residential properties is fully addressed by the fact that the spaces are almost entirely internal without any external view, save for a window to the left hand side of the fifth floor, which doesn't actually overlook residents. And most importantly, it will not cause the cause of potential nuisance from noise breakout, as is confirmed by the assessment of the appellants, the applicants, acoustic experts. And you can find that report in pages 270 to 289 of the supplementary bundle. The third element of the application relates to a number of minor changes. And here would it be possible to put up, please, page 72. Which is the sixth floor. Yes. OK, now what previously these are very minor changes, which would normally have been the result of an application for a minor variation. But on that floor, there is one small change. If you look to the left hand side of the plan and you see the the arc, as it were, wall on the left, which goes out on the patio. If you come run your eyes to the right of that, you will see some seating in a circular area. Now, behind that, you will see that there is a kitchen that used to be the Bieber snug. That has now been taken out, actually reducing the license area a little bit. And that is now to be the the Italian garden kitchen. So that's just the kitchen. I hope that's fairly clear in relation to the seventh floor. Another minor variation. That's page one. That's page 73, please. You will see that's the seventh floor. What has been installed here is a new lounge bar. And if you look to the if you look to the bottom, you see the seventh floor terrace and you see the right, the right hand side where it arches out. If you look back inside the premises, there's just a sort of part of half of a hexagonal bar in there. That is now installed as a servery and bar and possibly to use as sushi distribution. But that is the only minor amendment to that area. And then finally, you wouldn't mind looking at page 74. Page 74 shows the Esme Villa, which is actually situated on the other side of the woodland garden on the sixth floor. And it's a separate building and it had two private areas, dining areas, one on the ground floor on the bottom there and one above. And the application seeks the ability to install a small kitchen on the ground floor, thereby reducing the actual consumption licensed area, which you can see hopefully clearly enough on that. Bottom diagram, the kitchen just above where previously a kitchen didn't exist. So those those are the changes which are sought. And can I just turn now, actually, while some residents have expressed concern about the proposed changes to Esme's Villa, if you'd like me to show you where it is on the main plan, the external plan, I'm quite happy to do that. But for the moment. Please do. Yes, I think we need to go back to the external sixth floor plan, which was the first one that was up on the on the board. No, no, no, no, it was the one was the external one with all the trees, the first one. I think page 70. It might be page 75, is it? It might be. This is it. Oh, yeah, there it is. Good. You'll see the woodland. You'll see the internal space on the sixth floor. And. Yeah, and you'll see that there's the terrace. And then you'll see the woodland gardens. With the stream going through it. And if you follow the stream. Actually, if you're looking at this, the right hand side of the plan, just down at the bottom there. The white box that is Esme's villa, and that is used for private receptions and so on. And for private dinners, it's it's it's it's it's their primary is private dinners. I can't remember the. It's 20 people capacity. Yeah, that's that's where that is. So that is that is the position in relation to those documents. Can I just quickly but respectfully turn to the residents concerns? Concerns on the hours. We're really aware of how seriously the residents take their concerns. We do as well. While some of those concerns have been dealt with in the overview document, which you've got at the very beginning of the. Of the supplementary bundle, it's the statement of Sue Walter, which is kind of compulsory reading that pages 70 to 22, which deals with the residents concerned parking in Kensington Square has been an ongoing concern. And the roof gardens has introduced a number of initiatives to significantly reduce the potential impact which the roof gardens might have in respect of in that respect, including a club rule that members must park in the square. And so I'll leave it there for the moment. And we can address any further detail on that in relation to any questions you may have. We've also provided an analysis of Kensington Square parking and the concerns relating to noise breakout from member lounges and so on the fifth floor. And we have the expert reports and I'm coming nearly very quickly to the end of what I've said. The expert reports find, among other things, firstly, that the predicted noise emissions from the fifth floor space are very significantly below targets and the risk of any adverse impact. That's impact, therefore, is considered to be, quote, essentially zero. And that is the acoustic report of May 2025 at page 188. Secondly, as a finding, during a recent survey of traffic and parking issues in the vicinity and in the square on 26th of April and Monday, the 28th of April, that Saturday was the 26th. No traffic activity was associated with roof gardens after midnight. And according to the experts, there is a high level of management of the dispersal and travel of members to the roof gardens with pedestrian and parking activity not representing a significant impact on the residential community of the square. And that's the traffic report at page 237. And then finally, as far as the recommendations are concerned, give me the findings upon a detailed assessment assessment of the roof gardens policies and procedures by the environmental health consultant David Nevitt, who was with it with the city of Westminster for 38 years. And he carried out observations as well on Saturday, the 12th of April and Sunday, the 11th and Saturday, the 11th of May. And he found the roof gardens to have excellent arrangements in place to manage customers and are demonstrably promoting the licensing objectives. Quote, that's what he says, while observations shows that the conditions in Kensington Square between 11 o'clock and 3.15 in the morning on the days the observations were carried out remained quiet, calm and peaceful with no evidence of public nuisance and with very little impact on local residents on those particular days. And noted that the security patrols were working very well. Now, in absolute conclusion, that is not to say that the roof gardens considers themselves perfect in all respects, as Sue Walter accepts in her second net statement, which acknowledges that good management involves the willingness to learn lessons such as those concerning the test event of the 21st of June last year. Involving the singer Stormsby, you will see what she has to say about that at page 19 of the supplementary bundle, her paragraph 33. So we ask you in considering the application to compare the concerns of residents. What she has to say to the serious disorder which occurred pre-2016 and resulted in the review application. And where there has been a problem, TRG, that is to say the roof gardens, have dealt with it, we say, as best as possible, and actually the log is the best evidence of that. And though such issues are rare, where they have occurred at 2 to 3am, they have been addressed also. But the key point to make there is that they are extremely rare and there is no substantial pattern. And therefore, the applicant remains firmly committed to maintaining regular and open consultation with the residents of Kensington Square and the surrounding area. And indeed, the continued development actually of good relations, as Sue Walter was saying to me only a minute ago, with nearby residents is seen by the roof gardens as a central requirement to the efficient management of those premises, particularly bearing in mind its longer term history. Chair, thank you very much for bearing with me and giving me a little bit of extra time. Thank you very much. So we will crack on with the questions from the members of the committee. Councillor Lindsay, do you have any questions? Mr. Warsh, thank you. And I'm not necessarily asking you to answer this because it's more of a management question. You alluded at the very end of your statement to the importance of that the management has of good relations with residents. Do you think that in a moment, somebody from the management team could read out the number of residents who were at each of the last of the meeting since the last year, who have expressed, who have been engaged in feedback and consultation, just so that we can have an understanding as to whether it is two or three. Half a dozen or 30. Half a dozen or 30. I'd just be interested to know. So for each month, I just like month, January 20 months or whatever. That would be really helpful to me to understand the level of engagement from the residents. Right. Right. Yes. Thank you very much, Councillor. Yes. In fact, I think the best person to answer that is the Chief Executive Officer, Sue Walter, who is in a position to give you an account of how many people come to the meetings. And I'll pass it to her if I may. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Sorry. Just bear with us while we deal with the sound. You need to turn your sound. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Apologies. Okay. We were just dealing with the sound issues. Good morning, everyone. I can confirm that we have been running a residence meeting every single month since the license was granted last June. We don't have a breakdown month by month, but we're very happy to submit that. However, I can tell you that the attendance has averaged between one and four per meeting. And it typically tends to be the same attendees every single month. Related question. Are they the same issues that are raised month after month? And just let me expand. If it was parking one month and noise another and something else a third, that would be different to if it was always one of those issues. Or indeed, it might be something else. I'm so sorry, Councillor. We lost the sound there for a moment. Would you mind awfully just repeating that question? I just would be interested to know what the substance of the matters that were discussed were. Was it the same ones time after time or did it vary from meeting in January to meeting in February to meeting in March? Does that make sense? Yes, it does entirely. Sue Walter again will deal with that, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor, for repeating the question. Thank you for that. Sorry, we've been having some issues with sound here. Yes, I can confirm it was very much the same issues. It typically tended to focus predominantly on parking and occasionally there would be conversations around noise, particularly in relation to the complaints which have already been logged, the main complaints. Certainly the first two or three meetings focused on the Storm Z event, which is referred to in my statement, but the majority of the meetings focused on parking. And last question, is that the case of the most recent meetings that it's still parking or has your management of it over the last whatever it is year or thereabouts resulted in a significant change in the last couple of meetings? Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Councillor MS. Councillor Linslie, here, there are three minutes in the additional bundle which has continued. I was just pointing out to the members, and I don't know whether Mr Walsh or Sue Walter want to go through this, there are three minutes of meetings in the additional bundle, this 300 page duck bundle, which the members have received. And it refers to minutes of the 13th of June, the 20th of March, and the 24th of April 2025. So I don't know, Councillor Lindsay, whether you want to have a quick look at that April 25 minutes, so you can see specifically what was raised, which I think was on page 214. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, thank you. I can see it. I've got them on page 206, 209, and so on. I just wanted, because it only, because there's a gap between March, sorry, between the 13th of June last year, and, sorry, I think it's the 20th of March this year. I don't have the full flow of all of the minutes, and it was just trying to get a feel as to whether there's been any shift in the agenda over that time, because we haven't clearly got it over the last 10 or so months. That was the gist of my question, but thank you. Yes, I understood. I'll leave the applicants to answer that. Apologies, Councillor. I'm not quite sure why you don't have all of the minutes, because they have all been logged on the residence portal and submitted. But to answer your question, there hasn't really been a shift. Typically, it tends to cover the same issues, which is predominantly parking. Any incidents that might have been recorded around slamming of car doors or conversations in the square, we will discuss in the meetings. The only change of agenda was in the last meeting that we had, where we communicated to the residents the fact that we would be changing our policy with regards to parking in the square, from giving members warnings to actually refusing members entry into the club if they park into the square. The other two additional items would have been the last two minutes, would have referenced our intention to submit this application. Otherwise, they have been pretty consistent. That's helpful. Thank you. Councillor Noor. Thank you, Chair. I've got a couple of questions. The first one is, as this is a new grant application, the midnight policy applies. So, Mr. Wollish, I mean, why do you consider this application to be granted as an exemption? From the general policy council, yes. Well, it's partly, it's, I mean, the perfectly straightforward answer to that is the historical position. I mean, the premises were granted the hours last year. They had been operating for many, many long years to those sorts of hours. And I don't think we've been asked by the responsible authority. I take your point, though, to justify an exception. But it is a private members club. It is a venue which requires hours which are later. It is a venue which, when run properly, unlike the position pre-2016, is capable of providing a very safe environment and one which is properly controlled. And in line with the nature of clubs, private members clubs of this kind, the hours which are sought are appropriate. But it's chiefly the historical basis upon which the premises have operated. But I take the point. Thank you. My second question is, we have three teams took place in the last 12 months, one of them being on 17th of September 2024. The event was due to finish 3 a.m. Can we have some idea? I mean, when is actually finish it? Yes, of course. 17th of September, Councillor. Yes, well, just while it's been checked, the hours, the licensing hours are until 3 a.m. and the premises are to close by 3.30. So we're just checking what exactly that time that event finished on the 17th of September. Well, council, would you mind just bearing with me for a moment? It's okay. They're just looking at it. Only be a few moments. 2 a.m. 2 a.m. Thank you. And my last question is, on the 50th floor, we understand this is a private members club. So, I mean, how will you join us as members? Is it who's going to approve? Is it by committee? And what's the turnout? Is it within 24 hours, 48 hours to be approved as a new member? Yes. Sue Walter, the CEO, again, will deal with that. Thank you, Chair. Yeah. Thank you, Councillor. Yes, I can confirm that all applications must be submitted in writing. We currently have 2,500 members. Every single one of those members would have been met in person prior to the application being approved. Upon meeting the individuals, they are taught within the building. They also spend time with my membership team who spend some time getting to know them, understanding why they want to join the community, what they're hoping to get from it. The recommendations are then submitted to our committee, which meets on a monthly basis, and decisions are normally made at the start of each month. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, that's my question so far. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Noor. You both asked questions that I would have asked, so I'll just be brief. Regarding the management of the club, could you comment on your staff ratio to members on a busy night? Again, Sue Walter is teething with that. She's just checking the figures now, do you think? Maybe five on a busy night. Thank you, Chair. I would say on a busy night, I would say the ratio is probably one member, sorry, one member of my team to every, say, four members. Yes, okay, thank you, and also, with regard to the fifth floor, I see you have that little room, you have private events scheduled in that little room. Yes. Thank you. How, is it only for private events, or if there's an overflow needed from another party, can they go there? It's not really intended for, I mean, the space on the left-hand side is intended to be a daytime workspace for members and a library. And then, in the evening, it will be used to serve light snacks and drinks as a lounge, and the central space, which Stephen Walsh referenced earlier, is a completely enclosed box, which will be intended to move all performances, live performances or DJ performances, into that space. As Stephen mentioned, it has no windows, it's not overlooked in any way, and we felt it would actually be better to move any of those types of activities into that space. Thank you, and my last question is, what is your offering on non-alcoholic drinks? We offer a wide range of non-alcoholic drinks, including zero-alcohol beers and wines, as well as a variety of zero-alcohol cocktails and soft drinks. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee, or shall we move on? Okay, any questions from our legal advisor? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Just going back to that six-foot floor, where is the roads? Can they identify where the road is, so that I can just get my, I can pinpoint how near they are to Kensington Square? Yes, and it's the plan on number 75. Page 75, page 75, yeah. We've got it. So if we're looking at this. If you look at that plan, Derry Street, because that's, the entrance is off Derry Street, is to the right-hand side of that plan. Square is to the bottom. And the square is at the bottom. And the square is at the bottom, so Derry Street to the right-hand side, and Derry Street opens into the Kensington Square, and that, therefore, is at the bottom of that plan. Do you see that? Yeah. Just to, yeah. And the, so the bit at the bottom, where the woodland. Yes, that would, that's right. The other, so the woodland garden, if you were to stand up and, in fact, there's some reasons why people don't, but one could look over to Kensington Square from there. So they look, that's Kensington Square. It's all closed, that garden, from 11 p.m. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's the only question I had. I'll deal with the others when we come to conditions. Okay. Do the objectors have any questions, or would you like to go straight into your submissions? Yes, we have a couple of questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Walsh, for your opening. Can I just clarify something? Because you've talked a lot about the old license, and I just want the committee to be aware, because we were all at the hearing in 2016, and you mentioned the license was only reduced for a few days. Is it not true that it was only reduced on the days of operation, because despite the fact that the previous roof gardens had a six-day license, as you pointed out, they only operated on Friday and Saturday? I don't know, I don't know, I think, is the simple answer to that. What I do know is that it certainly had a license that ran the whole of the week until 3 a.m. And I think there was some evidence of it being used on those days. What I would accept, though, is that the heavier usage was most definitely at the weekends. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. We did bring up this question again in 2024, and you didn't know back then, but for the record, the club was only operated on Fridays and Saturdays. I have one more question. Are there not breaches of the conditions, considering there's over 240 warnings of parking in the square, which is a breach, I think, of condition 13? And do you not think that impacts the residents? And do you think that it's not just about having people drunk on the square, but people leaving from the square and banging their doors, as Mr. Mahaffey pointed out in the last hearing, even if it is one or a couple of people talking loudly in the night, it does wake up residents. Do you accept that this has happened? Well, first of all, the condition 13 doesn't prohibit parking in the square, but what it does is it was volunteered, as you will recall, by us, thank you, that the club would impose a rule that members should not park in Kensetham Square. And so the question is of enforcement. Now, as you know, a lot of the members of the club are residents of RBKC and have parking permits. So enforcing that rule on people who have RBKC parking permits isn't always that easy. But nonetheless, great efforts have been made to ensure that whatever the position previously was is now significantly reduced. Now, since opening, as you know, I'm looking at figures now, parking violation warnings to members over the whole year, pretty well, are 259 in number. Of course, that's from the very beginning when one has to see how things, when members become used to it. So final warnings, which were 14 in number, with three terminations of membership. And so that's how it's happened. Yes. Now, the more recent, having learned from that position, the more recent development is that persons who are found to have parked in Kensetham Square, who then come to the club, will be refused entry. That's the new rule. So, yes, of course, enforcing parking is a difficult thing at the best of times, but the club really would say it's made really great efforts and great strides in that direction and has enforced its club rule very substantially. Another one of the issues is it's sometimes very difficult to know when you've got people using the building. You've got the Daily Mail and you've got Equinox, the gym trades until very late and you have members of Equinox who are also members of the roof gardens. And if they're going to Equinox, they can park in the square. But if they're in the roof gardens, they can't. So, you know, there are there are things that aren't always that easy to explain to members. But there is no doubt about it. We would say that there has been a very substantial amount of monitoring, which is also, of course, affected by the security patrols, which the roof gardens have put in place throughout the square. As you know, I think that's about as much as I could say about that. Thank you. And then. Sorry, if you're done, I have a final question. Do you not accept considering that the club really didn't operate last summer? You had under a thousand members. You really commenced operations towards the end of the summer. As Sue stated, you currently have a lot of members, so two and a half thousand with a party summer season just commencing. Do you not think how this party season, summer season, is going to work out considering the open air element and the fact that there's actually a noise complaint from music logged in with RBKC and with yourselves last night is important. That's where the storm city party was. It comes down to us directly. So I guess my question is, do you not think it's appropriate to wait for to see how the summer season goes and maintain the temporary shorter hours to December? And then you'll have less opposition from the residents when you apply if things work out properly. And we do have every right to be concerned because you haven't been holding parties outside in the winter, but you will now. Yes. Well, I completely take your point about that. What I what I would say on my instructions is that, of course, the the old license was surrendered on the 4th of June last year. And the premises have been effectively trading, including test events from I think about the middle of June last year. So it is traded through a summer. It is also traded through the Christmas season, which is even busier than the summer season, though I accept not outdoors. So it has had very large numbers of people coming throughout the week to the premises. And essentially they've been tested in all seasons. So that is why, among other things, the roof gardens felt it was appropriate to apply to remove the temporary restriction on the 3am license on Thursday, Fridays and Saturdays, because it has traded throughout the time. So as to membership, that is to say, throughout all seasons as to the membership, I think it was 1500 membership when they opened. And of course, it is increased in terms of membership, but the important thing is capacity. There is a capacity on the use of these premises, no matter how many members there be. And obviously, one wants to be trading it as efficiently and commercially successfully as possible. But I think that's probably about the answer to that. But the application, timing of the application is one, I think, which was after it was discussed with Environmental Health and Mr. Mahaffey, was raised at the residence meeting in March and again in April. And I'm not sure any objection was made at that time at the residence meeting, but I take we take your point, but we feel that it's an appropriate time to make the application now, having traded throughout all seasons. Thank you. Thank you. Do any other objectors have any questions? Madam Chairman, if you allow me, Maria Luisa Cicognani, Alimonde Square. Just following on from our Kensington Square Resident Association question. Sorry. Excuse me. Ken, it would be helpful if when, before you ask questions, you can identify yourself, because there's rather lots of objectors and we need to make a note of. Can you hear me? Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sorry. Maria Luisa Cicognani, I live on the square. I just said that. Okay. Lovely. Thank you. Okay. So if Madam Chairman allows me, I just follow on on the question from the Kensington Square Resident Association. I think it would be helpful for all of us, including the committee, I think, to consider and have the statistics of how many members per each month, how many members per each month the club had, and how many users, because I think what we are being told is, what we just heard from the applicant, is that they believe they have been effectively trading since June, but with 1,500 people member at the opening, which is about half of what the maximum membership they disclosed that they would have, which makes me wonder whether that 1,500 that is reflected with the 600 maximum capacity that they have, and it would be helpful actually to have that statistics to understand and to find a correlation exactly between the noise and the complaints that we have received. And the other thing is, I refer to the CEO's statement about how many people participated for the resident. I do not know if they ever asked, actually, the people who participated in the meeting with the Kensington, with the resident, if they knew how many people actually they were representing, because I do believe that, actually, it's not a question of the number of the people who participate in the resident, but who do they actually represent, because we do have a resident association of a number of people. We do not need to participate, all of us, because we're all working, and so on occasion we only have a few residents. So I just would like to have those statistics in order to understand exactly if we can consider that an effective trading, in particular, given also the fact that we are now being asked to approve, and there is an expansion of the area of the roof garden, which actually I see, you know, I understand actually they should not have an increase in membership, but we do not know if the license or this new license will be linked to the maximum number of members that the club can have. Thank you. Excuse me, one second, please. I'm going to refer to our solicitor. Are these appropriate questions, or should that be considered in the submissions, is my first question of our solicitor. And the second question is, how, when we do a headcount, which is part of this woman's, sorry, I can't see your surname on here, part of her question, is that at any person coming to a meeting representing a resident's association, we actually can only count the body, can't we? We can't really count how many members are in the association legally. What do you think? I'm asking our solicitor that. Thank you, Madam. So the questions of this lady are directed to Mr. Walsh. So Mr. Walsh and his team need to answer the technical questions. Neither you or me would have that sort of information. So I'm sure Mr. Walsh and his team will be able to answer or say whether they can or cannot answer, whether they keep that data. But in terms of attending the residents' meeting, well, the point is being made that even if one or two people are only attending these monthly meetings, that the association is saying, well, please don't think that they're only four people because we have asked them to go on our behalf. So that goes to the question of weight. It's not a legal, there's no legal cutoff on that. But it's a question of weight you attribute to that because it depends on the evidence that is presented for you. So if there are only four people who attended the meetings and we've got some of the names because of the minutes that have been produced, it is up to you to attach the appropriate weight. It would be helpful, really, whether the Kensington Square Association, really, they have the knowledge of who attended these meetings and how many people were represented. So if they are in fact, if they're going to allege that the people who attended these meetings were in fact representing other people, then it's for them to prove that. It's not for the applicant to prove it. And then it's for the committee to weigh it up. And I'm quite sure that Mr. Walsh will make some submissions to you on that because it's his view how he would challenge that evidence. So that's the answer I would give in relation to both points and leave Mr. Walsh to answer. Thanks for your clarification. Thank you. Yes, well, I'm not minded to challenge the nature of the question, partly because... I'm sorry, I'm having terrible difficulties hearing what people are saying. I don't know whether it's my end. So if people could speak up, that would be greatly appreciated. Yes, of course. Sorry about that. I was just saying that I'm not minded to challenge the nature of the question, largely because the effective liaison between residents and the operators of the roof gardens is much more effective when there kind of isn't challenged. But I put it this way. I can see the point of the question now in relation to the relationship between membership and people who attend, which I think was at the root of part of the question. And the extent to which monthly attendances are monitored and kept, they are indeed monitored and kept. And I think Sue Walter is in a position to give a general view about that. But there are obviously sensitive commercial documents that one would want to. But a general view about that could certainly be given. Do you want to do that? Yep. I'll leave that open. Thank you, Stephen. Yes, we do log attendance daily in the building. And I understand the point that is being made regarding the correlation between number of members and attendants. But it's an academic point in the sense that we have a maximum capacity of 600, which we have never breached since opening. We stick to that religiously. When we opened, we did indeed open with 1500 members. I don't believe we've ever misrepresented that. I think we've always been honest about that. We didn't start trading in June. We started testing the building in June. And we officially started trading in on the 4th of July, 2024. As I said, we do track the attendance daily. We've never breached it. We have frequently reached the maximum capacity within the building, particularly on busier nights. Breached. Reached it, not breached it. Breached it. And upon reaching the capacity, we refuse entry from anyone else during that evening. Quite frequently on the nights when we have reached capacity, we have not received any complaints on those nights. This is information which I have shared through the residence meetings. The other thing I would say as well is we did set up when we first started the monthly meetings with the residents. We did four paper drops within the square to every single residency within the square to make sure that every single person was aware that we were starting residence meetings, regardless of whether they received emails or not. We also communicated in these letters, the paper letters, that we would be setting up a portal for all members of anyone living in the square to be able to access, as well as the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea employees could also access the portal. Since starting up the portal, it's received very little activity by way of people accessing the information, but we have made the information readily available to everybody. So I feel very confident that we have engaged in a very positive and proactive way. And I understand the point being made regarding membership and attendance, but the number of members we have really bears no relation to the limit on capacity, which we still religiously adhere to. Thank you. Do you have any other questions? I had one question, please. It's Alex Sterling. I'm from Kensington Square. Yes. And I have attended the monthly meetings of the last 12, 15 months. I have one clarification and I have a question. Just clarifying one point in terms of sort of the roof gardens informing residents that it was going to apply for this permanent license seven months before the official date. Just to clarify. Just to clarify. Just to clarify. The attendees of those meetings were notified that that was happening. We weren't invited to discuss it. So I just wanted to clarify that there was no discussion about it. We were told that was happening. And then moving on to my question, given that the roof gardens is collecting sort of usage data every day. My understanding of this temporary license during the 12 to 18 month period was that it was to sort of see whether the roof gardens could operate the club, could operate the club according to the license requirements and the operating plan. And so the question is, given the capacity of 600, what's been the average usage of the club during that period and therefore has it been a proper test? Because when I look at the report, which was prepared by the roof gardens by their consultant, Caparo, it seems to suggest that on Monday, the 28th of April, there were only 200 members, 211 members, apologies, in the club after 7 p.m. And on the Saturday, there were only 400 members, so it seems based on the applicants' own statistics that they've been operating the club, on a weekday, that's 66% below the capacity and on a Saturday, 33% below the capacity. So just would be helpful to understand, what capacity has the club been operating at over the last 12 months, and is this a reliable sort of demonstration of what it is to run the club at full capacity, given that the 7th floor hasn't been opened, the 5th floor hasn't been opened, and it's been run below capacity during this temporary period? Yes. Yes. Thank you for your question. Thank you for your question. Mr. Walsh? Thank you. I'll take that, Chair. So, starting with the question regarding the consultation on the application, our intention to submit this application was spoken about in two subsequent residence meetings, the March meeting and the April meeting. In the April meeting we made it clear to Mr Sterling that we would be submitting the application the following week. If you recall, Alex, you and I specifically had a conversation regarding SIAs, and at that point you said to me that our voluntarily adding an additional SIA over the last year has been a welcome addition, and you specifically asked whether or not we would be prepared to make that addition permanent. We had a conversation permanent as part of this application, and we had that conversation. So, I fundamentally disagree that there was no discussion about the application. So, we weren't, just to clarify, I didn't ask a question about this, I just stated the fact that we weren't invited for consultation prior to submission. We were told the submission was happening, but let's park that now and move on to my actual question, please. If I move on to the second question. But again, I can only reiterate for the purposes of the committee, the intention to submit the application was mentioned twice, both in March and in April, both in the March and the April meetings. Secondly, in terms of capacity, just to reiterate, since we opened, we have posted over 100,000 people through the building. Our average attendance between Sunday and Wednesday is between 200 and 500, and between Thursday and Saturday average attendance is between 500 and 600. That's not what you've got. That's not what you've got in your own data. Your own data shows 200 on a Monday and around 400 on a Saturday. So, those figures are different from the data that's been presented to this committee. I just want to point that out. Bear in mind that no two days are ever the same. I'm giving you the average numbers. And again, I can only reiterate the average between Sunday and Wednesday tends to be between 200 and 500, between Thursday and Saturday between 500 and 600. It would be helpful to provide that later to the committee so you can see how consistent that's been through that period. Just a point of order. The committee is determining the application today based on the evidence before it. So, we can't have any additional evidence after this hearing closes today. So, they will be determined based on the evidence that we have. I mean, we have got a rather lot of papers. There's a lot of evidence and papers that have been submitted. But I'm afraid they can't consider any additional documents after the hearing closes. That's quite right. And that's why I'm pointing to the fact that in the applicant's report, it's showing 66% utilization only on a Saturday. And 33% on a Monday. So, just those are the facts that have been presented that I can see before me. Thank you. On those particular days, yeah. Thank you very much. I think it's time now to move on to the objector submissions. Who would like to go first? Is it Mariela Piscioti? Yes, thank you. I'm happy to go first. Okay. You have up to 10 minutes, please. Thank you. I think I should have more time because Mr. Walsh spoke for more time as well. Is that not correct? Yes, a point of order. Yes, Madam Chair. Holly, I'm not quite sure how long Mr. Walsh had. I don't know whether we've got that. Sorry? I think it was approximately 17. Yes. My record, by the time it concluded it was about 17, but that was with the moving of the pages and things as well. Right. So, 17 minutes. So, technically the residents are each entitled to 17 minutes each. Thank you so much. And I'm not planning to use this much time, but I'll go as fast as I can. So, thank you very much. I think our case is quite simple. I think in terms of the history of the planning, as I said, we do disagree with what is said versus what was there before. I think before we were disturbed by a club that was operating on Fridays and Saturdays, and now we are disturbed every single night. I think this is crystal clear in the complaints log that we have submitted, and again, for the record, we are quite demoralized, actually, is the right word to put it, by the fact that Noise & Nuisance has not logged in these complaints because they were copied to Noise & Nuisance. They were copied to all the counsellors, so everyone at RBKC was aware, so we don't know why they're not being logged properly. I guess that will have to be dealt with separately, but the reality is that… I'm sorry. Thank you. Sorry, Mariella. Can I just intervene there? Yeah. When it comes to evidence, all evidence is considered by the committee. So, whether you've logged it officially with the council is one thing, but just because it hasn't been logged officially, that doesn't mean the committee will disregard it. They absolutely will look at this log, and it is them for attach whatever weight they consider is appropriate. The fact it has not been logged officially with the Noise & Nuisance team, or indeed the licensing team, does not matter. So, I want to reassure you all that the evidence that the Kensington Square Association has presented will be considered by the committee. I appreciate this. As Keith Mahaffey said on the last hearing, the lived experience of residents matters a lot. This is not just about people being drunk on the street. So, arguably, there's less drunks on the street. But the reality is that people leaving, two people actually leaving, talking loudly to each other, and then going into the car and banging the door wakes people up. And I'm pretty sure the committee will have gone through our complaints and will have seen those. So, it is quite difficult for us as residents to hear from professional consultants that basically minimize our own experience. And it is extremely frustrating to be told that basically this club is operated excellent when our lives are being impacted. The reality is when there's been late night outdoor parties, of which there haven't been many. That's the reality. So, there haven't been over 10 complaints on noise escaping the building because there haven't been 10 large outdoor parties. We do fully expect that there's going to be a lot of parties this summer, and we think this is the reason why the applicant has brought in this. They're trying to remove this condition. The reality is that, unfortunately, all these conditions are basically there to hold the applicant accountable. So, when the last committee put all the conditions, including the ones that the applicants are seeking to waive now, they were looking to add protections for us. And that's really the only reason, and to ensure the club operated properly and included a full summer season. That has not happened. So, we haven't had a full summer season with multiple parties so that anyone can basically see how many noise complaints these summer parties would result. And I know you said you were going to play the video that we submitted that showed the noisy party. I don't know if you can do this now. Yes, that certainly can be done now as part of your submission. Thank you, Madam Chairman. So, on our side, as it does contain an individual's face, we'll quickly take it off the live stream and then put it straight back up afterwards. My colleague, Daniela, will just line up the video ready to go, and it should be on your screen. Ms. Pizziotti, could you please explain what the video is about when we see it, what we're looking at? Thank you for asking. It's basically the noise that escaped from the building during the party. There were multiple complaints with the RBKC Noise Environmental Health. And we'll begin playing the video now. Thank you. That's the end of the video. If anybody would like us to play it again or was able to hear, please let me know. Can you tell us the time on the video, Holly, please? We don't have a time for the video, although if the person who recorded it is in the call, maybe they can provide some clarity. Thank you. Ms. Pizziotti, can you tell us the time of the video? I think the time of the video was approximately 10.45, but in all honesty, this was sent to us by one of the residents, so I don't have the exact time. Okay. I just wanted to point out in the video that it's still daylight, isn't it? No, it's not. This is just because the iPhone cameras are very, very bright now, so it was full nighttime when it happened. I see. Okay. Thank you. So, as you can see, when the noise escapes, and actually it's useful to keep this photo up, so the Spanish gardens are quite, from a literal point of view, they are quite far away from our homes. This video is just basically outside one of the residents' homes, just from the corner on Derry Street. So, in theory, noise shouldn't travel. The reality is Derry Street is a wind tunnel, so wind travels, noise travels down, and it's very, very loud. And what we're saying is that we would need this summer period to determine if the roof gardens is going to operate these events, as we fully expect they will, of more outdoor parties. I think they're going to operate them very, very differently if they have a temporary license review after the summer versus if you approve it to them now. So, we are terrified that you're going to waive these conditions today and you are going to remove protection from the residents. On the other hand, so this is a disbenefit. So, if you approve this today, this is a huge disbenefit to residents because you are removing protections. On the other hand, the applicant doesn't really gain anything. All they're gaining is basically that they have less controls, but in reality, they can still operate tomorrow if you refuse the same way they operate today. And they will just have to come in December and reapply after the summer period. Obviously, if we don't submit any complaints to our BKC and the roof gardens when they hold these parties, then we're going to be in a meeting like this and we're going to have nothing to say and then you're going to approve it. But approving it today, we feel, is a gross mistake because it removes protections that the previous planning committee deemed appropriate in order to protect our amenity. And today, we have submitted substantial evidence from these parties that show that there is an impact of noise, both noise from music parties and parking operations. On the other hand, I want to add that Mr. Walsh mentioned the change of policy in terms of parking, which we totally welcome. This happened just before this planning committee. It didn't happen over the last 12 months. So the fact that there were 259 warnings and only three terminations was quite frustrating to residents. And we feel it was the fact that they changed the policy, which, as I say, is a very welcome change, but it only happens because there's a hearing. So all this to say is that RBKC is there to put these controls to ensure that the applicant is encouraged to operate properly. The applicant currently is perhaps trying their best, but if you remove protections, they don't have any reason anymore to try their best. They don't have any questions. They don't have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Who would like to speak next? I'm happy to go next. It's Alex Sterling, resident in Kensington Square, and also been attending the monthly meetings since last year. So I guess I wish to sort of formally object to the proposed temporary license sort of termination and increased opening hours for the roof gardens. Essentially, the applicant is seeking to intensify the club's usage from 400 to around 600 members. I mean, based on the data that's been provided by the applicant, it looks like they're running at about 30 to 66% utilization at the moment. And they'll do this through opening the fifth floor, the seventh floor, extending the alcohol and operational hours till 3 a.m. And using the outdoor terrace areas on the sixth and seventh floor, which hasn't been opened yet, which do overlook the neighbors' houses, which I believe will significantly impact the amenity, safety, and quality of life for local residents. And so, in short, my objection is based on the following grounds. Firstly, I think this is certainly premature, and the club lacks the demonstrable track record of compliance. What does that mean? I think the roof gardens, mainly prior to the current owners, has a long history of antisocial, violence, and criminal activity disturbing the local community. We've discussed that in previous licensing committees. Given this history, and given the fact that the current operators have no track record of operating this site, the licensing committee decided last year to award a temporary license for 18 months. I really don't understand why the roof gardens is now applying for an extension just 11 months after opening, and having operated below full capacity, and certainly seven months before the temporary license is eligible for renewal, and before the summer, as Maria has just said. I mean, having attended the monthly meetings with the club since July last year, you know, I have to stress that myself and residents have worked really hard to provide feedback to the roof gardens on how it should comply with the obligations around security parking, light pollution, sound disturbance. And the nature of the themes are occurring constantly around security parking, noise, light pollution. As you can see from the log of 35 complaints. I think that whilst the roof gardens, and to be fair to the roof gardens, have made efforts to engage, they have not yet, and I say not yet, demonstrated an ability to fully comply with the existing license and the operating management dispersal plan. And so protecting management from nighttime disturbance. And so therefore, we need more time. I think the opening, I think the opening, I think the opening of the club, of the fifth floor and the seventh floor will lead to an intensification at a time when it seems as though the club is looking to reduce its obligations. And, you know, the club will open the fifth floor, it will open the seventh floor, but at the same time, the commitments seem to be scaling back a little bit. And I want to sort of give a couple of examples of this, of both of these points. On the parking enforcement, you know, there has historically been a lot of disturbance at nightclub from club members parking on the square and slamming doors, that the houses in the square, the flats are listed. They don't have proper insulation and therefore loud talking slamming doors does wake people up. But the club was required under its conditions to prevent members from parking in the square, maintain a database of member vehicle registrations and enforce this through the parking app. But since it opened in July, I spent six months asking for the club to establish a member database. It only did that after it had recruited a thousand members. But to my knowledge, that database is still incomplete. I spent six months asking them after the club opens to just to implement the parking app. And it wasn't until December 2024 that the app was implemented and it's still it's not totally effective. We're now expecting a new version to be implemented until in June 2025 after this hearing. And therefore, the consequence of that is you still have illegal parking on the square daily. And it's not being systematically sanctioned by the members are not being sanctioned systematically. If you park illegally in Kensington and Chelsea, you get a parking ticket. If you park illegally as a club member, you are typically not sanctioned only after you've been a serial offender. And so it's not yet being properly enforced. And so it's not yet being properly enforced. I would say the sort of the patrols on Kensington Square, the roof guns offered for has had for security SIAs after 6 p.m. It seems that they're now talking about reducing that to the bare minimum of three. That's not been confirmed yet. We've had no no commitments that it will be for going forward. And then similarly, on the noise limiting devices, this was a requirement under the operating plan. Noise limiters were meant to be a mandatory condition, but they've not been properly effective always. And they've not been properly installed, it seems, as evidenced by the Stormsea concert. And despite commitments from the club's general manager, Sue Walters, to cease live amplified music outdoors, this hasn't yet been formalized in the license. And it's not clear whether there will be a clear condition banning outdoor live music on the terraces after 11 p.m. So the final point I would like to make is that I am not sure, based on advice received, legal advice received, whether this committee can make a decision given the RBKC supervising officer for the last 18 months, Keith McAfee, who has been in those committee meetings, who has seen the complaints log, is not present today. And therefore, I'm not entirely sure whether RBKC has received the full picture of what's happening. He was unwilling to attend this meeting today. So I'll just conclude, if I may. I'm not I'm not I'm not sort of intrinsically or permanently opposed, but I think given that the club is still trying to work out, it's still in the learning stage. It's still experiencing fairly significant teething errors. I'm currently urging the committee to reject the current application for extended hours and increased capacity, even if the committee decides to approve the fifth and seventh floor. I think continuation of the existing temporary license until the end of this year will allow the club to demonstrate that it's capable of delivering on its obligations through this busy summer season and allow the new environmental health officer from RBKC to supervise this. And then I would suggest that we have a proper review at the end of the year in Q1 2026 after we've had 18 months of operation at full capacity by then. I think any any future license would need to be sort of subject to enhance conditions around minimum of four SIAs, strict burning of outdoor music and installation and provide music and and also effective parking enforcement, which has not yet happened. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Any other objectors wish to speak? Yes. Madam Chairman, should I come in here as Mr. Sterling's witness? Should that be now? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Is that for Councillor Robert? Yes. Yeah. Hi, Madam Chairman. That's Councillor Whedon-Sands here. I'm very briefly just to add to Mr. Sterling's testimony. I've been asked to speak on his behalf and on behalf of some of the other residents. I'm speaking as a witness rather than as an objector. But I want to start by saying that as a Councillor of the area, I obviously welcome the reopening of the gardens. I think it's important that we revitalize the High Street and the Council obviously has done a lot of work to try and make the High Street somewhere that people want to spend time again. So I want to preface my remarks with that. I've also found the team at the Roof Gardens to always be open and willing to work with myself and ward colleagues whenever we've raised issues with them. Can you please turn on your camera if you're speaking? I'm not able to, Madam Chairman. Is that an issue? Well, we would think it's a little more professional, but we recognize your voice, so carry on. Okay. So the points I'd like to, my position really is, I think, best reflected by Mr. Evans' objection, which is I have no objection to the expanded use of the, you know, the floor space and the area and of the kitchen. As you know, Madam Chairman, I'm a man of restraint, reason and moderation. And so if there's a compromise that can be found that can both allow the club to continue to operate and build on the progress that they've made the last year, but also to allay some of the residents' fears, I think that would be the best middle ground way to go. And to that end, I think it's unfortunate, to be honest, that the club has applied to waiver the temporary license so early, because when it was set last year, the hope was that we would at least get to see a full year, and particularly a summer, when we expect the summer to be the busiest time with people outside and see the disturbances that would happen then. And I think if the club had waited until after summer, you know, September, or whenever, it felt it had to do it, it would have given residents at least the opportunity to see actually if it was manageable, and the disturbances would decrease it or not as much as they feared. So I think, unfortunately, by jumping the gun, really, we're in a situation where there are several residents who feel that it is too early to waiver that temporary license. And so I guess my suggestion, if I were on the committee, what I'd like to see is perhaps if you approve those parts of the application that are allowing the, as I say, the club to continue to operate and to use more of its space more effectively, but maintain the temporary license in order to, particularly these next really busy months, just allay the residents' concerns. Because what we don't want to be in a situation, which isn't good for either the club or for residents, where, you know, this license be granted and the temporary waiver removed. And then residents, you know, end up having to complain even more. It, you know, poisons relations between locals and the club even further. And we risk a situation where, you know, there are other problems where the license ends up getting removed because enforcement action is needed. So I would, I would think for everyone's benefit, I would hope that the committee would look for a middle ground that would partially approve parts of the application, but to keep the temporary application as was granted last year, at least until after the summer when we can see how it operates. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, thank you, councillor. Who would, any other objectors would like to speak? Oh, we don't hear you, Ms. Carey. Your mic is muted. Hello? I do not hear her. Does anyone else not hear her? Miss Carey, when you left the call to rejoin on the application, I think it's put you into the room twice and maybe that it's still open on your web app. And if so, that might be causing the issues with the microphone. Miss Carey is on mute. Yeah, but she's on mute on two screens. That's the issue. I think that's the problem. She's probably on the app. And she's also on the website. So she needs to get off of one of those two. Well, I think we'll carry on with someone else and then go back to her, because she'll have to, I would suggest signing out and then coming back in. Is that all right? Yep. Okay. Who would like to speak next? I'm happy to go. Okay. Please introduce yourself. I'm Peter Oyen. I also, I live on the corner of Kensington Square and Thackeray Street. Like Alex, I also attend monthly resident meetings. And I think the point, you know, we talked about a lot of detailed things here on this committee meeting. But I think from my perspective, it is fairly simple and straightforward. And a number of residents have raised this point, as well as the counselor. You know, when we had this temporary license put in place, it was really to give the operators of the roof gardens, you know, an opportunity to prove that they can stay in compliance with the license. They can execute on their operations, they can execute on their operational plan, and obviously also, you know, measure the impact that this new club is going to have on the residents. And what we're concerned about is clearly the largest disruption that's going to impact us on Kensington Square is the use of the outdoor space. And that really peaks in the summer. And, you know, whether or not Roof Garden had 1,500 when they were opened and they're at 2,500 members now, the point is, is last summer, they didn't start trading until early July. The business was still in a ramp-up phase, still acquiring members. The members, you know, hadn't been established, and we did not have, you know, a huge volume of members coming through in the summer of 2024. So that really wasn't a test of how they can manage this business during this peak time when the outdoor space is going to be used. In addition, they were still building out much of the area on the roof garden and the outdoor space. And I think, you know, we did get a taste for the intent here of what this summer is going to hold as we had the, you know, retrospective planning consents about a week ago. And, you know, the roof garden had done a lot of unauthorized work on the roof garden area, the outdoor space, which is primarily to facilitate a more intense use of that space for the summer of 2025. And so, I think, you know, my point is just a simple one, which is, you know, this really hasn't had an opportunity to be tested yet. This is going to be the first summer where they've gotten the garden built out. They got their retrospective approvals to expand the utilization of the garden. They've ramped up their membership, and the club has had a year to be established. This is going to be the summer where this temporary license is really going to come into a period of testing. And so, I think it is completely inappropriate to grant them a permanent license before we actually go through a full capacity summer with the use of the outdoor space. And I would kindly request the councillors to deny doing that and revisit this application at the end of the summer or at the end of the year. Thank you very much. Thanks. Now, Ms. Carey, you're back in. Yeah, I think so. Can you hear me? Yes. I just wanted to ask, you're speaking for your mother. Is that correct? I'm speaking for myself and my mother because she can't get online. So, basically, yeah, I mean, you can take it as I'm speaking for myself or both of us. We're one or the same. Are you both residing at the same premises? Yes, I'm residing, and she's been there for 60 years. She's mainly at my brother's at the moment, but we've been there for 60 years. So, I can speak for myself. Let me speak for myself if it makes it easier. Thank you very much, yes. Right. Okay. Basically, I'm not good at speaking, but anyway, basically, I'm speaking not just for myself, but for a group of longstanding residents. I've been in Kensington Square. I went there when I was two. I've been there 60 years. We're private individuals. The point I want to make is that we are private individuals. We're neighbours trying to hold on to some peace and quality of life in a part of London that is increasingly being shaped by commercial interests. This application doesn't seek to remove, just to seek to remove the 2 a.m. restriction. It also proposes expanding operations into the fifth laws we know and the kitchen changes, etc. And I feel very strongly that none of these should be granted piecemeal or ahead of the full review in December. And what I want to be clear about is that we're not corporate – sorry, I'm a bit stressed because it is so stressing this. We're not corporate lawyers or professional lobbyists. Most of us are working full-time. Many of us are juggling care responsibilities, some are neurodiverse, others are elderly, and many of us are simply just not tech-savvy. We're doing this in our spare time, unpaid, unrepresented, and up against well-funded business interests with legal teams. And what I'm asking, please, is that you, the council, stand up for us as residents, not just aligning with business and government priorities. Derry and Street and Young Street are being treated like private service roads, the late-night noise, constant deliveries, and creeping commercial use of our public space. It all adds up. And all we're asking is that we stick to the agreement of give us until the end of the year. Don't grant any licensing changes until the four of you take place in December. Let us be heard and, you know, just please don't do this, I think is what I'm saying. But anyway, not good puppet speaking, but I did want to say that because it's such a strain. Anyway, thank you. Thank you for hearing me. Thank you. And thank you for your time. Chair, can I just clarify a point regarding the previous licence? Yes, I fully appreciate this is a, you know, these hearings can be stressful for residents and other people who attend. But my understanding is, and people will correct me if I'm wrong, is that when the previous licence was granted, so they were given a permanent licence, but it was temporary only in the limited respects that they got the three o'clock for the area in question. So that meant that they could operate until three o'clock for 18 months and then with everybody leaving the premises by 3.30. But that licence did not say there would be a review in December, so I just want to make sure this is clear. It wouldn't be appropriate, it wouldn't be legally correct for the committee to say that the licence would be reviewed then, and it didn't do that. So I just want to make sure there's no confusion about that. What it did is it gave the roof gardens the opportunity between three months and 18 months to make an application if they wanted to have those extended hours to be made permanent. And that means the applicants have the flexibility. I've heard that a number of the residents think it's premature for the reasons they've explained about it's before the summer. And they will be matters which the committee will weigh up. However, from a legal perspective, I just want to make it clear, it was never the case that it would be reviewed in December. The flexibility was simply given to the applicants to make an application at some point if they wished to extend the hours. And I'm quite sure that Stephen Walsh will comment on that. Thank you. That was really helpful. Very important that everyone understands that point. Mr. Walsh, did you want to comment now or after? You're on mute. I was only going to go. I don't have anything to add to what Ms. Titcom has just said. Other than to say I entirely agree with everything she said. I was only raising my hand because I've just got one or two questions of the, I don't normally, but I have on this occasion, of the residents who have spoken. I'm happy to deal with that at the very end because I noticed. Yes, I think so. Because I think Mr. Cicconiani would like to speak. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Cicconiani. Yes, Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I just would like to second, actually, what other residents have mentioned, and I appreciate the legal clarification that has been given. Yes, the applicant had the option to come after month three and within 18 months to actually ask for making this license permanent. It is their choice. But I think at the end is a question of substance rather than pure legal form. So what we're looking for as resident is really to have the effective evidence of a track record, as Mr. Sterling and Peter Oyen also presented, given in particular that the applicant is now requesting an additional extension of the premises and, you know, changes to the premises for which we do not have a proof or we do not have experience. So on this basis, I do hope the committee, as Councillor was saying, considers that the new application now has a change in the use of the premises, gives additional time or the time to management to prove that with this additional capacity or ability to use the space, there is no change or they continue to provide the management and the operation as much as they have done now, maybe with some improvement, as we see, because the parking, as Mr. Sterling was saying, has not been resolved. Hopefully will be resolved with this change that they just made. But then at least we have the time within another period of time. And I think the committee can maybe decide on a different timeline. I don't know legally if that's possible to actually say this is the additional time that we have. There is proof that the operations have been done properly. And then we actually consider the license. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. Heidi Titcombe, our solicitor, would you like to add to that? And then I do have a question legally, because somebody, one of the objectors mentioned the parking enforcement. Now, I think there has to be a clarification of what is the duty on the parking enforcement. And also, does the club actually have the right or the duty to enforce on parking? Can someone answer that for me, please? I'm happy to do that, if Ms. Titcombe doesn't mind. Do you mind, Ms. Titcombe? No, of course, please proceed. Do you understand my point? We need to clarify that. Yes. Well, Chair, first of all, the club has absolutely no right whatsoever to enforce where people park or where they don't park. That's a matter for the local authority and police entirely. What we can do, however, and this was why that Condition 13 was imposed at our instigation, is to impose requirements on our own members. So, we can't stop them parking wherever they want to park, but what we can say to them, and have to, is that it's a requirement of your membership not to park in Kensington Square. And that, as I said earlier on, can cause difficulties, because a member might say, well, but I've got a parking permit because I'm a resident of EKC. And one has to say to them, well, never mind, if you want to be a member of this club, you have to abide by that condition. Now, I think Mr. Sterling said, well, you know, we wonder whether that is being enforced properly. It certainly has over the year, over the year, because although there have been instances of parking by members, there have been, which is quite significant, three cancellations of membership in relation to it, and I think 14 at the relevant time that I was speaking this morning were on final warnings. But the new policy is to say, we know that you're parking if you're parking, because we're patrolling the square. And therefore, with the SIA patrols in place, and by the way, Mr. Sterling said earlier on that we'd said we'd have four SIA, though the licence is specified three. We have specified four now, and we have no intention of reducing it, but I digress. Yes, and that's been the case the whole year. So that's all linked into the parking issue. In relation, however, to the parking issue, and Mr. Oyen's point that he made earlier on about using the outdoor spaces, as it were an objection to not proceeding with the application to deal with the hours, the outdoor spaces ceased to be permitted to have licensable activity at 11pm. I think those are just the terraces. No. Just the terraces. Yeah. So those are those outdoor spaces. Anyway, I digressed too much, but I hope I've answered the question about enforcement. If I can jump in and answer the question that was asked more specifically. Yeah. No. If you look at the operating management dispersal plan, or OMDP, which is in page 175 of the bundle that was provided, these are the operating principles which the club agreed with the residents, with the council, etc. Clause 3.7 states clearly that a condition of membership is that members are not permitted to park in the Kensington Square when attending the premises. Clause 6.32, which is on page, I will give it to you, page 187 states that the customer adherence to the prohibition on parking will be monitored by the SIA security on patrolling duty in Derry Street and Kensington Square, who will use app-based number plate recognition technology to compare parked cars against a database of customer vehicle registrations subject to data protection and technical feasibility. So, and then that's further repeated on 6.33, clause 6.33, which says that the club will maintain, management will maintain a database of customer vehicle registrations for this purpose, and we include the terms in club rules and the terms for private booking required for the provision of such information. So, those are the rules, the fact pattern as evidenced and sort of repeated video photo evidence provided to the club as recently as last week are the club was opened with no database. The database, the database was compiled after they started being compiled after the third or fourth meeting with residents last year, after we were asking for it. The app was never implemented. All right, now, excuse me, Mr. Smith, you are asking for a database. What database are we talking about? So, the condition of the operating plan, if I may, Madam Chairman, was that the club would compile a database with its list of members and their number plates, and then people parking in the square would be effectively, their number plates would be recorded by the SIAs and compared to the membership database. So, in order to determine where the members were parking in order to determine where the members were parking in the square. So, this was what we discussed at length in the previous licensing application. I'd like to tell our lawyer, please, here, because can you come in here, Heidi? Because is the club allowed to give a database to the residents? No, it's not to the residents. Just to clarify, this is the data, it's not given to anyone. It's used by the club in order to ensure that parking, that members don't park. So, this is the club's way of ensuring that parking doesn't take place on the square. And the point that I'm making is that despite having the operating management dispersal plan, which the club proposed, it did not develop this database until quite late after the club had opened. And it did not implement an app. And therefore, the key point here, Madam Chairman, is that during this temporary period, it is only until relatively recently that this has been up and running. And, you know, the club's offer to refuse entry to anyone parking in the square, which was proposed, I think, last week, you know, is a little bit, you know, you can't propose it a week before the licensing application. And then, and then request a sort of permanent license. I mean, you know, a week is not enough time to see whether this is effective. Okay, I take your point. That's, that's the point. It hasn't, these are not my rules. They're not the residence rules. These are the rules that the club imposed on itself as a condition of the temporary license. And the bottom line here is that it has not yet delivered on these operating management, its own operating management dispersal plan. Okay, thank you. Do you have all the objectives spoken now? I see a, um, I'm sorry, Chair, Stephen Walsh wanted to comment on, on, on that, because I think we need, um, because Mr. Sterling has raised an important point. Okay. Yes. So I think, um, Mr. Walsh should comment. Uh, okay. I mean, it's all about the, it's all about the parking issue, of course, this parking, as I said before, isn't a licensing objective. Noise from parking is, but of course the issue here is 2 to 3 a.m. in relation to the hours, uh, and whether there has been noise from that. And that's where, that's where the issue is. But, but I'm afraid Mr. Sterling began that, that, that account saying it was a question. And given that it is an important point, as Ms. Titcom says, um, I have here Robert Seals, who can provide a proper answer to it. And if it is going to be a, uh, an important point, I'd like him to be able to give that answer, if you don't mind, Chair. I agree. That's fine. Thank you. Yes. Can I just, um, before you do that, sorry, intervene, but, um, just looking at the condition. So condition 26, sorry, 27, um, Holly, I don't know if you could bring up the page, uh, 31, uh, when you get a moment. So page 31, you've got condition 27, which, which is obviously the external, uh, the, the dispersal external management plan. And that's a condition that's saying that the, that the applicants will submit it, uh, take into consideration, uh, comments received and recommendations from various, uh, people, including Kensington square residents association and the licensing authority and environmental health. And then, uh, once the plan has been revised, uh, and on my understanding, it was revised in June, uh, last year, then they, then it says that they're quite clearly, they have to comply with that plan. Now added to that, if you go to condition 13, condition 13, says that, um, is the other condition that Mr. Sterling's referred to, which says that, um, it will be a condition of membership and any private booking that members and their guests must, must not park in Kensington square when attending the premises. I do agree entirely with, uh, uh, uh, Mr. Walsh that, um, the, um, the, um, the applicants can't enforce parking in the square. And that's why that condition is phrased in the way it is, although it is still caught by condition 27. So if it has said in condition 27, um, that it would, would manage that as, as mentioned by Mr. Sterling in the, in the main plan, then I can see the point that Mr. Sterling is making that, you know, there is a disconnect between what you're saying you can do and what you can legally do. So it'd be helpful if Mr. Walsh or your, um, expert can comment on that to help the committee. Yes. Thank you very much. Um, that's, that's, that's, that's helpful. Um, the, the, the position is of course that, um, for example, condition 13 says it must be a condition, uh, that, uh, of membership, that members and their guests must not park in Kensington square. Uh, that is absolutely right. How we enforce breach of that membership condition is of course a matter of the club. And what is important is that it's, it's done seriously and taken seriously, but I think Mr. Sterling expanded this to, to databases and other things. I think the suggestion being that the club hasn't been doing all that it might and keeping records. So, um, the person who can really answer that quote, this important point is Robert Seals of, uh, the roof gardens, who is in a position to, uh, I'll hand over as it were the mic to him now to provide that answer. Okay. That's a good idea. Hi, good afternoon, everyone. So Rob, Rob here from roof gardens. So I think to Alex's point about database, we had some number plates before we opened. So database was in existence and since opening that's, that's grown. So we, even without the technology that we have now, we, we already had a database and we were collecting number plates and we were putting them to members. And quite soon after opening, we, this went back and forward a lot of times in the residence meetings that we took on board the feedback from residents. And we did every new application now, uh, members or perspective members are asked to provide their number plates. So we have that, uh, from day dot of, uh, application. Um, and on the, on the tech front, uh, the condition or the own, uh, DP does state if tech allowed, we would get the tech in place. It did take a little longer than we'd like to, we couldn't get an off the shelf, so we developed it ourselves. Um, and since we have that, we are growing that database and it's grown quite quickly. Now we have the tech in place. So we feel we're in a position to, uh, to say that we do have a database in place against members who are parking. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other objectors who wish to speak or can we move on to questions of the objectors? Okay. So now, um, do our counselors have any questions for the objectors? Counselor Lindsay. Yes. Um, Alex Sterling and Peter Oyen. I hope I got it right. I know that you have been to some of the residence meetings with root gardens because it's in the minutes, but I just wanted to clarify whether Mariella. Marie-Louisa and Caroline Carey have ever been to those meetings. Just interesting to know. Thank you. Can I, can I please take that? Um, as, um, Marie-Louisa, uh, referred to previously, we work, um, KSRA works together with our members. This means we tend to send one representative to represent all of us, and we selected, and when I say we, this is 40 households on the square, we selected Alex Sterling and Peter to represent the households of Kensington Square. So when they are there in that meeting, they represent Marie-Louisa and myself and everyone else who is on this call. Thank you for that. Counselor, can I also reply? I, Peter is my husband. So I do, if he goes to the meeting, I don't need to go. And that absolutely applies to you. I concede. Thank you. But anyway, I just want to stress exactly what Mariella said, uh, the Kensington Square Resident Association works as a group and, uh, we do consult before, actually, Mr. Sterling and Peter go, um, to the meeting. There are extensive exchanges, and so we know exactly what, uh, is being discussed pre and prepared before the meeting. So, as Mariella said, there is a representation of 40, um, resident, square resident. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that explanation. Whether I should call you, um, Marie-Louisa or by Mrs., I don't know, because they both, in this case, given that you said that your husband is your husband, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you. You can call her senora. Okay. That's right. Thank you. Uh, Councilor, do you have any questions? Um, Jen, no, I have no question. Thank you. Okay. Um, I actually had my question answered earlier regarding the parking responsibilities. So I appreciate that. And I would like to ask the residents, um, when you, do you have anything good to say about the club? You've gone to the meetings, you've met with the manager. Yeah, I can take, I can, I can take this. Um, look, there's no doubt that, um, there's no doubt that, uh, RBKC is, uh, is, um, a, a community, a council that is pro-business. And I think that, you know, none of us, um, uh, none of us who work in business, uh, uh, wish to do, you know, uh, to be against the club for the sake of it or to do anything that's anti-business. Clearly there are, uh, economic benefits, uh, to having the club. I think the position that we've taken is we always want it, uh, to be, given that we live next door to the club, we always want it to be managed in a way which is sensitive, uh, to the community, uh, to the local residents. Uh, and as Sue mentioned, uh, earlier, her number one priority after her shareholders is the community, which should mean not only the community of members, but also the community of residents. I think having attended, you know, we have had a lot of engagement with the club over the last, uh, uh, 12, um, whenever it is 12 months or so, uh, or just under actually. Um, and, and, and I would say that, you know, uh, we have given a lot of feedback to the club about areas of operational improvement. And I would say that engagement has broadly been constructive, but I think the point that we're talking about today, uh, is just whether now is the right time to move to a permanent license. And I think, uh, as mentioned previously by several, it's, it's, it's, you know, uh, it's, it's, uh, it's a bit premature, frankly. Um, so that would be my, my, my initial response, but Pera, you've been to a number of meetings. Feel free to chime in. I see, um, Mr. Hornby would like, he has his hand up. Would you like to comment, please? Hello. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you asked if there were any residents who had anything positive to say. So I thought it might be a moment for me just to step in very, very briefly and say something positive. Um, so to caveat, I'm a resident. I'm not a member. I don't live within a square, but I have lived in Kensington, Chelsea for 45 years, my entire life. Um, so to give a little bit of context and my relationship to Kensington and Chelsea. Um, sorry, sorry. May I interrupt? Because this section was for residents of Kensington Square to comment. This was not for the supporters. Uh, perhaps, uh, RBKC can correct me. Um, actually, I think it might be relevant. I'll ask our lawyer, but I don't see a problem if we allow it. Can I, can I say very sorry, I've got a funeral to go to. Um, and I'd be very grateful if you could let me say my two pennies worth now, if that would be at all possible. I will allow it. Sorry, um, just, um, um, Mr. Hornby is a, is a supporter, a registered supporter, aren't you? I am, yes. Yes. So, so he, he is entitled to speak and make a submission. Yes, he's registered. Yes. Okay, carry on, please. Thank you. Thank you. I won't be long. Um, so as I say, before I make my case, just to give you context on, on who I am and my relationship to the borough. Um, I've, I'm an artist and a member of the club, uh, and I've been very proactive in the community of RBKNC for a very long time. I've served on RBKNC Arts and Grant Awards panel. Um, I've been engaged in the carnival and various bits of activities associated with that. And I participated in the 2012 Olympiad at Leighton House, uh, et cetera, et cetera. Um, so I, I, I also have, um, permanent public commissions in the area. So I have skin in the game and I really care about the wellbeing of the community. And because I've lived here, I know many of the residents as well. So I just wanted to, um, to make a rounded picture, um, shine a positive light on the club. Uh, and that is to say that, um, up until the club's opening, there was nowhere in the area for cultural leaders, business leaders, and artists to meet and do the types of activity that they are now able to do in the club. Uh, it's been a phenomenally positive contribution to me and what I'm able to achieve, uh, in, in the types of activities that I'm doing. Uh, in the last 10 days alone, uh, I've managed to host events, lunches, drinks at the club for, um, very significant and famous actors, artists, uh, and cultural leaders from across the pond in America. Uh, who have been overwhelmed with positivity and praise of how beautiful the place is, how well it's run. Um, and it's a, it's a safe space where, um, important conversations can happen. Uh, and those conversations aren't always the type that happen in business hours. Sometimes those conversations happen late into the night. Um, and I think RBKMC wants to have a vibrant community of artists and creative leaders. Uh, and this space is incredible at providing just that. Uh, so that's basically what I wanted to say. Um, what would I chuck? Uh, my only other two pennies worth, um, is there's quite a lot of talk, I think, from Mr. Sterling and Mr. O'Sheen about intensification with the expanded space. Um, and I think possibly the, the additional spaces will do precisely the opposite of that because they're inside and small. So, for example, Esme's house is a space, it's a private dining room for 10 to 12 people. It's an extraordinary opportunity for, for us to gather brilliant, like-minded people to collaborate and communicate. This doesn't exist in the community before this creation. And I've actually launched a creative partnership with the Royal Society of Sculptors, which is another wonderful institution within the area, who are now hosting events at the roof gardens, including in this additional space. Uh, I'm also involved in maybe organising some talks in those downstairs enclosed spaces. Um, so I, I don't think it'll be intensifying partying per se, but some of the, um, uh, the more sort of wonderful things. I think that's all I wanted to chuck in, uh, other than I, I have an RBK&C parking, uh, permit, and I don't park in the square. If I was to, I definitely wouldn't be doing it late at night whilst I was drinking, because that would be a terrible thing to do. Um, there was a question earlier about non-alcoholic drinks, uh, and there are lots of wonderful non-alcoholic drinks at the club. I frequently don't drink alcohol, and I think that's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and everyone, for letting me chuck in my two pennies worth. And thank you for coming, and I'm sorry for your loss. Um, now just one thing, um, has Miss Greenwood, who, has she, is she here? Miss Greenwood, are you here? No. Okay. Yes, I'm here. Yes, I'm here. Sorry, I'm just unmuting as you, yeah. Okay. Yes. Um, could you please speak? Okay. Uh, let me put my camera on. Yes. Hi. Okay, thank you. Um, thank you for letting me speak now. Um, yes, just following on from Nick. Uh, I'm a Kensington resident. Resident. I've been a resident for 15 years, and I've also been a member of the gym, uh, Equinox, which is on the fifth floor, for 11 years. So I know the area very well. Um, it's a beautiful club. Um, I kind of want to focus on the issue, the, the, um, the point of safety. Um, I live on my own. Um, before Kensington, uh, the roof gardens opened, I would be traveling into the center. I was a member of the Groucho at one point and the hospital club. So there's a lot of movements. And so late at night, it was an issue. And this has made a huge difference to me. Um, the safety, um, when I'm in the club, I feel very safe. Um, it's a wonderful place to meet. I use it for, for business. My field is leadership. Um, so I, there's a lot of meetings and also for certain social purposes, whether it's meeting other members or bringing guests, it's been a wonderful, wonderful environment. Um, I also, and I think this makes a real difference is I live about 12 minutes walk away. So I walk or I get the bus and that's wonderful. And even late, I mean, I tend to finish by midnight if I'm, um, to be able to walk back or pop, uh, pop on the bus makes a big, big difference to me. Um, but finally in terms of the issue is what I'm very aware of is how carefully we are escorted out of the building, really told by security about not talking, carefully directed up to the high street. Um, it feels very safe again. There's never any point where there's a sort of feeling that it's very dark or unlit, um, and very carefully, uh, and respectfully, uh, making sure that things are quiet as we, as we leave. Um, I think that was what I wanted to, uh, to, uh, to add. Thank you very much for letting me speak. Um, now any questions from our legal advisor before we get into conditions? That, um, the, the objectors, um, can ask questions of the two supporters if, if they wish. So, um, so if you could give them an opportunity. And I just wanted to clarify because I noted, uh, Mr. Berry dropped in, uh, dropped out of the meeting at one stage. I just want to make sure that he has said all that he wanted to say before you finish, uh, with the supporters and objectors. So if you could ask me to clarify that. Can you, can you hear me? Yes. Can you turn your camera off, Mr. Berry? No, I've, I have not planned to speak. I, I am in support of the Kensington Square Residents Association. We have been resident on the square for 49 years. I was here when regimes, uh, first opened, uh, and it has been, there has been a pattern. Uh, and the pattern is, it starts well, uh, but there's no follow through. Um, and we have had, uh, ended up with the police, uh, closing down the license. So I, I appreciate that the, the people on the west side of the square are more affected. We are affected through parking and late night noise on the east side of the square. We're at number 44. Um, but, uh, but my role here really is to support as a longtime member of the Residents Association, um, you know, Mary Ellen, Frederick, and Alex, uh, and the team. Um, because they're speaking and arguing well for us. So I just want to issue my response, my support. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Um. Thank you. Is it okay to ask, as Heidi suggested, a question for Mr. Hornby and Ms. Greenwood? Well, Mr. Thornby's gone off to a funeral. And, um, I'm not sure. Are they allowed? Yes, you can actually. But, uh, yes. I am still here, actually. Mr. Hornby is still here. Okay, fine. Thank you. Thank you. So this is a question to, to both of you. I guess, you know, I, first of all, we're not debating here today whether the club is a good thing or not. Um, we're debating licensing and impact on the local residents that are living next to the club. Neither of you lives next to the club, so you are not impacted. So I guess my question to you is what, how would your representation be different if you were as one of us on the call and your house was attached to the club and you were woken up in the night? All I can say is I have, um, uh, enormous sympathy for anyone whose sleep is disturbed. Um, but I think that has to be taken in balance with, um, needing to serve the entire community of RBKNC, which, um, uh, we're hoping will be a, a vibrant and, and, and wonderful place. Um, uh, I also have absolute faith in the leadership at the roof gardens to, uh, to listen sensitively, uh, and try to create a scenario which, um, will minimize, uh, uh, your, your concerns and mitigate those problems. Um, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, the last thing I want is for my fellow, uh, members of RBKNC to have their lives, um, ruined by a nightclub. But, um, I think that your experiences when, um, the Virgin Club ran it, uh, will be different to, um, the future of the roof gardens, which are, um, so beautifully run. Thank you, Nick, but we have one year of experience and, and complaints. The second question for both of you is, do you not think it's, uh, basically a conflict for you to be supporters here to promote your business interests and not independent? And did you ever try, you mentioned there was no other place. The Science Museum has private venues for these businesses and events, which are equally beautiful. And did you ever try those? Can I, sorry, can I come in here? Um, no, I'm a member, so I'm joining as a member, not to promote my business interests. Um, it just so happens that sometimes, well, it's not for business purposes in that sense. Um, I absolutely agree with what you're saying, Nick. It's beautifully run. Um, I'm very mindful of watching what security does and, and, and, and, and how, how strongly the management are enforcing. We get many emails as, as, as, as members from membership, really outlining and telling us about the rules. And we're very, very conscious of it and, and, and we're very aware of how important it is to management. Um, and given the success of the cup, of the club, I've been very impressed, uh, with how they are, how it's all being managed so beautifully. So, I don't think you answered the question, though, would you support? Can I just say that I, I also don't have any, um, I'm not employed by the roof gardens. I'm just a, a local person who lives in our BKNC, has done for 45 years, uh, and I'm thrilled by the service and, uh, what is offered on the table by what I think is a wonderful members club. And as a Kensington resident, very proud of it as well. I do want to say that, that I'm bringing people over from the rest of the, of London and elsewhere to see it. It's a huge part, very proud of it. But finally, you're not answering the question as to whether you would be supporting this application if you were the ones being woken up in the middle of the night, if you lived on Kensington Square. I'm not sure, I'm not sure the question is relevant, but I'll ask. No, thank you. I was kind of going to say the same thing. It feels like it's not something for us to answer. And we have huge sympathy about anyone with not exactly, but with what I think we're both saying, Nick and I, is that this has been managed beautifully and very carefully, very mindfully, uh, by Sue. And it's, it's, it's, it's taken very seriously. And also the, the, someone was talking about the types of activity by renting spaces at the Science Museum, and that's not really what we're talking about here. No, it's about, it's a community, it's a community of people, the membership, um, it's those 1,500 people we've spoken about and two and a half thousand now are an incredible group of people, cherry picked and hand selected from very, very diverse and interesting backgrounds, um, both socioeconomically, culturally and professionally. Um, who come together and, um, those, you know, RBKNC is really proud of its, of its arts and culture. And in order to continue fostering that, we really, really, really need these types of spaces. I'm also a member of the LBGTQ plus community, and there is nowhere else in this area where I can hang out and be myself. So, this is a wonderful, um, uh, new space. And, um, I don't want for you to have bad night's sleep, um, but Stormzy's gig, um, was a one-off. And the photos from Halloween was a Halloween party. The 99% of the activity is sensitive and, uh, and wonderful. Um, so. Can I add one thing following that, Nick, is that one of its key values is kindness. And at first, my field is leadership, so I kind of listen to these values. But they are, they are enforcing that. I know some members have been excommunicated. I know that's not the right word. If, if they're not demonstrating kindness. And that's absolutely, they mean it. This isn't just words. Okay, uh, let's move on now. Um, are there any more questions from our legal advisor before we discuss conditions, which I hope everyone will get involved in that discussion? Madam, somebody has put their hand up. Mr. Hamid. Uh, I'm not sure, um. I didn't see that. Yes. Hello. Hi. I'm not sure if he's a registered objector. Um, he's a registered supporter. No, I'm a registered supporter. Oh, right. Okay. Okay. I just want to back what Hannah and Nick were saying. Um, I've been a resident of, of the, of the borough for 24 years. Um, and the problem that we've had, uh, in the borough is that a lot of the activities, whether cultural or intellectual or anything, or even just having anything casual, have moved very much to the West End. And with the opening or reopening of the club, we found an unbelievable, um, uh, congregation of wonderful, uh, international, local, artistic business people. And this club has been really, has changed our lives and it's really changed our lives for the better. That's number one. Obviously I understand the concerns of noise and parking. And I've been very diligent too, because I have friends of mine that have been members that have lost their membership because they didn't stick to the rules. And they asked me, listen, uh, can you please speak to somebody in the club to help me reinstate? I'm like, no, you broke the rules. The rules are very clear. We're on, you know, we're, we, we need to respect the community and we need to make sure that we do not make noise and we do not park. I walk to the club and I cycle to the club and I go there frequently. And at night, when I come back, I'm always impressed that there's about four or five employees of security employees that are touring, uh, uh, Kensington square and, and are making sure that a people don't park be that they're not noisy. And so I even walk there and I say, wow, I would love to live in Kensington square because it's much more quiet than anywhere else. Despite the opening of the club. So that's one thing that I want to point out now. Now, talking about other venues opening that just gives diversity. It doesn't necessarily mean more people are going to come. It means that as a member, I can have a Chinese restaurant or a Japanese. It doesn't make a difference. It doesn't increase the number of people that are actually attending on a daily basis. It means it just provides more diversity, more quiet areas. Also, it's also going to be an area where you can work a lot more and be much more productive and make this community a much richer community. Now, if there's one square that's complaining about noise, I think that, you know, I think that it's just a cheap shot because they've really, really made an effort to make sure that there's quiet, that people don't park in the square. I mean, I walked through that square at night on the way home and it's deserted and there's no noise. And I'm actually quite surprised that there's no noise, despite what's going on in the club or what's happening. So I think I'd like to commend the management of this club for actually really going over and beyond any other club that I'm a member of to take care of their community. And that's one point that I'd like to make. Thank you very much. Oh, yes. Sorry, did you want to say anything else? No, no, I wanted to thank you, Madam Chairman. Okay, thank you. Mr. Cicognoni, do you have any questions for the support? No, no, no question. I just wanted to make sure that the supporters understand and they understand this application, which is an application requesting an increased use of intensity of the club, or at least an expansion of the areas that can be used of the club with additional kitchen and et cetera, et cetera. And also an extension or a making permanent the hours in the club. So, and all what the residents are saying is that we do not have sufficient track record at the moment to see exactly how this new infrastructure is going to work and the effect that this is going to have in our neighborhood. I just wanted to make sure that this is understood. So, we're not questioning whether the club brings value added or not value added. I think this is entirely up to them to decide. But, Madam Maria Luisa, what I want to tell you, what I want to say is the fact that they open other venues is immaterial. What is important are the amount of people that are actually going there. And they've got a limited capacity. And as long as they don't go over that capacity, then what's the problem? If I go and eat in a Chinese restaurant or a Japanese restaurant and they offer me that diversity, it doesn't make a difference because it's the same amount of capacity that you're allowing in. Sorry, excuse me. Excuse me to interrupt you, but you interrupted me. So, the question, as I asked before, is that we do not have a track record for this period to see. And as the CEO explained to us, there is a difference usage of the club depending on the days. But we do not have a statistical view of the correlation between the number of members and the number of users over the month and the wrap hump that Mr. Sterling was referring to. And that is exactly what the residents are saying. It is premature because there is a change in the infrastructure. There is a change of, obviously, the ramp up of the activities. We do not have enough track record. And that is what we're saying. It's a premature. Let's give them the application to change the infrastructure, see how they work with this infrastructure, use the hours that they have within this period, and then let's come back. That's all what we are saying. And that, I think, is a big deal. We're not questioning the club and the addition to your cultural activities or personal business or how you organize your personal business in the club. We're not questioning them at all. We're just saying, from an objective point of view, what we're looking for is a change in the infrastructure. We are not objecting at this, but give us a track record to show us how you're managing it and what the impact in our community is. You don't live around the square. I live. So, I can hear the noise from my corner. I do. I do. Mariella, unfortunately, lives absolutely next to them. Miss Carey just lives next to her with a 90-year-old mother. There is a difference for us. I appreciate you walk around the square. And I also want to make another point. For us in the square, we have a gigantic problem with parking. We have raised this with the council several times. We have never been able to achieve anything. On the contrary, we have lost parking spaces because of the shop. We are here to help our community. We have lost spaces on the terraces. We have lost spaces on the square. We are now, all we are asking, apart from the noise from the parking, is the loss of parking that we have. And we don't have enough parking on the square as resident, as resident. So, apart from this, I just want to make this clear. So, all what we are saying here, we're not against the club. The club is there. It can contribute to the community. We're not benefiting because we're not members. But let's assume that we contribute. There is an increase in the use or other facility with the Chinese restaurant or whatever. I don't care. This is up to you. All what we are saying is we do not have evidence of how this new facility is going to be operated. That's it. Thank you very much. I'd like to move on now. Are there any questions from Mr. Walsh? No, thank you, Chair. No, there were many questions I did have, but all have been answered by different people in the last 20 minutes. Okay. What I'd like to do now is we will go into our conditions. And I would ask that the objectors participate and the supporters, but we can actually have an intelligent conversation here and a calm conversation, because this would be constructive. Heidi, could you please carry on? Thank you. Thank you. I can't hear you, Heidi, if you're talking. No. Oh, sorry. Sorry, I did not put my button, my microphone on. I just said that this is a condition session. I'm not indicating whether the members have decided to grant this application or not, or whether to grant any part of the application. And I do welcome the views of everybody, but I'll be asking Mr. Walsh, firstly, and then I will ask everybody else, because obviously the conditions are conditions which would be attached to a license if the committee are minded to grant it. And any conditions that are attached to the license can be subject to a criminal prosecution if they are breached, or indeed the premises can be subject to review. Now, as I understand it, and Mr. Walsh, jump in if I've got anything wrong, you're actually adopting all the conditions on the existing license, apart from the four conditions that I've put up there on my spreadsheet. But before I do that, you did mention something during the submission that you were offering four SIA. Now, I think condition 38 on the license says that you've got three SIA. Were you proposing to amend that condition, or did I misunderstand what you had said? No, I said it deliberately in that we have engaged four, so we comply with the existing condition, which is three. But if the committee is minded to impose that as a condition, upping it from three to four, we're very happy to comply with it, because that's what we will do in the future. Yes. And can I just clarify, because condition 38 only relates to after 10 o'clock, so you're proposing that the fourth SIA would only kick in after 10 as well? Yes. Yeah. And are you suggesting that it would apply every day, because condition 22 only relates to Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays? Yeah. I think it's Thursdays and Saturdays. Thursdays. Thank you. So that's really, you're suggesting an amendment to condition 38 on the license, so that we've got four SIAs. Thank you very much for clarifying that. Now, in terms of the conditions that you suggested need to be amended. Just to clarify one point, is that a reduction from the current practice, which is four SIAs from 6pm, seven days a week? Where are you getting that from? Sorry, is that Mr. Sterling? Yes, it's the operating plan, which the club is currently... That's the operating plan. That's currently what they're doing and have done since July. So are we talking about a reduction here? No, so there's a difference, okay? So there's a difference in terms of the conditions that the committee could be imposing as a blanket condition, which we'll say four. Mr. Walsh, can you comment on the inconsistency with what may have been said in the plan? Yeah, I've just received instructions that on Thursday to Saturday, the relevant condition says after 10pm, but we are prepared for that condition to be amended from 6pm, so that it's consistent. Sorry, it's very difficult to hear. So is that condition 38, instead of saying 10pm, should that be 1800? Yes. Yeah, thank you. And given that it's seven days a week, should it not be seven days a week? No, Thursdays to Saturdays. So that would be a reduction from the current, the way the club has been managed for the last eight months under the temporary licence? No, that's the main condition. That's a condition of the licence. There's a different reflection in the management plan. Increase in hours? I understand that, but you're increasing the number of hours, and you have been operating seven days a week from 6pm, so now you're proposing to only do that from Thursday, Friday, Saturday, with four SIAs, which is effectively a reduction in the level of SIAs. Well, first of all, we're not increasing the hours at all, as you know. You are in your applications. You're going until 3pm. Can I just clarify this? Condition 69 and 70, which is the temporary element, does only apply to Thursday, Friday and Saturday, so they wouldn't have the three o'clock on any other days? No. That's correct. So if I understand what you're saying correctly, Mr. Walsh, you're saying that you're agreeing to have the four on the same days that you want the extension to 3am? Yes, yes, or at least that we want the removal of the temporary element to the 3am hours, Thursday to Saturday, yes. Yeah, but it doesn't cover Sunday to Wednesday. Yeah. Thank you. The operational plan, of course, does, which is separate entity. Well, Mr. Walsh, what would be your proposal, then, would it be to sort of reduce the operational plan from four SIAs to three SIAs during those other days? No. At the moment, I'm only addressing the licensing conditions, which I'm touching upon for Thursday to Saturday, as previously stood on the license. So we seek to amend it by increasing the number of SIAs from three to four and increasing the number of hours from 10pm and replaced by from 6pm on Thursdays to Saturdays. So we think that's a significant conception. Thank you. Now, moving on, the other condition that has been suggested to be amended is condition 27, which relates to the external dispersal and management plan. And as I understand it, you're saying that part of the wording of this condition as shown in red on this document on the screen should be deleted because you want the council to use the original external management plan that you submitted in relation to the application that went before committee in 2024. Yes, yes, because we weren't entitled to begin operating until we had a dispersal and management plan and it had been submitted to RBKC and so on. But that really, that was a condition that applied to beginning to trade under the license. So it's now sufficient to require at all times, as it's indicated there in black lettering, and a dispersal and external management plan. Thank you. The original condition, of course, did give certain parties, including the Licensing Authority and Environmental Health and the Residence Association an opportunity to make some recommendations, which your new condition won't. Having said that, I note that environmental health have not raised a representation in relation to that matter. I don't know whether Mr. Sterling or anyone wants to comment on that. Yeah, I can. Look, I think, I mean, I think the, firstly, environmental health hasn't been represented properly on this committee because Keith McAfee, who's been responsible for this for the last 12 months, is not on this call. You know, and so therefore I can only give a perspective from the residents. I think that, again, the club has not followed the operating without principles that it had laid out. But I would say, irrespective of whether or not the fifth and seventh floor get opened, I would be saying that four points are mistaken for you to consider, and also the committee. Number one, the club has been operating with four SIAs in a period where it hasn't been fully used, and that's seven days a week. And therefore, that should continue seven days a week from 6 p.m. The second point is there should be a ban on live music, amplified live music, and effective noise limiters outside in the gardens of the club, which has been an issue historically. The third area is that parking enforcement needs to be properly implemented. It's still a work in progress. It's still not. There are still numerous examples of members who are parking illegally on the square and not following club rules, and there is no proper enforcement. And then the fourth area is that the sixth and seventh floor terraces, which will be open, or the seventh floor, which will be open later this year, needs to have... Currently, I don't think that the operating principles and the conditions have any rules relating to that. They need to have some restrictions on outdoor drinking in the evening, certainly after 11 p.m. So I think things need to be... The operating plan needs to be properly implemented, and there's a couple of areas like the sixth and seventh floor terraces where we need further restrictions. I've noted what you say. I would just make it clear. I'm not the decision-maker. It is only the three members. I'm not the decision-maker. No, I'm just certain if we've got an operating plan, it needs to be fully implemented. Sorry, the other point I would say is that, because you've mentioned this a couple of times about Mr. Mahaffey, Mr. Mahaffey has retired from the council, so he's not required to be here on this application. And I know various people, the applicants and the residents, have suggested what Mr. Mahaffey has, may have said or may not have said. He is not here to comment on that. So hearsay evidence is permissible in this type of hearing, but the committee must decide what weight it wishes to attach to that, because we don't have the benefit of Mr. Mahaffey here to say whether he agrees with what is being said about him by the applicants or indeed by any other party. Secondly, I don't think it's right to say that environmental health have not been properly represented, because Mr. Kilroy has considered this application officially on behalf of environmental health. And if he'd wanted to put in a representation or suggest further conditions, then he certainly could have done that. And he is here today if the members need any clarification. So environmental health have been consulted, planning have been consulted, and no representations have come in from them. So I think that is the basis upon which the committee will determine the application. In terms of condition 27, the committee have heard both sides of what you've said, and they'll decide whether to amend condition 27 as has been suggested or not. So the next condition that we move on to is condition 63 on the licence, which relates to the surrender condition. I totally understand why, as the previous licence has been surrendered, that it may not be relevant to mention that in terms of condition 63. But if the committee were minded to grant this licence, the licensing authority wouldn't want there to be two licences in relation to the roof gardens, even though it's legally permissible. But for enforcement reasons, that's why they require the other licence to be surrendered. So, Mr Walsh, are you happy that that condition is not, in fact, removed, but it's just amended with the number of the existing licence? Yes. Now, our position on this is that there are often very good reasons to have a surrender condition. And, for example, on the last occasion, we very much agreed with it because there were substantial differences. There were things being taken away and things being added and so on to that. So there was a good reason to surrender that. It is our view that there is no need to have such a condition here because it wouldn't present any enforcement problems. I mean, we're in your hands about it, but we don't offer that condition. We don't think it's necessary in this particular set of circumstances because we don't see that there would be an enforcement problem about it. So that's our short position about condition 6. I have a question. I have a question. Sorry, just coming back on that. So in terms of enforcement, the new license will be a slightly different layout because there'll be an extended area and there'll be tweaks on the condition. So it is always a bad idea from an enforcement point of view to have two licensings covering the same area. It is problematic for enforcement because we won't know under which license you're operating at any given time. That's why for clarity and for enforcement that it is appropriate, in my view, to have a surrender condition. I totally agree that if we have a surrender condition, it should relate to the existing license, not the one, the previous one. Yes. Well, OK. What matters is the license which is being traded at any given time. So, for example, and one of the requirements is that, is of course that the license that is being traded at any given time is that which is displayed. And that, in other words, if the license such as it is, if it is granted today, would be the one that is displayed, that being the one that's traded. And that's what impacts upon enforcement. Excuse me, I'd like to interject here because, Heidi, you can comment on this, but if they had two licenses and they were operating under the one, if the first one was under review and revoked, in principle, they could carry on with a second license. So, enforcement would be very difficult. Yes. I mean, you'd have to review both licenses. Exactly. You'd have to review both licenses. But I do stand by what I've said. With respect, I have heard what Mr. Walsh has said. But from an enforcement point of view, I know clearly it's better from the applicant's point of view, but certainly from a licensing authority's view, they need clarity. They need to know which license is being operated. If you have, if the plans are not correct in any event, because your license has to be, the one that has to be displayed is the one with the correct plans. And that would be the one with the differing layout that does affect each of the floors, as I understand it. So, you wouldn't in any event be able to operate. So, that's why there's no advantage for the applicants to keep that existing license. And indeed, so there's no prejudice. And indeed, from an enforcement point of view, it is entirely better to have a surrender condition. Yeah. Well, I hear what you're saying, and I detect the way the wind is blowing on this. I mean, one of the realistic reasons, it actually is the time that it takes. This is no criticism. For the reasoned decision to be submitted. And that does have an impact, actually, on when the license is surrendered, when the new one comes into force. And, for example, upon time running for appeal decisions. Those, I mean, that's the reality of it. But we hear the work you say. Just to clarify, when are the amendments going to be made to the layout? Immediately, I think. Yeah. So, how long will they take to be completed? The seventh row is the last one. That would be October. So, that's October. Hmm. Right. So, so, so what you're saying, as long as you've got the decision before October, not that I'm suggesting that you would wait that long. So, don't worry. Then, then, then you wouldn't be prejudiced. But, but I've heard the point you're making. I, I understand you really want the full decision as soon as you can get it. Yeah, exactly. And, and the major thing is that the fifth row, when I said immediately, I meant the fifth floor. That's the thing that we need to, we need to get the works done immediately on that. And so that's. Yeah. So, can you just help me when, how long they will take? Yes. Um, um, one, one of the spaces is already ready. and the other would be within seven, six, six weeks. That's yes. Well, well, the, the, the license would be, the full decision would be granted, would be produced within that time. I've got Mr. Thomas on the, in my right here. I'm sure. I'm quite sure you have. I think, I think we can, we, we can, we'll, we'll leave it at that. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Um, that's. Sorry, just, just for the record, um, the residents agree exactly with, uh, the scenario that counselor, um, Evans, the chairman described. So we would not, uh, we would agree with RBKC. We, we think it's totally wrong to have two licenses. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, the members will take that into account. So then the next condition that we need to consider are the, um, the two conditions. I'm considering them together because one relates to the, um, extending the hours to 3am and the other one is just the opening hours until 3.30. Uh, I'm just wondering, and if you could help me with this, uh, Mr. Walsh, whether we need, um, because this, they both refers to excluding, Esme's, the terrace and the sixth floor. So, so am I right in thinking that the 3am extension still doesn't apply to those areas? Um, that's correct. Yes. That remains the case. That is correct. So I might need to put that, just explain that in the conditions as well. Um, sorry. Oh, the fact, sorry. Yes. So it's not mentioned in the condition. It's fine. It's not. Sorry. If you could just speak up slightly, I'm sorry. We're still suffering a bit. Um, Thursday, the terminal for all those life's abilities on the sixth floor, uh, excluding as well as the terminate shall be. Yes. Yes. So, and, and of course the fifth floor that we apply for are to be on the same terms as the sixth floor, but it's not mentioned there, but it doesn't matter. I don't think. So do we need to, do I need to add something about the fifth floor? Then I don't think you do. No, no, you don't actually. There's no need. What about the excluding bits? Do I, I need, do I need to put something in the conditions to make sure that the three, the three o'clock doesn't apply to those areas? No, there's no, no other area. There's no external area, terraces or anything on the fifth. It's only those two, uh, areas which are delineated in red. So there's, there's nothing to exclude. So when you say those two areas, can you just, what are they called? Uh, well, they're called member lounges. It's probably the best way to put it. Although one is to be a sort of library and workspace, but as a generic term, they're the member lounges, delineated by the red boundaries as the licensed areas. So the terminology of Esme's, the Esme's terrace are still to be retained in all the, the rest of the conditions. Yes. Yes. Because they, yes, that's correct. I just want to make sure we get this right. So there is no confusion. So, but it should be just, uh, just to be clear. Um, let's take a B. It should be Esme's, Esme's and Esme's terrace. And the sixth floor terrace, as you've got it here and the seventh floor terrace, because the current, the current, uh, license, uh, don't think covers the seventh floor terrace, which will be open later this year. Uh, and it's important that both the sixth floor terrace and the seventh floor terrace, uh, are closed. It's 11 PM. Yes. It's already. I don't think it covers the seventh floor. Terrace. It does. Well, it does. We see that on the screen. Are we able, are you able to point me to the condition? I think it's just on the face of the license. It's on the face of the license. Um, so if you look at, of, of the main agenda, uh, if you look at page, uh, 20. Page six, 34, the main license. Say again. Page six of 34, the main license. Page six. So, so page 22 of the main bundle. Yeah. Of the main agenda. Uh, you will see there that the sale by, well, you can see it all the way down. The, the sale by retail of, uh, on the premises, six floor terrace, seventh floor terrace, and, uh, and Esby's terrace. and there it is set out. What does it say about timings? We can't see it on the screen. 2300. 2300. From 9am, 900 hours to 2300 hours. Every day. Sunday. Monday. Yeah. Monday to Sunday. Sunday to Monday. Sunday to Monday. Yeah. Okay. I'll look at that. If I, if there's any tweaks, then, uh, I will advise the members accordingly. Of course. Yeah. Um, and that is all the questions I had regarding the conditions. Um, so unless there's any further comments from you, Mr. Walsh on any residents, um, we would have considered the conditions. No, no, no, nothing further than me. Thank you very much. I think from us, because the, the chair encouraged us to speak on the conditions. I think if you ask us, which I'm pretty sure everybody knows by now, the thing that we're the most sensitive with is the removal of this temporary, uh, condition that was inserted specifically to protect the residents. And we respectfully ask that these conditions are maintained. If the committee is minded to approve the rest of the amendment. I'm not sure we can do that. Don't we? You can, you can do that. You can. Yeah. I think this is what is the most material to us to maintain this period of time where the applicant can prove that they can operate well. And, and this summer with open air parties is going to be key. Yes. Uh, um, uh, Miss Cassandie, uh, I'm quite sure the members understand the points you're making regarding that. So, so, um, chair, I've actually concluded all I need to discuss unless you've got anything that you want to raise regarding those conditions. Uh, no, I, I mentioned what concerned me more. And, um, I was just wondering how the residents association members have any of you been into the club and have, have you been into the club? Anybody? And has the club invited any of the residents in or offered residents? And counselor, uh, Tiscom tell me if this, I'm allowed to ask that. Have you allowed any kind of a discount for residents? Just as a compensation for some premises do that giving has that happened at all? Mr. Walsh, did you want to turn on? Yeah, we, we've certainly invited residents in. We haven't engaged, uh, or the premises haven't engaged to discount schemes of members club, but guests could come in. Um, but, but, but I'm, um, I mean, I, I know that Mr. Sterling has been in. I'm cool. And, and, and we, one or two of the, those making representations of our members. Um, but that has been in. I, I, I, I mean, I, I have been in the club as a guest. Uh, I think accepting a discount would be, uh, a little bit of a conflict of interest, uh, frankly. Um, and, and I also think that a free glass, a discounted membership or a free glass of wine would probably not be, uh, appropriate compensation for a bad night's sleep. So, uh, I'm not sure that's relevant. I'm actually discussing that in terms of goodwill. It's very customary. Okay. Got it. Been in the trade 26 years. Okay. Got it. It's usually very customary. And that's what I don't, it's a question of goodwill and communication has nothing to do with the bribe. Um, be a very cheap bribe actually. Anyway, um, be that as it may, uh, do members have any questions for Mr. McElroy? No, I just wanted to endorse what you said about six miles further west of here. Councillor Evans, Twickenham, give free tickets from time to time to local residents. Exactly. To acknowledge the issues of hosting rugby games. Thank you very much. That's really helpful. That was really what I was intimating. And I also think that it increases communication with the residents. Um, at this stage, Paul Phelan, do you have anything to add? Thank you chair. And our government officers, anything to add? Nothing from us. Thank you, Madam chairman. Okay. We have now reached the end of the meeting. Thank you all for your submissions. They've been really helpful. We'll retire to make our decision in private session. We will not announce the decision today. A summary determination will be sent to the parties within five working days of today's hearing. The full decision will follow as soon as possible. Thereafter, the time limit for appealing. The decision will not commence until the full decision has been sent to the parties. Thank you all for attending. And the hearing is now closed and the live broadcast. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming.