Greater London Authority Westminster City Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL INSPECTOR’S REPORT INTO OBJECTIONS TO THE WESTMINSTER UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW UDP PART II (CRITERIA BASED POLICIES) CHAPTER 8 : TOURISM, ARTS, CULTURE AND ENTERTAINMENTS Inspector: J P MacBryde DA(Edin) DipTP(Lond) ARIBA MRTPI MCIT FRSA Assistant Inspector: G E Roffey BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI Dates of Inquiry: 15 October 2002 – 28 March 2003 PINS File Ref: X5990/429/3 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES UDP PART II (CRITERIA-BASED POLICIES) CHAPTER 8 : TOURISM, ARTS, CULTURE AND ENTERTAINMENTS 678-926 TA00 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 678 TA01 EXISTING HOTELS 687 TA02 NEW HOTELS 690 TA03 TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION 694 TA04 CONFERENCE FACILITIES 695 TA05 ARTS AND CULTURAL USES 696 TA06 THEATRES 700 TA07 SPECIAL POLICY AREA 703 TA08 LOCATION OF ENTERTAINMENT USES 706 TA8-10 GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT POLICIES 740 TA08A FORMER CHAPTER 7 POLICIES 747 TA10 ENTERTAINMENT CRITERIA 867 TA11 PAVEMENT SEATING 921 TA12 AMUSEMENT ARCADES 924 TA13 SEX-RELATED USES 924 Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report CHAPTER 8: TOURISM, ARTS, CULTURE AND ENTERTAINMENTS TA00: General Introduction Objectors and Supporters 1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 28 London Tourist Board 53 Central Westminster Police Community Consultative Group 125 Knightsbridge Association 138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association 376 London First 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 403 Councillor Barbara Grahame 555 Glen Suarez 680 The Crown Estate 714 Mr L.S. Spuire 729 Bass Hotels and Resorts 770 Councillor Guthrie McKie 843 Westminster Licensees Association TA00: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements (a) (i) Welcome Westminster’s recognition of the importance of the borough as an international tourist destination. However, this recognition does not filter through to the policies. [376] (b) (i) Object to the extension of the West End Stress Area at Haymarket, Air Street and Swallow Street. There is no justification for the extension of the Stress Area in the above locations. [680] (c) (i) There has been considerable discussion in recent times about licensing policy, particularly in relation to what the Council terms “Stress Areas”. Amenity societies in the central zone have taken a principled position of opposition to any licences beyond 01.00. The introduction of the European Human Rights into British law has caused a flurry of legal advice saying anything that people want to hear. It is interesting to note that same Human Rights framework has been in place in the statutes of most European countries since the end of the Second World War. I would be very surprised if a visitor to Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Amsterdam, Munich, Hamburg or Marseilles could not find a restaurant or a bar open at 05.00 or 06.00. In the Council’s UDP document at the beginning (1:16) it points out the advantages of having all the tourist and entertainment facility in one area; e.g. minimal transport needs, efficient use of public transport. The document then gives some interesting statistics: S Number of visitors to London has doubled since 1991; S Westminster provides 40% of hotel bed-space. (ii) But then it goes on to re-affirm the policy of no new licences in “stress areas” and extensions to existing licences only in certain circumstances. This policy will have one outcome and that is the increase in the number of illegal and unregulated establishments. The policy will not influence social behaviour but will serve to increase the likely criminalisation of the West End. The growth of illegal Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 678 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report establishments will provide an attractive investment for the wealthy criminal elite who have the money to pay the fines and the muscle to enforce their own law and disorder. The burden that this will put on the police will be unacceptable and unreasonable. The Council has a responsibility to provide options and opportunities to meet the changing demands of a growing entertainment and leisure culture. (iii) The UDP document does provide possible solutions. In Policy TACE2, on New Hotels, the Council recognises the need to provide greater facility for the building of new hotels. The Policy even goes to go great lengths to outline the planning regulations to alongside that development: e.g. transport access, waste storage, noise reduction, etc. The Policy refers to this development being in non- residential or low residential areas. It doesn’t identify these but one can assume that Park Lane and Piccadilly (west side) are some of these areas. If that is so, why not identify these areas as part of the extension of the entertainment zones with late licences? That would take the pressure off Soho residents but would be sufficiently central for visitors to move to. It would also encourage those establishments in Soho who want to expand, to look at expansion in the hotel area. (iv) The policy says little on enforcement. Again we have to remind them that they are the licensing authority and it is their prime responsibility to have an effective enforcement team which is supported by the police in special circumstances. The Council must have an enforcement team in such numbers that it can provide a safe and well-regulated entertainment facility for visitors to Westminster. But it must also meet that growing demand of a major international city. The UDP rightly recognises that tourism to London is likely to continue to increase and that Westminster hotels will accommodate the biggest proportion. The document again correctly assesses that tourists will use entertainment facilities near their hotel or within a short bus/tube ride. The UDP further recognises the value to Westminster of London being a major conference venue. (v) These, together with the existing use of the West End by people in the South East, means a carefully managed and focused policy relating to entertainment venues, which affords residents a reasonable environment, is essential. The UDP proposals (8.57 onwards) will still leave the West End an area with continuing problems in relation to noise, litter and nuisance. In a city the size of London and with a growing demand for late night entertainment, these problems won’t go away. They will continue, albeit in an unregulated and unlicensed manner. The policy is also a disincentive to club owners who wish to upgrade establishments and put resources in to operate well-managed clubs and restaurants. The policy does not allow new licences to be granted for establishments beyond the hour of 1 am, irrespective of the quality of the applicant or the measures that he or she is prepared to put in to run a club that takes account of local needs. The West End badly needs a policy that both licence holders and the Council can jointly operate to the benefit of visitors and residents. Propose the following for policy consideration: (vi) The Council restricts vehicular traffic after midnight going into the West End and particularly around Soho. Some streets to be cordoned off and marked areas be made available for cabs to drop and pick-up fares. (vii) The Council should employ litter patrols after midnight, operating light, electrically driven vehicles which will ferry the litter to the large crushers which will be parked Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 679 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report outside the residential areas (these quieter vehicles could be sponsored by establishments in the area). (viii) The Council is to augment its noise and nuisance team so that they operate on a regular rota after midnight and in conjunction with the police. (ix) Licensing should be linked to a Charter Mark system of good practice: as well as the existing requirements there should be guidelines on how establishments can reduce litter in their immediate area; the measures needed to marshal people towards cab areas; a manned phoned hot line for neighbours; measures taken to accommodate people with disabilities. With these measures in place late licences to be granted on 12 month provisional basis. (x) All these measures, together with co-ordination with the police, will ensure that there is a permanent presence of Council employees in the licensed areas, reduced traffic, and tougher compliance with noise and litter requirements. The constant patrols should also have a deterrent effect on street crimes in the area. A managed, monitored and well-resourced licensing regime should mean a late night entertainment facility that maintain London’s place as an important world capital and allows residents reasonable living arrangements. [770] (d) (i) Welcome the recognition given to the importance of Westminster as the fifth most popular international visitor destination and the importance of its function for London and the United Kingdom. The importance of this function of Westminster needs to be sustained and followed through in the policies of the Unitary Development Plan. (ii) Policy STRA 11 (c) and para 1.50 refer to “residential areas with an over- concentration of hotels”. Policy TACE 2 (C) (i) and paras 8.17-18 are qualified as applying to all predominantly residential areas (those outside the CAZ and the SPAs). These are not the same: see “alternative proposal” for a change to the wording of Policy TACE 2 (C) (i), below. [381] (e) (i) Welcome improvements to this chapter. However, maintain objection as further work needs to be done so that planning powers fully contribute to a balanced management of the entertainment areas and resident amenity.