Greater London Authority Westminster City Council

Home , Westminster Theatre

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

INTO

OBJECTIONS

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. [403]

(f) (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. [729]

(g) (i) It is not agreed that the “recent marked expansion of the evening economy and late night economy has resulted in additional pressures on parts of Westminster, leading to environmental stress, adversely affecting the attractiveness of central London to both visitors and residents.” Westminster has always had and continues to have many entertainment uses. The evidence does not suggest that there has been environmental harm caused by these uses. In any event the provision of more effective policing, transport and litter collection, each of which are the responsibility of public bodies, could go some considerable way towards eradicating what is perceived as being environmental harm. Note that the Government is in the process of reforming the existing liquor licensing regime, which will result in the abolition of justices on-licences and public entertainment licences and introduce a new premises licence for all licensed outlets. In

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 680 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

addition, it will abolish the concept of a “terminal hour” with hours of opening being set on a case by case basis and agreed with the local authority. Evidence from other parts of the country, notably the Isle of Man which deregulated licensing hours last year, would suggest that having a fixed terminal hour results in worse problems than if hours were staggered and consumers had the opportunity to make their own choice of hours. The proposed Government reforms will, therefore, dissipate the concentration of activities and thus reduce the incidence of what the Council might deem to be “hotspots”. If the Development Plan system is to be used, Supplementary Planning Guidance which is far more flexible and can be used for small areas, is more appropriate. Town Centres Ltd recommended smaller Stress Areas than those advanced by the Council. Public opinion does not support the assumptions made within this section and recent opinion polls confirm this point. The police assumptions made within the changes to this paragraph are touched upon by the White Paper Civic Renewal published by Westminster City Council and the response thereto by the Westminster Licensees Association. [843]

(h) (i) Westminster should allow for an additional 6,000 hotel bedrooms. Soho should be allowed adult entertainment at the same level as Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Frankfurt and Paris. [714]

(i) (i) TACE1 and 2: Comments made separately

TACE3: support policy and changes to policy

TACE4: support policy and changes to policy

TACE5: support policy and changes to policy

TACE6: support policy and changes to policy

TACE7: support policy and changes to policy

TACE8: support policy and changes to policy, see separate submission

TACE9: support policy and changes to policy, see separate submission

TACE10: support policy and changes to policy, see separate submission

TACE11: we agree section of TACE 11. But, on 8.71ai, who determines “unacceptably” increase noise levels? With residents above, we support changes to 8.71a.

TACE 12 and 13: support these policies in particular.

Appendix 8.1: Whilst support thrust of policy difficulties could arise:

1) Use of premises changes during day/evening/night restaurants become bars (tables/chairs removed) or discos

2) impossible to control the number of persons on premises without constant checking. [381]

(j) (i) Support objectives to protect amenity, particularly dispersal of entertainment industry outside Westminster. [138]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 681 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(k) (i) In response to your letter of 3rd May, for avoidance of doubt, we confirm that this Working Party supports the UDP policies as set out in the Chapter on Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment in relation to controlling the numbers of A3 and D2 uses. [53]

(m) (i) Supportive of proposals here. [555]

TA00: Summary of Council Response

(a) (i) Support welcomed. It is considered that the City of Westminster’s important tourism role is appropriately reflected in the Plan’s policies, particularly in policy STRA11 and in the policies in the Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment chapter. The plan has to reach an appropriate balance between the many competing uses in Westminster and this is what the Plan’s policies as a whole seek to achieve. [376]

(b) (i) In reviewing the Stress Area boundaries, officers had regard to the views expressed by the Licensing Policy and Procedures Working Group at its meeting on 24th August. The Working Group asked that consideration be given to extending the West End Stress Area boundary north of Oxford Street and west of Regent Street, the Edgware Road Stress Area to include Seymour Place and review the Westbourne Terrace area in the Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area. Officers considered the objections received at First Deposit, mapped the areas (identifying ‘entertainment uses’ in terms of both planning and licensing) and carried out site inspections of the stress areas and environs. General amendments were made to the areas to clarify boundaries e.g. boundaries now run along the middle of the road, where appropriate, to clearly indicate which side of the road is in the stress area. The following changes were recommended to the Planning and Licensing Committee of 15 October and 29th October 2001 in the West End Stress Area:

The boundary has been extended north of Oxford Street to include part of Hanway Place, Hanway Street, and the eastern side of Rathbone Place. The rest of the boundary has been taken approximately one block north of Oxford Street along Eastcastle, Market Place and Great Castle Streets. The boundary has been extended to the west to include parts of Hanover Street, Maddox Street, Conduit Street, Heddon Street, Swallow Street, Vine Street and Air Street. A small area has also been included between Norris and Charles Street. The area bounded by St. Martins Place, William IV Street and Duncannon Street has been removed as there is little concentration or saturation of A3 or entertainment uses in this area.

The Haymarket extension shows a concentration of both A3 and D2 uses which dominates the total uses in this location and is adding to the stress and over concentration of entertainment uses in the West End. Any further substantial growth in this area would exacerbate the current problems and impact on surrounding residential premises.

Both Swallow Street and Air Street show a concentration of A3 uses which dominates the total uses in this location and is adding to the stress and over concentration of entertainment uses in the West End. In Swallow street alone there are three Music and Dance Licences which permit premises to be open to 3am. Even though there appears to be no residential located above, below, adjoining, opposite these premises, any further substantial growth in this area

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 682 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

would exacerbate the current problems and impact on surrounding residential premises from people leaving the premises after closing time. [680]

(c) (i) Comments noted but suggestions are largely beyond the scope of planning control and are related to licensing issues or street services. The City Council has commissioned and published research on the impacts of the entertainment industry in the West End. This has provided further background information, considered international comparisons and has made a number of recommendations across the range of issues relating to the West End which the Council is considering. The Plan can only include policies relating to land use matters. The City Council has increased the resources it commits to enforcement activity.

(ii) The entertainment policy in the first deposit UDP, mainly relating to D2 uses, (policy TCE 8 ) has been revised and combined with policies relating to the control of A3 uses from the shopping chapter - policies SS3 and SS13 - to form 3 policies relating to the location of entertainment uses (policy TACE 8) , the location of large entertainment uses (policy TACE 9) and a policy setting out criteria to assess all entertainment uses (Policy TACE 10). The chapter has been renamed the Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment chapter.

(iii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in paras 8.2a, 8.65b and 8.65c in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster. The rationale for the introduction of the stress areas has been expanded. Stricter control over the location of entertainment uses is necessary in the stress areas for the reasons set out in the Plan. Examples of exceptional circumstances have been outlined in paras 8.63d and 8.71h under both policies TACE 8 and TACE 9. Greater explanation has also been included on the issue of operating/terminal hours. Policy TACE 10 has been framed more positively and sets out clearer criteria against which entertainment use proposals can be assessed. Taken together the policies do allow scope for new/expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met. [770]

(d) (i) Support welcomed. [1]

(e) (i) The partial sentence quoted needs to be read as a whole. It states in para 1.50, “In addition to the large and small hotels in the CAZ there are a considerable number of hotels in predominantly residential parts of Westminster, particularly in Bayswater and Pimlico, in what are otherwise residential streets.” This is not inconsistent with the approach taken in policy TACE 2. However an additional sentence has been added to the end of para 1.50 to clarify the policy approach outside the CAZ as follows: “Within these areas outside the CAZ where existing hotels are causing adverse effects on residential amenity their conversion to housing will be encouraged.” [381]

(f) (i) Further minor changes have been made to policies TACE 8, 9 and 10 to improve the wording following consideration of the objections received. It is considered that the entertainment policies now allow for the management of entertainment in the City and supports sustainable development principles.

(ii) The Plan now aims to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can coexist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 683 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Whilst it is recognised that the entertainment industry is vital to the economy and a World Class City, there is a need to ensure that there is a mix of entertainment uses which caters for the needs of all age groups in the community. If certain areas are dominated by uses which attract the same age groups, for one main purpose, i.e. consumption of alcohol, other groups are deterred from using these areas. The policies allow for management of growth in the entertainment sector. [403]

(g) (i) Support welcomed. [729]

(h) (i) It is the City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can coexist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(iii) Our Towns and Cities: The Future, Delivering an Urban Renaissance (White Paper, November 2000) outlines the Government’s vision for revitalising urban areas and sets out its policies and proposals for achieving this. London is recognised as competing as a global city with diverse communities and differences between the suburbs and the centre of the cities highlighted.

(iv) The Government sets out a vision for the towns and cities. Part of this vision includes making all urban areas attractive, ensuring good design and planning, enabling a more environmentally sustainable way of life, and providing good quality services that meet people’s needs wherever they live.

(v) It emphasises the need to look after the existing urban environment well by stating that ‘The vast majority of the current urban fabric will still be with us in 30 years time. We must care properly for what we have, by tackling litter, graffiti, vandalism and noise; maintaining and improving streets’ (Page 9). Council’s policies on entertainment uses will assist in achieving this aim for Westminster, where currently in some areas the impacts of conflicting uses is causing concern and degrading the street environment. It is considered that there is an adequate supply (e.g. 2,600 A3 uses in Westminster) of entertainment uses in the City and therefore further growth should be limited.

(vi) The City Council has introduced a number of initiatives to tackle the problems arisen particularly in the Stress Areas. i.e. anti-social behaviour, noise, degradation of the street environment. The City Council recognises that it is a combination of planning and licensing Policy and management of the street environment which is required. Planning is the land use tool which allows for the management of current and future land uses. This is a crucial tool for ensuring a balance of mixed uses is provided for residents, visitors and workers. This policy approach works alongside various other Council initiatives e.g. provision of adequate servicing, provision of mobile street urinals, a warden scheme, and enforcement. As it is the entertainment uses which contribute substantially to the late night economy and play a major role in attracting visitors/customers to the West End, there is clearly a link between land use and the impact of uses on

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 684 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

residential amenity and character and function of areas. This is clearly a planning matter which should be addressed in part through Planning policy. The Mayor of London recognises in the draft London Plan that ‘boroughs should ensure that planning, Licensing, policing, transport and street management issues are managed….’

(vii) It would not be appropriate to use Supplementary Planning Guidance to provide the framework to manage growth in entertainment land uses. This is the role of the UDP.

(viii) Stress Areas are defined areas which have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the West End Entertainment Impact Study (2001) which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts. The Mayor’s draft London Plan and SDS Technical Report Six: Late Night London: Planning and Managing the Late Night Economy’ both recognise that the demands and pressures of the night time economy are concentrated in small areas- key parts of central London, especially the West End. The Technical Report acknowledges that entertainment uses are over-concentrated in the West End. (Page 34). The Stress Area concept originated in Westminster City Council in the early 1990s when Stress areas were designated (Soho and Paddington) for enforcement purposes due to the problems associated with the degradation of the Street Environment. These locations were selected both because of the concerns expressed by the public and by Members and because they represented a range of difficulties facing the City Council in maintaining the quality and character of the street environment City-wide. Following consultation during 1999 and serious concerns raised by members of the public on the deterioration of the street environment and impact on residential amenity, the City Council introduced Interim Policies during 2000 which re introduced the stress area concept for Planning and Licensing purposes with policies aimed to manage the growth of A3 /entertainment uses in particular parts of the City. The boundaries of these Stress Areas were incorporated into the First Deposit draft replacement UDP.

(ix) There is currently a ‘saturation’ of entertainment uses in the Stress Areas which are causing conflict with residents, visitors and workers. Saturation is considered to be where there is an over concentration of entertainment uses in an area which then results in environmental stress being present. It relates to the issue of balance where the vitality and viability of an area must be maintained. It is a situation where land use imbalance exists. It is where activity outgrows the capacity for public transport, policing and public services to cope with demand.

(x) The three designated Stress Areas are considered by the City Council to have reached this point of saturation or over concentration where growth needs to be managed to ensure impacts are kept to a minimum. Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. There also may be exceptional circumstances which arise where the terminal hours may be varied. Terminal hours currently vary across the City. Closing times for Music and Dance Licensed premises in the West End vary more than

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 685 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

any other area, with a range of 14 different terminal hours. The majority of licensed venues in the West End close between 03.00 and 04.00 hours. The numbers of licensed venues closing between this time rose dramatically from 45 in 1992 to 144 in 2000. As these variations already occur in closing times of premises, staggered operating hours are considered to already exist in the City. All residents have a right to a good night sleep. There needs to be a ‘window of opportunity’ which allows for this, where noise levels and disturbance are kept to a minimum.

(xi) There is a need for time to service the streets, i.e. street/pavement cleansing and litter collection. This is best carried out when there is a minimum people on the streets. In some parts of the City this window of opportunity is limited, placing pressure on services to deliver.

(xii) In consideration of 27 recent A3 appeal cases the inspectors have imposed conditions relating to hours of operation and in 78% of cases imposed terminal hours of earlier or similar to that contained in the draft replacement UDP. [843]

(i) (i) Westminster has over 40% of London’s existing bedspaces and 17% of all London’s new hotel rooms have been provided in Westminster since 1995. Policy STRA 11 and the reasoned justification have been revised to update the information on the supply of hotel bedspaces in London and Westminster. It is not appropriate to include the target suggested for Westminster and no justification is given for this level of supply. No justification or information is put forward as to why Soho should have the same level of adult entertainment as in the other cities mentioned. The policy approach to hotels is set out in STRA 11 and policies TACE 1 to 3 and to sex-related uses is set out in policy TACE 13. [714]

(j) (i) Support welcomed. [28]

(k) (i) Support for TACE 3-7, TACE 8-10, TACE 12 & 13 welcomed. [381]

(l) (i) Support welcomed. [138] [53] [555]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.0.1 This group of objections is very wide-ranging and general in nature. Consequently, the majority of these objections have been addressed and modifications to the UDP recommended elsewhere in this report. I intend accordingly to review and summarise my conclusions on Policies TACE 1-13 (inclusive) and indicate under each heading which of the above objections is thereby addressed and considered.

8.0.2 Policy TACE 1: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 1(A-C). The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [381][714]

8.0.2 Policy TACE 2: My recommendation here is for the substantial adoption of the Pre- Inquiry Version of TACE 2(A-B), subject to a more precise definition of the limitations and restrictions to be applied to development outside the CAZ. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [381][403][729][770]

8.0.3 Policy TACE 3: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 3, subject to the inclusion in the UDP Glossary of certain terms used in its

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 686 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

supporting text. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [376][381]

8.0.4 Policy TACE 4: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 4 and its supporting text. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [381]

8.0.5 Policy TACE 5: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 5, and its supporting text. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [1][376][381]

8.0.6 Policy TACE 6: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 6, and its supporting text. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [376][381]

8.0.7 Policy TACE 7: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 7, and its supporting text. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [381][555]

8.0.8 Policies TACE 8-10: My recommendation here is for the deletion of all three Policies and their supporting text and their replacement by revised versions. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [1][28][376][680][843]

8.0.9 Policy TACE 11: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 11, and its supporting text. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [NA]

8.0.10 Policy TACE 12: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 12, and its supporting text. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [NA]

8.0.11 Policy TACE 13: My recommendation here is for the adoption of the Pre-Inquiry Version of TACE 13, and its supporting text. The general Chapter 8 objections thereby addressed appear to me to be: [NA].

Recommendations

R8.0.1 No recommendations in response to the above objections (but see TA01-10)

TA01: Protection of Existing Hotels

Objectors and Supporters

10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association) 28 London Tourist Board 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 403 Councillor Barbara Grahame 680 The Crown Estate 706 City and Central Developments 724 Grosvenor Limited

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 687 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Amend policy to recognise that certain small scale hotels may no longer be economic and alternative uses may be preferable, such as residential use. The policy and the reasoned justification should be amended to address this issue. [724]

(b) (i) Support revised paragraph 8.10a. TACE 1 (A) and (B) paragraphs 8.1 and 8.7. Suggest (C) is amended to read, "Bayswater and Pimlico, to encourage hotels to improve their methods of operation to bring about improvements to local amenity." [28] [706]

(d) (i) Hotels should be acceptable outside the central area. [403]

(e) (i) Delete the words "where existing hotels are causing adverse effects on residential amenity" at the end of Policy TACE 1 (C). [706]

(f) (i) Support strongly. [10] [381]

TA01: Summary of Council Responses

(a) (i) Given the demanding targets set by the Government and most recently by the Mayor in the draft London Plan of an additional 36,000 bedrooms to be provided in London by 2016 and for the reasons set out in the Plan, it is necessary to have a clear and robust policy on protecting the existing hotel stock in Westminster. If certain small scale hotels are no longer viable then this would need to be argued in relation to the individual circumstances of the case, rather than being set out as an amendment to the general principle of protecting existing hotels, which do not have adverse effects on residential amenity set out in the policy. No change considered appropriate. [724]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. No further change considered necessary. [28] [706]

(ii) The City Council wishes to retain (C) as there are areas of over-concentration of hotels in Westminster which have eroded the residential function and character of these. Such erosion of character can only be reversed by the change of use of some of these to residential use. The suggested wording does however provide a pro-active approach which can be applied to all hotels which may be causing adverse impacts on residential amenity and the wording has been added to the policy application. [28] [706]

(c) (i) It is necessary to have a clear and robust policy to protect existing hotels. Special circumstances may arise during the lifetime of the new plan that may justify an exception to the general policy approach set out in Policy TACE 1 in relation to individual proposals. [680]

(d) (i) Policy TACE 1 generally protects hotels outside the central area which do not give rise to adverse effects on residential amenity. Under policy TACE 2 small scale extensions to existing hotels may also be acceptable outside the central area. The incorporation of the findings of the NW Westminster study into the Second Deposit Plan allows a more positive approach to new hotels in NW Westminster and policy TACE 2 has been amended accordingly. [403]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 688 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(e) (i) The adopted policy THE 6 was simplified and made more concise to form policy TACE 1. However an additional sentence has been added to the policy application to explain that hotels which are not purpose built and do not have adequate servicing are more likely to generate adverse effects. No further change considered appropriate. [706]

(f) (i) Support welcomed. [10] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.1.1 The first thing to note is that Policy TACE 1 specifically and explicitly addresses the issue of giving policy protection to existing hotels in Westminster. The Policy governing the extension or establishment of existing or new hotels is Policy TACE 2 and the clear distinction between the two must be borne in mind in addressing the respective objections. The LPA argues that the maintenance of any existing hotel accommodation, across the range of prices and standards of accommodation, is vital to the role of Westminster as a World City and in support of the many cultural and retail attrctions that it offers. From a planning perspective, the merits of retaining existing uses in the face of competitive pressures has long been a material consideration. All that TACE 1 requires is that there be a strong presumption in favour of retaining the pool of hotel accommodation in the light of the emergent London Plan’s Policy 3D.7 to achieve an additional 36 000 hotel bedrooms by 2016. The fact that the latter Policy has not attracted comment in the EiP Panel Report (July 2003) suggests that it will form part of the future Tourism Strategy.

8.1.2 Policy TACE 1, correctly in my view, implicitly stresses the urgent need to safeguard residential amenity. The fact that hotels are quasi-residential in character (Use Class C1) does not disguise the fact that they may often pose problems of noise, activity and disturbance, especially at unsocial hours. They are unusual in providing a mix of residential and employment floorspace but are not thereby “sustainable development” in the sense of generally reducing the need for travel to and from work or by reducing the length of individual journeys to work. On the contrary, they may by virtue of largely catering for a transient population and a non-resident workforce generate trips which, although largely accommodated by public transport, will nevertheless put pressure on local on-street parking and also give rise to specific problems of vehicular servicing. These problems are likely to be most acute when converted rather than purpose-built premises are in use. Accordingly, I fully support the references to residential or neighbourhood amenity in Policy TACE 1(B-C).

8.1.3 I accordingly conclude that the Policy is adequately flexible to balance the needs of preserving hotel accommodation against the possible adverse local impact on amenity. It is clear that the Policy will need to be read in conjunction with all other relevant Policies when any alternative replacement uses are being considered (eg TRANS 20-23 and (esp) DES 9 - 10). Considerations such as the viability of the existing hotel use will naturally be taken into account with matters such as the range and nature of accommodation offered as well as the scarcity or concentration of Class C1 uses in the neighbourhood. These considerations will also loom large in areas such as Bayswater where there may be a preponderence of converted properties whose reversion to residential use may be of benefit to the character and appearance of such areas. There seems to me to be no purpose in adding the words suggested in the relevant objections [28, 706] since these are merely exhorations and, as such, are not easily capable of implementation in the normal course of development control.

Recommendations

R8.1.1 Modify Policy TACE 1 (A-C) in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 689 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

R8.1.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 1 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TA02: New Hotels and Extensions

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 2 Greater London Authority 10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association) 28 London Tourist Board 90 Portman Estates 108 Society of London Theatre 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 269 St James Homes 376 London First 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 555 Glen Suarez 680 The Crown Estate 706 City and Central Developments 719 Charlotte Street Association 724 Grosvenor Limited 729 Bass Hotels and Resorts 790 The Berkeley Group

TA02: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Suggest that a more flexible approach is adopted: new hotels should be permitted outside the CAZ where the servicing and traffic situation is satisfactory and there are no adverse effects on local residential amenity. Needs and effects of different forms of visitor accommodation are different. The policy should be worded more flexibly. [1] [2] [253] [376] [680] [724]

(b) (i) (Para 8.17 - line 5) suggest re-wording:

(ii) "Maybe acceptable, provided there are no adverse effects on residential amenity and no loss of permanent residential accommodation."

(iii) (Para 8.18 - line 4) omit the word "lounges" - it is debatable whether a 'lounge' is an upgrading. Some hoteliers may turn 'lounges' into bedrooms. [10] [729]

(c) (i) We object to TACE 2 (B) in that it is too restrictive. Object to the inclusion of the words "small scale". Recommend insertion of "or redevelopment of" between the words "to" and "existing"; and deletion of the words "of a small-scale and" between the words "are" and "linked". [706]

(d) (i) Policy should be made more positive towards small hotels. There is a shortage of hotel accommodation within the capital. RPG3 supports the above strategy. [90]

(e) (i) Reword Policy TACE 2 to state that planning permission for new hotels will be considered in the case of mixed use schemes, where the hotel use is not the predominant use. [269] [790]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 690 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(f) (i) The policy needs to take a more positive line and encourage the provision of new hotel and tourist accommodation. In a 24 hour city such as London and given the need to support patrons on a 24 hour basis, there should be minimal control over matters that are likely to constrain operational activities of hotels, particularly those within the CAZ. [1] [108]

(g) (i) It is considered that the Mayor's approach and the City Council’s desire to quote from it should provide greater flexibility for hotel use around the CAZ fringe and hinterland (not presently found in Policy TACE 2). [90]

(h) (i) Welcome the Council's response that "Special circumstances may arise during the lifetime of the new plan that may justify an exception to the general policy approach set in Policy TACE 2 in relation to individual proposals for new hotels". However, this should be reflected in the Plan so that applications would not be refused 'prima facie' because they are against the general policy approach. [28]

(i) (i) The cumulative effect of a concentration of hotels should be identified as a factor in assessing applications. The omission of the requirement to provide staff accommodation cannot be reconciled with policy H 4(E). [719]

(j) (i) Policy supported. [381] [10]

(k) (i) I am supportive of proposals here. [555]

(l) (i) Supported with reservations. In Policy TACE 2 B (i), the words “linked to the upgrading of the hotel” are important and should be maintained in the policy with emphasis. Reason: paragraph 8.18 and recent decisions appear not to prevent “small scale extensions” which mainly consist of additional bedrooms. In our opinion, additional bedrooms should always be accompanied by improvements to the pre-existing hotel. We would have objected if the link to upgrading were not an integral part of policy TACE 2 (B). [381]

TA02: Summary of Council Responses

(a) (i) The policy has been amended to incorporate the findings of the NW Westminster Planning Study and as set out in policy TACE 2 (B) to allow for the provision of new hotels in the new NW Westminster SPA in view of their potential contribution to regeneration, including local employment opportunities, in this area (see also chapter 5 of the Plan). A more flexible approach has also been taken to small extensions to existing hotels under part (C) of the policy compared to the adopted UDP policies on hotels in recognition of the more positive approach towards hotel provision in RPG3. However the City Council's priority outside the defined areas, under parts (A) and (B) of the policy, is to maximise housing provision and to amend the policy as suggested would not accord with this priority. Special circumstances may arise during the lifetime of the new plan that may justify an exception to the general policy approach set out in Policy TACE 2 in relation to individual proposals for new hotels.

(ii) The City Council is supportive of the spreading of the benefits of tourism to areas outside Westminster (see para 8.27), which have good transport links and which are appropriate to accommodate such development. The policy approach in the UDP assists this dispersal in the London-wide context. No further change considered necessary. [1] [2] [253] [376] [680] [724]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 691 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(b) (i) The suggested wording largely repeats (iii) in Policy TACE 2 and would be superfluous. The word 'generally' has however been included within line 5 of para 8.17 to indicate that there may be occasions when such proposals will be unacceptable. The provision of lounge facilities could assist in increased quality offered by hotel accommodation and it is considered appropriate to include it as an example of upgrading in para 8.18. No further change considered appropriate. [10] [729]

(c) (i) A small scale extension is likely to have less adverse effect on residential amenity than a larger extension. Policy TACE 2 (B) does not preclude redevelopment of an existing hotel incorporating an extension. [706]

(d) (i) The policy has been amended to incorporate the findings of the NW Westminster Planning Study and as set out in Policy TACE 2 (B) to allow for the provision of new hotels in the new NW Westminster SPA in view of their potential contribution to regeneration, including local employment opportunities, in this area (see also chapter 5 of the Plan). A more flexible approach has also been taken to small extensions to existing hotels under (C) of the policy compared to the adopted UDP policies on hotels in recognition of the more positive approach towards hotel provision in RPG3. However the City Council's priority outside the defined areas under parts (A) and (B) of the policy is to maximise housing provision and to amend the policy as suggested would not accord with this priority. Special circumstances may arise during the lifetime of the new plan that may justify an exception to the general policy approach set out in policy TACE 2 in relation to individual proposals for new hotels. [90]

(e) (i) See response (d). [269] [790]

(f) (i) The policy is framed in a positive manner towards hotel development within the CAZ and sets out clearly the criteria which will be used to assess the suitability of individual proposals. Over 40% of London's accommodation stock is already contained within Westminster. Para 8.15 is prefaced by 'where appropriate' to indicate some flexibility in seeking to control functional areas within hotels. Adequate controls are necessary to help control potential late night impacts. [1] [108]

(g) (i) See response (a). [90]

(h) (i) Support welcomed but no further change considered appropriate. [28]

(i) (i) It is recognised that a concentration of hotels in non-residential streets within the CAZ could influence the character and function of an area but it can be difficult in practice to assess the cumulative effect of individual proposals. If a proposal generated material adverse environmental and traffic effects this would be assessed using the first criterion under policy TACE 2.

(ii) The policy on staff accommodation was deleted as a result of the recommendations of a hotel study by Arups, commissioned by the City Council in May 1998, as there appeared to be no justification for treating hotels differently from other businesses operating on a 24 hour basis in London. Policy H4 (E) applies to all relevant employers including the hospitality and catering industries. [719]

(j – l) (i) Support welcomed. [381] [555] [381] [10]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 692 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.2.1 Policy TACE 2 has clearly gone through substantial revision since the First Deposit and several of the objections have been met. Moreover, the Policy as it is now seems to be in substantial conformity with that of the London Plan (Policy 3D.7). The latter seeks 36, 000 additional bedspaces by 2016, which suggests that anywhere between about 6,000 and some 14,000 extra bedspaces will be needed in Westminster itself, depending upon whether the longer term or more recent trends in locational clustering take effect over the next 10-15 years. This may well equate to something between 50-150 new establishments and it is clearly the LPA’s policy intention that these should locate either in the CAZ or the PSPA, having regard to their demanding locational characteristics and their need for good accessibility, especially by public transport. From the latter perspective, I would reckon the developmental hot spots are likely to be Paddington, Victoria and Piccadilly, traditional locations for hotels and fully consistent with the strategic policy of the London Plan, provided always that the phasing of travel infrastructure, notably Crossrail, is adequately taken into account.

8.2.2 The corollary of restricting future hotel development in Central London and in Westminster in particular is an obvious desire of the GLA to see that increased tourist accommodation locates elsewhere in Greater London (see the commentary under the Policy 3D.7 panel). As far as Westminster is concerned, I think that the UDP has interpreted its strategic role correctly ie by identifying the preferred locations to be the CAZ, the CAZ Frontages (however these may be defined following my earlier recommendations), the Opportunity Areas (ie PSPA), Areas of Intensification (Victoria is largely within the CAZ) and fringe CAZ areas (in this context; the NWWSPA). Beyond these spatial limits, I would judge it unwise to encourage much further major hotel development, given the amount and character of traffic generation likely to be occasioned, the possible displacement of valuable residential accommodation and, above all, the sheer unsustainability of creating significant employment opportunities in places not very well served by public transport.

8.2.3 However, I believe that there is some force in the objections which allege a degree of inflexibility in TACE 2. My view is that the Policy is not so much inflexible as imprecise as it affects the extension of existing hotel premises, especially outside the CAZ and other such preferred locations. TACE 2(C), in particular, needs to be modified more precisely to define what is meant by (i) “small-scale” (ii) “intensified” and (iii) “loss of….residential accommodation”. It seems to me that there may be cases, given the existence of large numbers of hotels outside the CAZ, where it would be positively beneficial to allow hotels to extend if planning advantages, such as better parking and servicing provision, were achieved or where they might form part of mixed (Class C1-C3) use development. In other words, the probable limitations implict in TACE 2(C)(b)(i-iii) ought to be more closely quantified. Since I have no evidence before me to suggest what these parameters might be, I make my relevant recommendation in very general terms and leave it to the LPA suitably to modify the Policy.

Recommendations

R8.2.1 Modify Policy TACE 2 (A-B) in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

R8.2.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 2 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

R8.2.3 Modify Policy TACE 2(C)(b)(i-iii) in order more precisely to define the limitations and restrictions to be applied to extensions of existing hotels, outside the CAZ, with consequential further modifications to the supporting text.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 693 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TA03: Temporary Sleeping Accommodation and Permanent Residential Use

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 64 Shaftesbury PLC 108 Society of London Theatre 141 Burford Group plc 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 376 London First 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 555 Glen Suarez 724 Grosvenor Limited

TA03: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) The policy places excessive weight on achieving residential reversions in all cases. [1] [724]

(b) (i) Temporary sleeping accommodation, in particular short-let and serviced accommodation, is an important part of London's infrastructure as a world class capital. The policy does not recognise this importance and is too restrictive. [1] [376]

(c) (i) There needs to be a policy that positively support the retention and provision of temporary sleeping accommodation within the CAZ and wider central area, close to where it is needed and without undermining residential areas beyond the CAZ and wider central area. [64] [108] [141] [724]

(d) (i) Policy far too restrictive should allow for flexible approach to account for needs of London's role as one of the world's most important capital cities. [253]

(e) (i) Supportive of proposals here. [555] [381]

TA03: Summary of Council Responses

(a) (i) The policy reflects the City Council's desire for buildings that were originally built for residential use to return to housing use. The reason for this is to maximise the amount of housing within the City. See also response to this objector under policy H3. The policy approach of TACE 3 is consistent with policies in the Housing Chapter of the UDP. As stated in para 8.31 " Proposals for purpose-built short term letting accommodation, including apart-hotels, and for the conversion of buildings from non-residential use to short term letting use will be considered under policy TACE 2." [1] [724]

(b) (i) The Plan recognises the contribution that this form of accommodation makes. Policy TACE 3 has been revised to refer to the control of temporary sleeping accommodation formerly in permanent residential use. All proposals for purpose-built short term letting accommodation or conversion of buildings in non- residential use to temporary sleeping accommodation will be considered under policy TACE 2 on hotels and a cross-reference has been added to para 8.31 to clarify this. [1] [376]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 694 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(d) (i) Disagree. Each case is considered on its own merits: see response (b). [253]

(e) (i) Support welcomed. [555] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.3.1 Policy TACE 3 is admirably brief in its formulation if slightly at odds with its stated aim (paragraph 8.30). The proper aim of the Policy seems to me (judging by the supporting text) to be one of resisting the creeping change from Use Class C3 to C1 by way of the intermediary stage of conversion to short-term lettings. The problems of losing residential accommodation were clearly reflected in the private acts obtained by the former GLC in 1973 and 1984. The LPA recognise the benefits, to tourism, of authorising the development of premises for short-term use, such as time-share accommodation and apart-hotels. Such proposals fall to be considered under TACE 2, which rather reinforces my misgivings about the lack of precision that that Policy offers to intending developers (see TA02 above). I would also add that the term “apart-hotel” is not defined in the UDP’s very useful Glossary and perhaps it should be, given the novelty of this development form, to which I elsewhere refer (see CA03) as a possibly sustainable form of live-work accommodation.

8.3.2 I do not consider that any modification of Policy TACE 3 itself is needed in the face of the objections, on the assumption that Policy TACE 2(C) is suitably modified in the way I have earlier recommended. Equally, I see no special merit in adopting a Policy that more positively “encourages” the creation of temporary sleeping accommodation, given the flexible and judicious application of Policies H1-H3 and TACE 2. It seems to me that market forces may very well stimulate such development; the UDP’s proper purpose is to make sure that the provision of such accommodation does not lead to an indirect and unwelcome erosion of the housing stock, in conflict with the very clear strategic aims of the GLA’s London Plan and the UDP itself. The only modifications I think necessary are, firstly, a re-wording of the Aim of Policy TACE 3 and, secondly, an adequate and succinct definition of the terms “Temporary Sleeping Accommodation”, “Time-Share Accommodation” and “Apart-Hotels” in the Glossary so that applicants (and the public at large) are fully aware of the planning implications of such relatively novel uses of land and buildings.

Recommendations

R8.3.1 Modify Policy TACE 3 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

R8.3.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 3 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

R8.3.3 Modify paragraph 8.30 of the UDP more closely to describe the Aim of Policy TACE 3 as it intended to restrict changes of use from dwellings to hotels.

R8.3.4 Modify the Glossary in the UDP by inclusion of a clear definition of the terms used in the supporting text to Policy TACE 3.

TA04: Conference and Related Facilities

Objectors and Supporters

2 Greater London Authority 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 555 Glen Suarez

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 695 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TA04: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) TACE 4(B) is too restrictive. Westminster should adopt a criteria based approach rather than blanket resistance and should apply the policy flexibly. [2] [253]

(b) (i) Supportive of proposals here. [555] [381]

TA04: Summary of Council Response

(a) (i) The policy clearly indicates where major conference and exhibition are appropriate in Westminster. This accords with RPG3. The recent extension to the Hilton Metropole Hotel in the PSPA in Westminster forms the largest conference hotel in Europe and is an example of the positive approach taken by the City Council to improving London's stock of convention facilities. The areas outside those specified in the policy are not appropriate for major conference facilities, especially facilities that might cater for 3,000 people, due to their predominantly or wholly residential nature. The intensification of existing facilities in such areas would also generally exacerbate adverse environmental effects. [2] [253]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. [555] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.4.1 The objections that Policy TACE 4(B) is unduly restrictive and that Policy TACE 4 itself will not be flexibly implemented are not supported. The evidence of the LPA is that significant conference facilities have been provided in the PSPA and this strongly suggests an adequacy of flexible response. I support the contention that new or extended conference facilities, given their spatial demands and need for extremely good accessibility, particularly by public tramnsport, should be confined to the CAZ and the PSPA. In many ways, conferencing is an activity akin to and closely assocaited with hotel accomodation. Undoubtedly, the optimum solution is to combine the two functions in the interest of sustainability and the restriction of unnecessary movement and travel. For that reason, I consider that Policy TACE 4 should be, and in fact is, consistent with Policy TACE 2 (even allowing for the further modification to the latter that I earlier recommend (see TA02)).

Recommendations

R8.1.1 Modify Policy TACE 4 (A-B) in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

R8.1.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 4 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TA05: Arts and Cultural Uses

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 20 Covent Garden Area Trust 108 Society of London Theatre 157 Cinema Exhibitors Association 370 TheTheatres Trust

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 696 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

376 London First 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 555 Glen Suarez 680 The Crown Estate 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1 748 British Land Company PLC 785 Delancey Group plc

TA05: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Policy is too prescriptive and inflexible. The policy does not recognise that the change of use of buildings from arts or cultural uses will be appropriate in certain circumstances and should be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that there is no demand for the use, or where the premises have become obsolete.

(ii) The changes made to (B) are welcomed insofar as they go some way towards encouraging the provision of arts and cultural uses within the CAZ and other appropriate areas. However, the cinema industry is highly cyclical in nature. While this change will allow for expansion in times of increased capacity and turnover the inflexibility offered by (A) does not allow for contraction in less prosperous times.

(iii) The inclusion of paragraph 8.41a is noted. It is not considered that simply monitoring structural changes in the theatrical and cinematic industries is likely to allow this policy to be sufficiently responsive to changes in the market, particularly if there is no reference to this facility for review within the policy itself. Change (B) to read “there would be no significant adverse effects on residential amenity”. [1] [108] [157] [376] [680] [695]

(b) (i) The policy places too much emphasis on the residential issues which is the wrong priority so far as the CAZ or CAZ frontages are concerned. It is simply unrealistic to require or expect theatre uses not to have an impact upon residential environments and as such the policy should be amended to require schemes to have "no undue adverse effects".

(ii) The policy completely ignores the primary function of the West End and the importance to the city of Theatreland activities.

(iii) The policy application should be amended to provide for the positive consideration of the expansion, repair and development of cultural uses in para 8.42. Many theatres will require upgrading over the period of the plan to bring them up to a standard demanded by the international theatregoer. New WC provision, larger foyers and meeting new access standards all raise complex development and historic building issues. Positive support should be provided by these policies over those in the Design chapter. [108]

(c) (i) The clarification in the second bullet point in TACE 5 (A) is welcome. However, the proposed alteration does not recognise the importance of cross subsidy between the arts ands cultural venues and commercial development. This policy also ignores the potential benefits that theatres and other arts facilities can secure through promoting commercial facilities affiliated to the use, e.g. bars and restaurants. Some arts and cultural uses are not subsidised and may not be viable. This policy will simply restrict the flexibility required by this sector when seeking new accommodation, and seeking to release value through commercial development of existing sites. The background reasoning should acknowledge

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 697 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

these potential benefits to cultural and arts facilities, as certainty over the issue will help organisations plan more positively for future investment with some degree of comfort that what is proposed will be positively supported. [108]

(d) (i) The reference to the arts and cultural sectors is welcomed as is the reference to structural changes to the theatrical sector. This paragraph should be strengthened with reference to specific organisations such as SOLT and The Theatres Trust to make the position clearer for all parties in the process. [108]

(e) (i) Support the aim to protect arts and cultural uses. However, lack of flexibility in policy in relation to the loss of cinemas does not recognise the changing demands and expectations of cinema goers. [748] [785]

(f) (i) Policy TACE 5 (B) is also important in Covent Garden, particularly in terms of "no adverse effects on residential amenity". [20]

(g) (i) Amend last line to read……’for the provision of a new cultural or additional space or facilities for an existing cultural use, or, for the repair of a listed building’. Additional facilities can be of great value and in some cases more relevant than a separate new venue. [370]

(h) (i) Amend bullet points :

- they are compatible with the character and function of the area;

- there are no severe adverse effects on residential amenity and there are no severe adverse environmental or traffic effects. It is unreasonable to expect that a new arts to cultural use could have no adverse effect on these issues, although they should clearly be minimised. Amend to ‘undue adverse effects’.

(ii) Para 8.42 says that the Council may ask for provision of a new cultural use as planning gain. We support this and have already suggested that this should be made explicit at STRA 6. [370]

(i) (i) Supportive of proposals here [555] [381]

TA05: Summary of Council Response

(a) (i) It is necessary to have a clear and robust policy to protect arts and cultural uses in Westminster for the reasons set out in the Plan. The specific circumstances will still be taken into account in applying the policy in practice in relation to individual cases. It is not considered appropriate to incorporate further flexibility within the policy. Para 8.41a states importantly that " It will monitor and take into account structural changes in the theatrical and cinematic industries in applying policy TACE 5", so structural changes in the cinematic industry will not only be monitored but taken into account in applying the policy. [1] [108] [157] [376] [680] [695]

(b) (i) This general approach to safeguarding arts and cultural uses is carried forward from the adopted UDP and is necessary for the reasons set out in the Plan. However a sentence has been added to the policy application to refer to liaison with the cinematic and theatrical industries and the monitoring of structural change as it affects cinemas and theatres in Westminster. The particular merits of individual proposals would be taken into account in applying the policy.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 698 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Part (B) of the policy has been amended to be made more positive and to introduce more flexibility by deleting the word 'only' from the policy.

(iii) The importance of 'Theatreland' has been emphasised with additional text under the specific theatres policy,TACE 6, in paras 8.49 to 8.49b.

(iv) More flexibility has also been introduced within the text under policy TACE 6 on theatres and greater recognition given to resolving the issues relating to the upgrading of theatres whilst maintaining the theatrical heritage. [108]

(ii) This general approach to safeguarding arts and cultural uses is carried forward from the adopted UDP and is necessary for the reasons set out in the Plan. The particular merits of individual proposals would be taken into account in applying the policy. The second bullet under policy TACE 5 has been clarified to make clear it relates to commercial developments unrelated to an arts or cultural use. [108]

(d) (i) Support for change welcomed. However it is not considered appropriate to specifically mention SOLT and The Theatres Trust in this paragraph as there is a wide range and number of organisations within the arts and cultural sectors in Westminster that could also be mentioned as part of the Council's liaison activity. [108]

(e) (i) A sentence has been added to the policy application to refer to liaison with the cinematic and theatrical industries and the monitoring of structural change as it affects cinemas and theatres in Westminster. The particular merits of individual proposals would be taken into account in applying the policy. The second bullet under policy TACE 5 has been clarified to make clear it relates to commercial developments unrelated to an arts or cultural use. [748] [785]

(f) (i) Policy TACE 5 (B) applies within Covent Garden as this area is within the Central Activities Zone. [20]

(g) (i) The suggested amendment has been incorporated within para 8.42 of the Plan. [370]

(h) (i) New arts and cultural development may generate some adverse environmental or traffic effects. However, in considering individual proposals adverse effects would only be taken into account in so far as they are material to the individual case. The qualification 'severe' would make the policy less clear and lead to debate as to what is severe. No change considered appropriate. [370]

(i) (i) Support welcomed. [555] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.5.1 Policy TACE 5 is concerned with the generality of art and cultural uses and facilities in Westminster. Specifically theatrical activities are the subject of Policy TACE 6 and the relevant objections will be considered later under that heading. I note that certain objectives [20, 180, 370] have been met by alterations to the Policy and supporting text and these are endorsed. The objection that the Policy leans too far in the direction of residential amenity considerations is not supported. It is implicit in the practice of development control that any

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 699 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

“adverse effects” on residential interests (or indeed any other interests of acknowledged inportance, to use the erstwhile PPG1 phraseology) will be assessed judiciously and with due regard to the competing claims of developmental benefits to the public at large. For this reason I do not think it right to qualify Policy TACE5(B)(2). Apart from anything else, to do so would be to introduce a undesirable degree of uncertainty, rather than added flexibility, into the application of the Policy.

8.5.2 Since artistic and (other) cultural activities are one of the key features in Westminster’s justifiable claim to World City status, it is important that Policy TACE 5 is implemented in such a way as to respond to changing fashions and the practical needs of such activity and the accommodation that is provided for it. I am satisfied that Policies TACE 5 (A-B) in particular will be used in a way that fully recognises changes in the provision of such facilities, cinemas being a particular case in point. Paragraph 8.41a of the supporting text has been inserted for precisely this reason and I endorse its inclusion. It is equally important that the Policy and its implementation within the CAZ have regard to the special character and traditional function of the CAZ sub-areas. These are defined and described in Chapter 1 of the UDP and I have elsewhere commended their usefulness in the exercise of development control.

8.5.3 There is an undoubted tendency and need to allow certain commercial uses and activities to be introduced in support of cultural facilities, especially where the latter are not the recipients of public subsidy. Conversely, as the LPA correctly points out, there may be occasions, as witness the concept of so-called enabling development (see CD17/11), where the authorisation of commercial or profitable uses might properly call for the provision of non- profitable facilities for the benefit of maintaining or preserving historic buildings, the provision of cultural venues or, indeed, many other forms of justifiable and appropriate planning gain or advantage. This is of recognised propriety and the well-known case of the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden is merely the most outstanding, local and celebrated recent example of how the Policy may very well be properly exercised, for the benefit of the public, during the currency of the Review UDP.

Recommendations

R8.5.1 Modify Policy TACE 5 (A-C) in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

R8.5.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 5 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TA06: Theatres

Objectors and Supporters

9 Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission 108 Society of London Theatre 338 Save London Theatres Campaign 370 The Theatres Trust 555 Glen Suarez 680 The Crown Estate 695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1 757 Gascoyne Estate 759 The Thorney Island Society 813 Grosvenor Casinos

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 700 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TA06: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Alter the policy to present a more flexible approach which would allow for responses to changing market conditions within the scope of the general policy objective of promoting central London activities within the CAZ. [680]

(b) (i) At paras 8.47 and 8.50 the Theatres Trust should read The Theatres Trust. There are three Grade I listed theatres (The Royal Opera House, and the Theatres Royal in Drury Lane and the Haymarket), and ten at Grade II*. [370]

(c) (i) The inflexibility of this policy is likely to have serious implications for the viability of buildings or premises that have previously been used as theatres within Westminster, as a result of its impact on the capital value of land and buildings. The policy takes no account of demand for new theatres. The theatrical industry is cyclical in nature and, while it should be supported and encouraged, it cannot necessarily expand unless there is an identified demand to support the viability of a new theatre.

(ii) Similarly, the policy takes no account of either building obsolescence or the fact that former theatres may have been altered to such a degree that their re-use as a theatre would not be viable. The policy should aim to maintain facilities where possible and practical but allow for alternative uses in appropriate circumstances which are appropriate to the objectives of the CAZ. [370] [680] [695]

(d) (i) Removal of the compulsory replacement of theatres on a seat for seat basis is welcomed. The flexibility added by new sentences is also welcomed. However, the policy should place more weight on qualitative rather than quantitative criteria. [108]

(e) (i) The wording of the proposed policy TACE 6 is unduly restrictive in that it prevents consideration of alternative proposals for uses of buildings which have previously been used as theatres. Revert to policy in adopted Plan. [757] [813]

(f) (i) Because size standards both for individual seats within an auditorium and for ancillary facilities (e.g. bar space per ticket holder and number of WCs per ticket holder) have greatly increased since most currently existing theatres were built, a theatre of matching overall volume would now have considerably fewer seats.

(ii) The type and style of theatre now needed is also subject to change and increased education and rehearsal space may be a greater priority than seat numbers. For these reasons we suggest this wording for 8.48:

“In very exceptional circumstances, where the City Council accepts that an existing theatre can be redeveloped, a suitable replacement theatre will be required and must be provided with a stated period.

The replacement theatre must be of an appropriate quality and have at least an equal volume wholly dedicated to live theatre use, but this may include rehearsal, education and necessary front and back of house facilities. It must have equally good accessibility ad visibility as the existing theatre and be fully equipped to cater for live theatrical productions.” [338] [370]

(g) (i) Please insert "and the Save London's Theatres Campaign" in line 3. [338]

(h) (i) We welcome this policy and the revised text. [370]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 701 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(i) (i) I am supportive of proposals here. [555]

(j) (i) We welcome the strong policy on the retention of theatres, and in particular the expanded supporting text mentioning their historic character and listed status. We welcome the strong policy on retention of theatres, and suggest that the historic character of these buildings and listed status of many, is an additional attraction for visitors to Westminster. [9]

(k) (i) The Thorney Island Society wishes to express its support for the policy of not allowing changes in the use of buildings built as theatres. The Society trusts that an exception will not be made for the Westminster Theatre. [759]

TA06: Summary of Council Response

(a) (i) See responses to policy TACE 5 And TACE 6 to this objector [680]

(b) (i) Text amended. There are seven Grade II* listed buildings which are also theatres in Westminster. [370]

(c) (i) It is not considered appropriate to amend the policy further as suggested. The references to consultees in para 8.47 is in response to objections from other respondents and is not an exclusive list. The reasoned justification to the policy in para 8.48 has been expanded to indicate greater flexibility in how the policy is applied to replacement theatres. The policy is still necessary for the reasons set out in the Plan. [370] [680] [695]

(d) (i) Support for amendments noted. It is not considered appropriate to amend the policy further. It is noted that The Theatres Trust has withdrawn its objection to this aspect of the Plan. [108]

(e) (i) The approach of policy TACE 6 has been incorporated from the adopted Plan. The main difference has been the omission of the word 'normally' within the policy to set out more clearly the requirements of the policy. Section 54A of the 1990 Act states that planning proposals will be dealt with in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As stated in para 1.8 in the Introduction to the Plan, " A key change from the adopted UDP is the presentation of the policies themselves. Policies have been reworded, where possible, to set out their requirements more clearly. In writing policies in this way we have tried not to use phrases like ‘subject to other policies in the Plan’ and words like ‘normally’. In particular, we have avoided using the word normally to avoid any confusion as to the operation of Section 54A of the 1990 Act which, in its own terms, embraces other material considerations."

(ii) The reasoned justification to the policy in para 8.48 has been expanded to indicate greater flexibility in how the policy is applied to replacement theatres. [757] [813]

(f) (i) It is not considered the suggested volumetric test could be readily and practically applied as suggested. Instead Para 8.48 has been amended to indicate greater flexibility generally in applying the policy in relation to replacement theatres. It now states that 'the City Council will take into account the particular circumstances of individual proposals and may consider a reduction in seating capacity if demonstrated to be vital to enable accessibility and visibility improvements or to enable qualitative improvements to the standard of

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 702 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

performance space and related operational areas. These may include rehearsal, education and necessary front and back of house facilities.' This covers most of the other points raised in this objection. [338] [370]

(g) (i) Amendment made at Second Deposit and so objection met. [338]

(h) (i) Support welcomed. [370] [555]

(j) (i) Support welcomed. The supporting text to the policy has been expanded in para 8.49a to give greater recognition of the historic character and listed status of many of the theatres in Westminster. [9]

(k) (i) Support welcomed and comments noted about the Westminster Theatre. [759]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.6.1 A number of the objections [9, 338, 370, 680, 95] have been wholly or largely accommodated by alterations to the supporting text and these are accordingly endorsed. The policy itself does not seem to me to be overly restrictive, especially having regard to the vitally important function that the theatre and theatre-going plays in the economy of Westminster in particular and London in general. Where matters of viability are raised in the application of Policy TACE 6(B), it will be open to applicants to demonstrate that an existing or previous theatre use is or was uneconomic; in view of the listed status or historic interest of many theatre buildings, questions of possible enabling development will need rigorously to be assessed. The possibility of a so-called volumetric test is not, in my view, either necessary or appropriate since the extent of proper provision of replacement facilities will probably raise matters of viability, mentioned above, and also the need to satisfy the relevant Building Regulations as regards audience facilities and means of escape etc. These will all be considered as very material planning considerations under s54A TCPA 1990.

Inspectors’ Recommendations

R8.6.1 Modify Policy TACE 6 (A-B) in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

R8.6.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 6 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

TA07: Arts, Culture and Education Special Policy Area

Objectors and Supporters

121 St James's Conservation Trust 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 555 Glen Suarez 779 London Business School

TA06: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) A new Education Special Policy Area should be defined, covering the area to the north of Marylebone Road, Regents Park. This area would include a number of leading educational institutions, comprising the London Business School, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Music and Royal College of Physics which are of national and international importance.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 703 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) The new policy should acknowledge the importance of these institutions and encourage the provision and consolidation of leading educational institutions within the designated area. The policy should accept that other associated uses including offices may need to be provided to support the overall functions of the institutions.

(iii) Suggested New Policy TACE 7A:

"To encourage the provision and consolidation of leading educational institutions within the designated Education Special Policy Area. The Council acknowledges that associated uses may need to be provided, including offices, to support the overall function of the institutions." [779]

(b) (i) St James's Area should be designated a Special Policy Area. Suggest new policy:

“(A) To resist the loss of London Clubs and associated specialist historic retailing uses within the London Clubland of St James's Special Policy Area

(B) Planning permission will only be granted for the use of premises by London Clubs where: the site is located with the Central Activities Zone or the London Clubland of St James's Special Policy Area there is no loss of residential accommodation and no adverse impact upon residential amenity there is no displacement of local services or other local uses which characterise the immediate area

(C) To support the consolidation of London Clubs and associated specialist historic retailing uses, within the London Clubland of St James's Special Policy Area where there is no loss of existing housing and no adverse effects on residential amenity".

(ii) Para. 8.51A should be changed to read: "… To protect and enhance the London Clubland of St James's in the Special Policy Area, identified on map 8.2 or new 8.3, whilst also protecting residential amenity …"

(iii) Under Policy application, para 8.53A to read "…The City Council will protect London Clubs and associated specialist historic retailing uses in this special policy area in recognition of their unique and strategic role in contributing to the character and function of the area continuously for three centuries. The consolidation of these uses within the special policy area will also be supported where proposals do not result in the loss of existing housing or lead to adverse effects on residential amenity …" [121]

TA07: Summary of Council Response

(a) (i) The Plan recognises that not all central London activities are located within the CAZ or on CAZ Frontages. The Arts, Culture and Education Special Policy Area relates to a specific concentration of arts, culture and education uses located outside the CAZ centred around the Royal Albert Hall and Imperial College. It has been designated as a result of regional planning guidance in RPG3 which states that ‘Boroughs should identify areas which demonstrate a concentration of

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 704 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

arts, culture and entertainment activities when reviewing plans and prepare policies to support the activities of this sector, particularly in and around the Central Area.’ RPG3, page 19, also recognises that the area around the Royal Albert Hall and the South Kensington museums complex (in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) contains important cultural and educational facilities.

(ii) The area within and near to Regents Park referred to by the objector does not have a similar recognition in RPG3 and contains a small cluster of educational institutions and no arts or cultural uses. Educational uses would generally be protected under policy SOC 1 in the Plan. It is therefore not considered appropriate to designate a special policy area although additional references have been added to the protection of Central London activities of an national or international importance outside CAZ under policy CENT 1(C) and to the London Business School in para 1.42a. Offices which are not ancillary to educational use would be considered under policy COM 1 and are generally considered inappropriate outside the CAZ, CAZ frontages, the SPA and the NWWSPA for the reasons set out in the Plan. No change to policy considered necessary. [779]

(b) (i) It is not considered appropriate to add a new policy or designate a special policy area as suggested in relation to the London Clubs and associated specialist historic retailing uses. It is recognised that these clubs are an appropriate non- residential Central London activity for the Central Activities Zone. Policy CENT 1 protects such uses where they contribute to the character and function of the CAZ. The summary of character and function of the St. James's area in para 1.16 of the Plan also refers to the gentlemen's clubs in and around Pall Mall. Table 1.1 in chapter 1 specifically identifies the London Clubs of St. James's as an example of arts, culture and entertainment uses of regional, national and international importance. Retailing uses within the CAZ are protected under policies SS1, SS2, SS4 and SS6 in the Shopping and Services chapter of the Plan.

(ii) Within the SPG on sub-areas of the CAZ, published at the same time as the Second Deposit UDP, the area profile for St James's also recognises the importance of the London Clubs to the character and function of the St. James's area. No further change considered appropriate. [121]

Reasoning and Conclusions

8.7.1 I am generally satisfied that the UDP correctly and adequately identifies the specific areas whose character needs special policy protection; these are derived from the advice contained in RPG 3 although there is no reason why such areas should not be added to if the LPA wishes. The proposed two areas subject of the objections do not seem to me to qualify for additional protected status. I accept the LPA’s arguments that are summarised above. In addition, I would point out that both Regents Park and St James’s are long-standing conservation areas and clearly indicated on the Proposals Map. It is quite often overlooked that the provisions of s 72(1) LBCA 1990 apply with equal force to planning control exercised over changes of use as much as over operational development. In other words, the LPA is obliged to consider both the preservation of an area’s (existing) character as well as the enhancement of its (future) appearance. Both of these areas are characterised by the specific uses which the objectors wish to see additionally protected. I conclude that such extra policy protection would be redundant (see Policy DES 9(D) and that the areas’ special character is or will be mentioned in their respective conservation area audits as SPG.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 705 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Inspectors’ Recommendations

R8.7.1 Modify Policy TACE 7 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

R8.7.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 7 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TA08: Location of Entertainment Uses

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 2 Greater London Authority 10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association) 20 Covent Garden Area Trust 64 Shaftesbury PLC 68 Howard de Walden Estates 90 Portman Estates 92 GVA Grimley 104 Consort House Residents Assn. 108 Society of London Theatre 121 St James's Conservation Trust 134 Residents' Association of Mayfair 141 Burford Group plc 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 298 A2 Restaurants 299 JPA 376 London First 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 491 Mercers Company 549 Paul Graham 555 Glen Suarez 680 The Crown Estate 681 Bell Cornwell Partnership 693 Yates Group PLC 702 Warner Village Cinemas 707 BT Plc 717 London Clubs International Plc 719 Charlotte Street Association 724 Grosvenor Limited 729 Bass Hotels and Resorts 730 White Star Line Restaurants 732 British Casino Association 748 British Land Company PLC 757 Gascoyne Estate 768 Covent Garden Restaurant Association 769 Windmill Developments Ltd 772 Land Securities Properties Limited 777 J D Wetherspoon Plc 779 London Business School 780 Selfridges & Co. 785 Delancey Group plc

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 706 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

789 St George Plc 795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited) 803 Standard Life Assurance Company 813 Grosvenor Casinos 841 The Office Bar 842 Body Shop International Plc 843 Westminster Licensees Association 845 Ritterman Holdings 849 Nautilus Properties Ltd 851 Atlantic Bar and Grill 853 Morley Property and Property Merchant Group 855 Marc Savini 856 Cluttons 858 Fish! 859 Manto Group 860 Gala Leisure Ltd

Inspector’s Note on Policies TACE 8-10 Objections

In view of the number and complexity of objections to the above UDP Policies and the substantial degree of overlap and repetition, they are dealt with and referenced differently from the rest of the report. Whereas the summaries of objections are elsewhere grouped in inset paragraphs ((a)….(n)) and individual objections are similarly contained in sub paragraphs ((i)…..(n)), all the related objections to the above Policies are serially numbered (1-N) and are presented in the form of a matrix schedule which lists the relevant group of objections in its left hand column and the generic topics which they cover under a series of headings (A-N). The generic topics (see my later Conclusions) which relate to individual objections are noted by a dot symbol [ ] thus:

ABCDEFGHI J KL 22 3

TA08: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(1) (i) The Council should not seek to limit the future growth or adaptation of entertainment uses within this world class capital city. The policy should set out those criteria against which proposals should be considered.

(ii) The Council should recognise the valuable contribution which entertainment uses can make to mixed use proposals. Mixed use schemes are recognised as sustainable and supported by Central Government: uses falling with Class A3 provide amenity and a practical use for ground floors. The Council should recognise these factors. [789] [803] [64] [795] [702] [92] [780] [729] [748] [141] [757]

(2) (i) Policy TACE8 is too prescriptive and discourages determination of planning applications on their individual merits and circumstances. The specific aim of the policy, "to maintain Westminster's position as an internationally important entertainment centre", is threatened by application of the policy.

(ii) The policy and supporting paragraphs apply general, broad-brush criteria, against which all planning applications for entertainment uses will be assessed, which do not take into account the specific locational characteristics of individual

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 707 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

sites.

(iii) The policy and supporting paragraphs do not accord with Central Government advice in national Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs), in particular PPG1 (preliminary introduction and paras 26 and 42), PPG4 (para 15), PPG6 (paras 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.21. 2.24 and Annex B [4]), PPG12 (paras 3.12 and 4.9) PPG15 (para 2.18), PPG21 (paras 1.1, 2.5 and 5.7) and PPG24 (paras 5 and 12).

(iv) The policy and explanatory paragraphs are unnecessary and should be deleted from the Plan. [299] [253] [769]

(3) (i) It is considered that the introduction of "terminal hours" is an arbitrary term and does not take into account the degree of impact or otherwise that an entertainment use might or might not have on residential amenity. It is considered that each application for entertainment uses should be considered on its merits and that guideline terminal hours are not necessary. [748] [724] [680] [1]

(4) (i) The principle of the Stress Areas is too restrictive and acts as a blanket ban on A3 uses.

(ii) Point (B) of the policy provides for exceptional circumstances to be shown in accordance with Paragraph 8.63d. These criteria are too narrow and do not enable such uses to be considered on their individual merits relating to the circumstances applying in each case.

(i) An overly restrictive approach in respect of the improvement of existing facilities will discourage opportunities to secure additional investment and, in certain circumstances, appropriate additional planning conditions. [1] [803] [141] [843]

(5) (i) TACE8(A) should be more flexible in order to take account of the trends in the entertainment industry. Change of use from existing entertainment venues to other uses should be considered acceptable provided they maintain the character and function of the area.

(ii) Each application for A3 uses should be considered on its merits and any blanket prohibition of additional A3 uses or preventing hours of operation beyond specific times is unreasonable. [748]

(6) (i) Object to the new section to Policy TACE 8 which states that outside the CAZ, the "introduction of new entertainment uses, or the extension of existing entertainment uses or hours of operation will only be permitted subject to consideration set out in policy TACE10." [748]

(7) (i) The policy is extremely restrictive in respect of Class D2 uses. The concerns of the City Council, which have led to this policy, cannot be resolved through a strict application of the land use planning policy in respect of Class D2 and A3 uses. The planning system alone cannot address the wider issues of the management as a whole, which requires a strategic approach from a range of private and public sector organisations. Class D2 uses form an important part of the West End as a World Class Centre of Tourism, Culture and Entertainment, the function of which should be fully supported.

(ii) Policy TACE 8 (G) is too restrictive. There are, and have always been, many

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 708 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

cases where a Class D2 use exists with residential accommodation above, below, adjoining or opposite, in a satisfactory manner. The issue is to address the nature of the D2 function and the proper use of both planning conditions and enforcement powers.

(iii) Policy TACE 8 (H) introduces terminal hours. The imposition of such terminal hours in the centre of a world city is not appropriate and is contrary to emerging national policy. [1] [729] [748] [795] [299] [855]

(8) (i) The policy proposes a ban on large D2 uses within Stress Areas. The West End Stress Area covers one of the most important centres of tourism, culture entertainment in the world, at locations where such uses are appropriate and where planning permission should be granted. The concerns of the City Council in respect of the public realm need to be addressed by way of a wider management strategy and the use of planning and other powers, together with proper resourcing and enforcement by all the relevant public agencies. The designated Stress Areas should be deleted. [777]

(9) (i) Whilst the principle of spreading the benefits to other Boroughs is acknowledged, this should not be on the basis of preventing appropriate development within the West End. There needs to be a far wider initiative to address the issue of area management. A rigid application of land use planning policies will not resolve these issues. [1] [729] [748] [795] [299] [855] [108] [141] [64]

(10) (i) Object to the weight attached to safeguarding residential amenity within the CAZ afforded by paragraph 8.57. Residential amenity in the centre of a World Class City cannot be the same as could be expected in established residential areas outside the CAZ/ City. The Council’s bias towards residential amenity has resulted in a wholly inappropriate presumption against extensions or new entertainment uses and in particular, against proposals for bars or pubs. [777]

(11) (i) While the CAZ has long established residential communities, and far from being under threat, many new residents are attracted because of the City Centre's vibrancy. At the same time many residents understand the consequences of living in a 24 hour City and do not expect to find the same level of residential amenity as they might in suburban or rural locations. UDP policies should recognise that residents can trade off convenience for amenity and that the central locations provide an ideal balance for many individuals. It is wrong therefore to restrict uses which help to define the character and function of these areas by excluding any new entertainment use and virtually any other CAZ use that may conflict with residential amenity. This is particularly the case of those residents who have come to the CAZ in recent years.

(ii) The world and this city is a changing and evolving place; maintenance of the status quo is not a realistic proposition. [64] [795] [141] [108] [855] [64]

(12) (i) Licensing hours are best and most properly regulated under the licensing regime and they are not matters for land use planning. Well-run accommodation operating 24 hours a day is unlikely to pose a problem. Should problems arise, then a landlord's lease provisions, but more significantly, licensing and the law, are available to remedy the situation. These should not be matters for hard pressed planning enforcement agencies, whose ability to secure a remedy are often limited and can take a long time. [64] [795] [141] [108] [785]

(13) (i) This policy appears to seek a blanket ban not only on all new large entertainment

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 709 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

but any extension of existing premises of any size and type. There is no evidence that levels of stress are so serious as to justify a blanket ban on both proposed and existing entertainment uses.

(ii) The criteria in TACE 8 (F)-(H) are also inappropriate criteria by which to examine proposals. This is inconsistent with the character of the CAZ and CAZ policies which seek to encourage entertainment uses, particularly those which contribute to the internationally recognised character and status of the London CAZ.

(iii) Applying the criteria in TACE 8 (F)-( H) is unreasonable within the CAZ as this gives too much priority to residential use. The priority within the CAZ is inappropriately focused, with residential amenity being held as the overwhelming constraint and force behind all of the CAZ policies.

(iv) As regards TACE 8 (G) in particular, it is at present difficult to imagine any site within Westminster that is not below, adjoining or opposite residential accommodation of one sort or another. This will be further exacerbated by the City Council's drive to introduce more residential into the CAZ through mixed use developments. New residential occupiers and arguably the majority of existing residents chose to live in Central London because of its vibrancy and convenience. Paradoxically, were the residential environment so appalling, residential values would not be what they are today. This policy should not apply to development within the CAZ or the Stress Area (assuming its designation remains). [64] [108] [298]

(14) (i) This policy precludes extensions to or alterations and extensions that support valued West End functions such as theatres and cinemas, shopping and commerce. This would be entirely inconsistent with the West End's world- renowned leisure function.

(ii) There is no definition of Stress Area or a comprehensive list of indicators of stress, or when levels of indicators are at an unacceptable level. The concept, although clearly defined on the Proposals Map, is therefore imprecise and amounts to a blanket ban. No account or recognition is given to the fact that large and small scale entertainment uses play a vital role in supporting the West- End leisure experience.

(iii) No indicators are given of what exceptional circumstances may justify an exception to the policy, but theatre bars and restaurants and new facilities within Theatre Land should be permitted given the role they can play in supporting West End Theatre and the industry generally. The Wyndham Report on the "Economic Impact of London's West End Theatre" served to emphasise the importance of links between all the activities in the West End. This is consistent with the World City status of London and the internationally significant status of London's West End. The Stress Area designation potentially undermines this function and is likely to be a disincentive to future investment.

(iv) The Stress Area designation should be deleted. [64] [108] [785]

(15) (i) Support the amendments to Policies TACE 8-10 and their supporting paragraphs as approved by a Cabinet Committee of the Council on 29 August 2002 and incorporated in the Pre Inquiry UDP.

(16) (i) There is nothing in Central Government guidance or Strategic Guidance which permits the designation of “stress areas” as a means of controlling A3 or

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 710 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

entertainment uses. The approach is inflexible, and fails to provide the opportunity for individual proposals to be assessed on their merits. It is contrary to the positive attitude towards leisure and the evening economy in PPG6 and RPG3. Paragraph 2.21 of PPG6 recognises that leisure uses may disturb nearby residents, but the approach advocated is for local planning authorities to ensure that the design of leisure development and the conditions attached to planning permissions mean that the amenities of nearby residents are fully considered. [780] [491] [851]

(17) (i) The application of a ‘blanket ban’ on A3 and entertainment uses is wholly inconsistent with London’s World City status and will lead to a restriction of commercial activity to the detriment of London’s position in relation to other world cities. Delete Policy TACE8 and supporting text. Replace with a new policy and supporting text which contains no reference to “Stress Areas” and includes criteria against which proposals for A3 entertainment uses will be considered. Delete Map 8.2 which shows the West End Stress Area. [780] [491] [851]

(18) (i) The restriction on large entertainment uses or extensions to premises in the "Stress Areas" will serve to undermine Westminster and London as an entertainment destination. The problems which are the origin of the policy require concerted management from a range of parties including the landlords, operators, Westminster, the Police and GLA. The solution is not a blanket ban on new development. The area is important not only to London but the whole UK, and not only for tourism but as part of London's vitality as a world city. [376] [777] [108]

(19) (i) The policy as formulated is highly restrictive. A large redevelopment scheme might include both residential and entertainment uses and the policy would appear to preclude this. The policy should be modified accordingly.

(ii) The blanket provision of a single terminal hour is not appropriate. [724]

(20) (i) The particular circumstances and benefits offered by individual schemes and the sites they may occupy should be taken into consideration. For example, the absence of nearby residential property should be a reasonable ground for permitting an exception to the policy, or possibly the provision of a ‘use swap’, where one entertainment function (or the potential for it) might be foregone in favour of a better location for the entertainment use. [803] [64] [795]

(21) (i) Notwithstanding the continuing fundamental objection to the concept of “Stress Areas”, the Council’s expansion of the Stress Areas and especially the West End Stress Area is considered wholly inappropriate. The geographic spread of the areas should have been reduced rather than expanded. [64]

(22) (i) Insufficient justification has been given for Stress Areas and for the identification of the boundaries on the Proposals Map. The areas proposed, in particular the West End, are located in well established entertainment areas and tourist destinations. This policy is in conflict with the needs and desires of those who live and work in the city and those who visit it. Moreover, there are substantial parts of the proposed West End Stress Area which are not adjacent to residential use. In such areas, entertainment uses are appropriate. [748]

(23) (i) The basis of the Council’s proposed control over entertainment uses is the perceived “threat” that these activities have to the residential communities of central London. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that these

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 711 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

communities are withering or are likely to decline as a result of the West End’s continuing pre-eminence as an entertainment destination. Quite the contrary, as previously stated, the central area is becoming a more popular residential location in spite of the burgeoning entertainment industry. [795]

(24) (i) The scale of growth in the entertainment industry has been and continues to be a product of consumer demand and expectation for quality facilities in a location that best meets their needs. Central Westminster, at the hub of the capital’s public transport infrastructure, is best placed to cater for this need. The Plan effectively indicates that the local authority are disenfranchising a huge section of the working and visiting population of Westminster from the development of new entertainment facilities. [795]

(25) (i) The policies of this part of the Plan represent a knee-jerk reaction to short term social issues, more concerned with law and order and licensing affairs than land use planning. The strategy being promoted within the plan will be in place for at least the next five to ten years, representing too long a period for policies placing an effective ban on such uses to operate [795]

(26) (i) Reference is made at paragraph 8.66a to the need to take into account the cumulative effect of development on residential amenity, and reference is made generally to appeal decisions which support this approach. As we have set out with regard to paragraph 8.63d, there are cases where Inspectors have arrived at a different conclusion, and we cite in particular the recent decision at 40-44 Windmill Street. In our view, the Council's assumptive approach in this regard runs contrary to this appeal decision. In order to take into account site-specific characteristics, each application should be assessed on its individual merits, and provision should be made for this within the examples given of 'exceptional circumstance'. [777]

(27) (i) Although paragraphs 8.63d and 8.71h include the second floor and above in Oxford Street, Regent Street and Piccadilly as constituting an "exceptional circumstance", the changes do not meet our objections. [777]

(28) (i) We note that minor amendments have been made to the terminal hours relating to entertainment uses both within and beyond the CAZ, and specifically for the designated Stress Areas. This does not accord with the principle of the '24-hour city concept' which, by virtue of paragraph 8.71, the Council appears to consider appropriate for other boroughs although curiously not for the centre of a World Class City. Notwithstanding our 'in principle' objection to the Council's attitude in this regard, we consider that each application ought to assessed on its individual merits and the onus should be on the developer to demonstrate that the proposed development or extension of opening hours would not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity. [777]

(29) (i) Presumption against A3 uses both within and beyond the designated Stress Areas is contrary to national Guidance, and does not support the role of the World Class City. The examples of 'exceptional circumstance' should include circumstances where there are existing high background noise levels in the vicinity during the late evening. Object to the presumption against entertainment uses elsewhere beyond the CAZ. [777] [795]

(30) (i) Licensing hours are best and most properly regulated under the licensing regime and they are not matters that land-use planning should become involved with. Well-run accommodation operating 24 hours a day is unlikely to pose a problem.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 712 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Should problems arise, then landlord's lease provisions but more significantly, licensing and the law are available to remedy the situation. These should not be matters for hard pressed planning enforcement agencies, whose ability to secure a remedy are often limited and can take a long time. [803] [772] [851] [693] [858] [843]

(31) (i) This policy precludes extensions to or alterations and extensions that support valued commercial functions such as theatres and cinemas, shopping and commerce. [803]

(32) (i) The policy to not permit extensions to existing large entertainment venues is both unfounded and contrary to the objective to maintain the West End's stature as internationally renowned entertainment centre.

(ii) The policy is likely to deter not only investment in improved and extended facilities, but also new entertainment uses from locating within Westminster and would therefore lead to a stagnation of the currently vibrant entertainment sector. [785]

(33) (i) The same objection made under SS3 (A) concerning the boundary of the West End Area applies with even greater force to this policy. The area should be extended northwards to include, at a minimum, the area bounded by Newman Street on the west, Goodge Street on the north and the Borough boundary in the east.

(ii) There is concern that TACE 8(H), read in conjunction with para. 8.62, carries the inference that in the CAZ, 01.00 hours is acceptable, even where this would have an adverse impact on residential amenity, particularly bearing in mind that such an impact can extend over a wide area. [719]

(34) (i) Problem with the expression "will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances." What are these and who decides that they are exceptional? [20]

(35) (i) Object to the grouping of casinos together with various other entertainment uses in Policy TACE 8 and the paragraphs relating to that policy, 8.58 - 8.71 inclusive. Because of the markedly different characteristics of casinos and because of specific legislation controlling casinos they should be treated separately from other entertainment uses, preferably with a separate policy but at the very least by separate text.

(ii) The policy should specifically recognise the differences between casinos and other entertainment uses, and should specifically identify that casinos can and do exist in or adjoining residential areas without causing problems; and identify that they are an important tourist facility making a significant contribution to the local economy. The text should identify that hours of operation for casinos are a matter covered by Government legislation and that they will not, except in the most exceptional circumstances, by subject to further control by the City Council. [813]

(36) (i) Do not agree with the insertion in para 8.71n of the qualifiers ‘generally’, ‘potential’ and ‘can’. These would weaken the intent of this paragraph which is to recognise the very adverse effect that large premises, probably without exception, have on residential amenity.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 713 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Fully support the wording and intent of new paragraph 8.71o which is to treat casinos as large entertainment uses and be subject to the same controls. This is even more important in view of the possible relaxation in the gaming controls which currently ensure that casinos are well managed and create fewer problems for residents, which could all change if the Gaming Board’s proposed changes do take effect.

(iii) New paragraph 8.71p supported with the proviso that such new developments are only considered for areas which need to be ‘regenerated’ and would therefore not apply to Stress Areas such as Queensway-Bayswater.

(iv) Support TACE8 (E), which relates in part to the Queensway Stress Area whose environmental problems have been adequately described elsewhere. [104]

(37) (i) It is inappropriate in this policy to include Leicester Square within the West End Stress Area as shown on Map 7.2 in the Deposit Replacement UDP. If the City wishes to continue with the concept of a Stress Area, then Leicester Square should be excluded, as it is a location where entertainment uses should be directed.

(ii) An 'Entertainment Route' could exist whether or not a Stress Area is maintained. Main concerns are the protection of the residential areas of Covent Garden and Soho in terms of amenity and nuisance. A new Entertainment Route at Leicester Square would not damage this objective, given that it is to the south and west of these two areas.

(iii) The policy should contain:

"(D) The Entertainment Route

Within the Leicester Square Entertainment Route new entertainment uses, where large or otherwise, will be supported provided there is no conflict with (F) to (H) below."

(iv) An appropriate form of wording should be incorporated within the Policy Application (paras 8.58 to 8.63), and the Reasons (paras 8.64 to 8.71). Entertainment uses should be defined as Class A3 and Class D2.

(v) The West End Stress Area should be revised to exclude Leicester Square and incorporate an entertainment frontage for Leicester Square. [757]

(38) (i) Support the amendments to Policies TACE 8, 9 and 10 and their supporting paragraphs. [730]

(39) (i) Mayfair should be included in restricted policies on A3 (bars and restaurants) as applied in Soho and Covent Garden, to protect and encourage people who live in Mayfair and to stop the ever increasing commercialisation in this area. Mayfair should be in a 'Stress Area'. [134]

(40) (i) This policy should reflect the Wider Central Area and adjustments should be made along the lines of the objections to Policies SS3 and SS13.

(ii) The Stress Area proposed for Edgware Road is inappropriate. Given the level of office content above the ground floor level, the Stress Area is not a suitable planning tool in this location. Where residential accommodation exists, this is at a

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 714 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

high level and would not be harmed in what is a fairly busy location within Westminster.

(iii) 1. Modify the West End Stress Area.

2. Add a new category between ‘Inside CAZ’ and ‘Outside CAZ’ as follows:

“Within the Wider Central Area

Large Entertainment Uses

Large entertainment uses or extensions to existing premises leading to the same, will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

Other Entertainment Uses

The introduction of new entertainment uses, or the extension of existing entertainment uses or hours of operation, will only be permitted subject to the considerations set out below under (F) to (H).” [90]

(41) (i) Supportive of all the proposals. In relation to TACE 8, there needs to be stronger statement that the City Council will not resist the loss of A3, D2 and food A1 uses in the Stress Areas. [555]

(42) (i) A policy which seeks to prevent large entertainment uses throughout a large part of the West End of London is incompatible with London's world city role. Point (B) refers to exceptional circumstances to be shown in accordance with paragraph 8.63d. These criteria are considered to be too narrow and overly prescriptive. The policy should be amended to allow for such uses where no unacceptable adverse impacts on residential amenity are caused. [680]

(43) (i) Extend the West End Stress Area a few metres north of Oxford Street, to include the area of Westminster between the borough boundary in the east, and Rathbone Place/Rathbone Street in the west and north. Principally this would include the Westminster parts of Hanway Street and Rathbone Place. This is a largely residential area which already has, particularly in Hanway Street, a heavy concentration of late night premises, with already great pressure to increase such premises due to its very close to Soho Square.

(ii) The problems of this area are very similar to those which have led to the City Council designating the West End Stress Area, and definitely warrants inclusion, as it is often an overlooked part of the Soho night life problem. [549]

(44) (i) This policy appears to seek a blanket ban not only on all new large entertainment but any extension of existing premises of any size and type. The Council have provided no evidence that levels of stress are so serious as to justify a blanket ban on both proposed and existing entertainment uses.

(ii) The criteria in TACE8(F) - (H) are also inappropriate criteria by which to examine proposals. This is inconsistent with the character of the CAZ and CAZ policies which seek to encourage entertainment uses, particularly those which contribute to the internationally recognised character and status of the London CAZ.

(iii) Applying the criteria in TACE8 (F) - ( H) is unreasonable within the CAZ as this gives too much priority to residential use. The priority within the CAZ is inappropriately focused, with residential amenity being held as the overwhelming Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 715 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

constraint and force behind all of the CAZ policies.

(iv) As regards TACE8 (G) in particular, it is presently difficult to imagine any site within Westminster that is not below, adjoining or opposite residential accommodation of one sort or another. This will be further exacerbated by the City Council's drive to introduce more residential into the CAZ through mixed use developments. New residential occupiers and arguably the majority of existing residents chose to live in Central London because of its vibrancy and convenience. Paradoxically, were the residential environment so appalling, residential values would not be what they are today. This policy should not apply to development within the CAZ or the Stress Area, assuming its designation remains. [141] [795] [757] [298]

(45) (i) The recognition that different sorts of entertainment uses will have different impacts in paragraph 8.71n is welcomed. However the proposed changes in paragraph 8.71m do not recognise the interdependence of entertainment uses and Theatreland. The proposed alterations do not fully address the objection. [108]

(46) (i) It is premature for the local planning authority to take a view on likely policing policy over the next ten years and seek to control land use policy in anticipation of future policing decisions.

(i) More research is required to validate the assertions being made about the suggested link between law and disorder and an increase in the popularity of the West End as an entertainment area, supported to a large extent by the growth in the numbers of premises catering for demand arising from changing lifestyles.[108]

(47) (i) Include St James's in West End Stress Area (i.e. in Map 7.2 and paras 8.58, 8.60, 8.62 and 8.69). Include St James's in para 8.70, the list of long established residential communities. [121]

(48) (i) Para 8.63(d) introduces four criteria under which exceptional circumstances may be demonstrated to permit new entertainment uses, extensions to existing entertainment uses or hours of operation (Reference policy TACE8)(b). Object to this suggested criteria approach. Firstly, the side streets to the west of Regent Street should not be located within the proposed Stress Area. Secondly, the four criteria set out in Para 8.63(d) bear little resemblance to any possible proposals for new entertainment uses. For example, Regent Street, which is an international shopping destination, requires the provision of drinking and eating facilities to facilitate shopping on the street and maintain the important retail function of this centre. Without the increased provision of catering facilities, shoppers will continue to move away from the centre when requiring refreshments. The policy and supporting text should therefore be reworded. [680]

(49) (i) Licensing consents have regard to planning permission and effectively limit the hours of operation, so not necessary to include in UDP. [843]

(50) (i) Object to the point under paragraph 8.63d. This should include reference to "replacement" as well as "retention" of a use. Reference should also be made to an "existing" rather than "long-standing" association with an area. It would be unreasonable not to allow new and extended uses where these circumstances apply. Reword as follows:

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 716 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

"the retention or replacement of a use which has an existing association with and /or makes a contribution to the character or function of the area". [853]

(ii) Object to the proposed extension of the West End Stress Area. The areas as set out within the 1st Deposit UDP had clearly defined boundaries to the north and west in the form of Oxford Street and Regent Street respectively. Question the rationale for extending the area along what would appear to be arbitrary lines. [853]

(51) (i) Paragraph 8.63 is too vague and could be used to restrict the terminal hour of existing, authorised late night entertainment uses that have no significant effect on the wider environment or residential amenity. The preliminary sentence of the paragraph should be clarified and amended to read “Guideline terminal hours for new entertainment uses will be introduced, if appropriate, inside the Stress Areas and within and outside the CAZ. These terminal hours will be: ...”

(ii) In accordance with the above, the preliminary sentence of paragraph 8.63a should be clarified and amended to read “In the West End Stress Area, hours of operation for new entertainment uses...”

(iii) In accordance with the associated objections to Policy TACE 8 and paragraphs 8.60 and 8.61, paragraph 8.63d should be amended in order to set the issues out as itemised criteria, against which applications for new entertainment uses and extensions to existing entertainment uses or hours of operation will be assessed. The amended paragraph should read:

"In applying Policy TACE 8, applications for new entertainment uses and extensions to existing entertainment uses or hours of operation will be assessed against the following criteria:-

- The effect of the proposed use or operation on amenity, local residents and the environment compared to the existing activity on site.

- The desire to retain a use which has a long-standing association with and/or makes a major contribution to the character and function of the area.

- The desire to retain a valued Central London activity which is of international or national importance.

- The need to improve health and safety standards or access for disabled people.

Proposals should also meet the considerations under Policy TACE 10." [299]

(52) (i) Reference to terminal hours should be deleted from the Plan, to reflect the requirements for on-site judgements based on evidence. [849] [768]

(53) (i) Object to the proposed extension of the West End Stress Area to the area west of Regent Street (which includes Maddox Street, Hanover Street, Heddon Street, Swallow Street, Vine Street, Air Street) as illustrated on the map. The proposed extension is wholly unjustified and is not required to protect the character of the area or residential amenity. The areas in question are also not suffering from an undue concentration of A3 uses and do not therefore warrant a Stress Area designation [680]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 717 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(54) (i) Para (B): Reference to new/extensions to existing facilities only being granted in exceptional circumstances is inconsistent with the guidance in para 8.71p which states that large D2 entertainment uses should be located within the CAZ

(ii) Para 8.63D should acknowledge that proposals for new facilities and extensions should be acceptable in the event that the existing facility has no adverse impact on amenity. [845]

(55) (i) We do not accept the general suggestion contained within this paragraph. The exceptional circumstances are too exceptional to be used as justifications. [843]

(56) (i) Every case should be considered on its merits and in so doing, inevitably regard will be given to the nature of the noise in the locality. [843]

(57) (i) It is unnecessary for the policy to speculate that the environmental effect may be detrimental to the area and discourage people from visiting traditional entertainment venues. There is no evidence to date that people are being distracted from visiting traditional entertainment attractions. We would also query the definition of a traditional venue: for many people this would include pubs, bars, restaurants and nightclubs and many of those located in central London are tourist attractions in their own right.

(ii) There appears to be an implicit assumption in (iv) that drug taking is linked to drinking. Late night drinking in licensed establishments is a legitimate activity: drug taking is not. There is no evidence that crime and disorder are connected with well-managed A3 uses. [843] [786]

(58) (i) The terminal hour of 1am within the West End Stress Area is already unduly restrictive for entertainment uses located within the entertainment centre of a world city. Any attempt to further curtail opening times would be harmful, not only to the business involved, but also to the character and function of the West End as an entertainment centre, and ultimately to its attractiveness to tourists, visitors, Londoners, and the many local residents who enjoy living in an exciting and vibrant city and want to eat and drink after 1am. [859] [851] [693] [858] [768]

(59) (i) We support the Stress Area for Queensway/Bayswater and agree with changes to Map 8.4.

(ii) Why not rename the Stress Areas, Queensway/Westbourne Grove to tie up with District Centre description? [381]

(60) (i) Policy supported, with reservations. There is no succinct, clear-cut definition of the key term “entertainment uses”. We assume it includes restaurants, pubs, bars, hot food take-aways, night clubs, casinos etc., but one has to work out this by referring to several paragraphs. Recommend that a complete definition of “entertainment uses” be incorporated in the Glossary.

(ii) Please add the word ‘ size,’ after the word ‘location’ in para 8.57. It is very important to have a policy to control the size of premises because very large premises, or ‘mega-venues’ can create extra amenity problems by their very size and the numbers of people emerging from them on to the street at one time.

(iii) (A) Please omit the new word ‘significant’. If retained it will reduce the possibility of reducing the numbers and size of entertainment premises which may be vital in those parts of the city which are ‘over-saturated’ with such premises.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 718 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

‘Significant’ cannot be quantified anyway.

(iv) (E) Wording and intent supported. In para 8.60 changes supported. In para 8.61, agree striking out ‘smaller scale’.

(v) Agree terminal hour for Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area to be midnight. We need confirmation that ‘Terminal Hour’ means that the premises will be vacated by the terminal hour (para 8.63)

(vi) Do not agree that in the Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area, premises should be allowed to open beyond midnight, even under exceptional circumstances.

(vii) Agree that an applicant needs to prove that a proposal will not cause harm and that hours of operation may be earlier than the guideline specified hour in certain circumstances.

(viii) In para 8.63d, do not support the concept of the first bullet point, please delete. The ‘reduction in adverse impacts on amenity’ in many cases could be very slight and the existing activity might already be having a very harmful effect on residential amenity. Just because a planning proposal might reduce existing problems does not mean that it should be allowed – and we cannot see that this would constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’.

(ix) In para 8.64a, we do not support the deletion of ‘individually and cumulatively’. The question of cumulative impact is a crucial one to be retained, as clearly recognised under 8.65 it states ‘cumulative impact must therefore be considered by the City Council’. There is no point in emphasising the issue in one paragraph, at the same time as undermining the principle by striking it out in another.

(x) Para 8.65a. Do not agree with the insertion of ‘in some cases’. This will weaken the thrust of the argument against increases in A3 numbers or density and thus lessen the opportunity of protecting residential amenity.

(xi) Para 8.65b. Agree additions of ‘eating’ under (i) and ‘drug taking’ under (iv).

(xii) Para 8.66a. New paragraph supported.

(xiii) Para 8.67. Agree the deletion of this paragraph because it is essentially replaced and augmented by 8.71m.

(xiv) Para 8.68 & 8.69. Opposed to the striking out of these paragraphs and sections which were designed to demonstrate how badly the quality of life for residents (and visitors) has deteriorated as a result of the proliferation of entertainment premises and their increase in size and density. There is nothing to be gained by omitting such telling description of how the situation has been allowed to get out of hand and how necessary it is to take the positive actions needed to address the severe amenity problems existing in Westminster. It is also necessary to continue to stress that the proliferation of entertainment premises prevents the authorities, including the Council and the police, from carrying out their statutory duties of keeping the streets clean and free of crime. Urge the re-instatement of these sections which paint a true picture of how standards have deteriorated and the necessity for improvement. [381]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 719 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(61) (i) Object to the Council’s inclusion of conditions relating to the terminal hour as applying to all applications for planning permission on entertainment premises, irrespective of the type of planning applications.

(ii) Support the inclusion of exceptional circumstances, in particular, the inclusion of ‘retention of a valued Central London Activity of national or international importance in paragraph 8.63d. [779]

(62) (i) Due to the apparently wide ranging nature of the term“ entertainment use” and the narrow definition of "exceptional circumstances" in relation to policy TACE8 policy presents an unnecessarily restrictive approach.

(ii) Either define the term “entertainment use” so as to exclude reference to casinos, or, add the following additional exceptional circumstances to paragraph 8.63d

- "Proposals which by the nature of the use proposed and mode of operation (for example, casinos would not be likely to have a material effect on residential amenity in the locality) or;

- Proposals which would replace an existing use with a use of less impact in terms of residential amenity in the locality."

(iii) In paragraph 8.56a make reference to a precise definition of entertainment uses intended to be covered by the policy.

(iv) Delete reference to casinos and bingo halls from paragraph 8.1.4. Any definition provided for entertainment uses should exclude bingo and casino uses.

(v) Paragraph 8.1.5 should include specific reference to casinos as an exception where large D2 use would be defined as 1,200 sq. metres net public area. [860]

(63) (i) The policy is unreasonable and over-detailed in that it goes beyond what is normally required of a development plan. Consequently, the policy is contrary to guidance set out on Local Plan in PPG12:Development Plans at paragraph 3.11 to 3.14 which, inter alia, advises that excessive detail should be avoided and the use of supplementary planning guidance should be used as a means of setting out more detailed guidance. [693]

(64) (i) Agree that very residential areas of the West End need to be protected against disturbance from late night bars and clubs, but incredible that places such as Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus are included in the West End Stress Area. These areas are clearly not residential. Many wandering tourists, who are unsure of where to go out at night, descend on these two locations in search of late night activity. Any residents who live nearby these entertainment hot spots need to accept that late night disturbance will filter out to them. Nightlife in London is already very restrictive, when compared with other major European cities. Yes, it is true to say that there are already numerous late night bars and discos in the West End. However, many of these places are either members only bars, have guest lists or charge exorbitant entrance prices. Many other places, which are open to the wider consumer market, have very long entrance queues on weekend nights indicating that demand is not currently being met by supply. Cannot afford to jeopardise the improvement of London’s late night entertainment, which serves tens of thousands of people every night, in order to protect a relatively small number of residents. In fact, many of the area’s

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 720 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

residents choose to live in the West End precisely because it is a lively city centre location. [855]

(65) (i) The paragraph states that the hours of operation (terminal hours) outlined in a previous paragraph (8.63) “will apply to all planning applications for entertainment premises even where there is no physical extension involved”. This is ambiguous, and might be interpreted as meaning that that the Council intends to apply an hours of opening condition to all permissions relating to entertainment premises (including, for instance new shopfronts, external plant, elevational alterations etc.). This would clearly be unreasonable. The paragraph needs to be reworded to make clear that it relates to applications for changes of use to entertainment, as well as floorspace extensions to such uses.

(ii) The paragraph states that “hours of operation refers to the time period that the premises are open for serving members of the public”. The Council’s informative relating to opening hours which is usually attached to permissions for entertainments and food and drink use will need to be varied as it states that the “hours of operation specified by this planning permission should be interpreted to refer to the hours during which customers may be present on the premises”. Welcome the more liberal interpretation of the hours of opening within the Second Deposit Revised UDP, which will allow customers to remain on the premises for “drinking up time” etc. after staff have stopped serving drinks at the bar. [859] [858] [843]

(66) (i) The paragraph should acknowledge that each planning application will be considered on its own merits. The cumulative impact of a number of adjacent late-opening restaurants and take-aways may be a consideration, but the addition of another small, well-managed restaurant with reasonable opening hours is likely to have a negligible additional amenity impact. [858]

(67) (i) Object to the extension of the West End Stress Area along Conduit Street. There is no justification for the extension along this principal route [856]

(68) (i) Part (A) of this policy is overly restrictive and fails to acknowledge changes in the A3, leisure and entertainment industry. There should be greater flexibility in changes of use and redevelopment to other uses provided the character and function of the area is not harmed. [785]

(69) (i) Object to the City Council’s intention that an hours of operation restriction will be attached to any planning permissions for entertainment premises even where there is no physical extension involved. That is unduly restrictive and would be unreasonable in the context of the six tests for imposing planning conditions contained in Circular 11/95: the Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. [785]

(70) (i) New proposals for terminal hours for entertainment uses is unjustifiably restrictive. Proposals for new and extended entertainment uses should be considered on their own merits having regard to criteria for the assessment of entertainment uses contained in Policy TACE 10. [785] [768]

(71) (i) Concern that paragraph 8.66a will be used to justify a blanket ban on any additional food and drink or other entertainment uses in certain areas. The paragraph should acknowledge that each planning application will be considered on its own merits. The cumulative impact of a number of adjacent late-opening restaurants and take-aways may be a consideration; but the addition of another

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 721 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

small, well managed restaurant with reasonable opening hours is likely to have a negligible additional amenity impact. [859] [858]

(72) (i) It is unreasonable that permissions for new entertainment uses (all uses within Class A3), or extensions to existing entertainment uses or hours of operation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The UDP recognises that public houses, restaurants and clubs provide essential services and facilities for people living, working in and visiting London. The policy needs to allow change and development within the Central Areas of the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater including the evolution of A3 and other leisure and entertainment uses which are part of their character and function. [707] [843]

(73) (i) The Use Classes Order is now under revision by the Government. Therefore both this policy and other policies are premature. Indeed if the Council does have a need to have policies of this nature, it would both in view of the Use Classes Order revision and the impending reform of liquor and entertainment licensing, be more logical for the licensing régime to address the issue. If the development plan system is to be used, a more logical mechanism would be by Supplementary Planning Guidance, as is occurring for instance in the case of Manchester. [768] [843]

(74) (i) There is an assumption that A3 uses can damage the character and function of an area. However it overlooks the fact that such uses can be the essence of the character and function of an area and reason for its vitality. [768]

(75) (i) It is noted that this section states that there “may” be conflicts and not that there “will” be conflicts between entertainment and residential needs. There is no evidence that there is such a conflict, or that such a conflict is in any way harmful. Much of the increase in commercial demand, in particular the development of uses within the Central Activities Zone, stems directly from Council policies to stimulate investment. [768]

(76) (i) It is not agreed that the “recent marked expansion of the evening economy and late night economy has resulted in additional pressures on parts of Westminster leading to environmental stress, adversely affecting the attractiveness of central London to both visitors and residents.” Westminster has always had and continues to have many entertainment uses. The evidence does not suggest that there has been environmental harm caused by these uses. In any event the provision of more effective policing, transport and litter collection, each of which are the responsibility of public bodies, could go some considerable way towards eradicating what is perceived as being environmental harm. Note that the Government is in the process of reforming the existing liquor licensing regime, which will result in the abolition of on-licences and public entertainment licences and introduce a new premises licence for all licensed outlets. In addition, it will abolish the concept of a ‘terminal hour’ with hours of opening being set on a case by case basis and agreed with the local authority. Evidence from other parts of the country, notably the Isle of Man which deregulated licensing hours last year, would suggest that having a fixed terminal hour results in worse problems than if hours were staggered and consumers had the opportunity to make their own choice of hours. The proposed Governmental reforms will therefore dissipate the concentration of activities and thus reduce the incidence of what the Council might deem to be “hotspots”. Addressing this issue within the UDP is premature.

(ii) A more appropriate mechanism for addressing concerns related to the further development of the entertainment industry, especially A3 usage, is through the

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 722 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

licensing system. If the Development Plan system is to be used, Supplementary Planning Guidance is far more flexible and can be used for small areas. Public opinion does not support the assumptions made within this section. The police assumptions made within the changes to this paragraph are touched upon by the Civic Renewal paper published by Westminster City Council and the response thereto by the Westminster Licensees Association. [768]

(77) (i) On Map 8.2 welcome the small extension proposed in East Marylebone but there can be no justification for not also including Charlotte Street west side where A3 uses predominate accompanied by a high residential content. Any of these restaurants could apply for a late night licence. The same applies to the short length of Goodge Street in Westminster. Given the increased pressures likely very serious problems of disturbance to residents are likely to arise if the boundary is not extended as proposed. Consideration needs also to be given to the situation on the Camden side of these streets in any assessment.

(ii) The qualification in 8.63a concerning the 1am terminal hour in CAZ is too weak and leaves the impression that 1am is normally acceptable. This needs to be strengthened by particular reference to the location of residential uses in proximity and on routes to and from the venue to public transport. [719]

(78) (i) Policy TACE8 seeks to impose an unduly restrictive and negative approach to new and existing A3 and D2 uses in the West End Stress Area. If properly managed, A3 uses need be no more harmful to residential amenity than proper cultural or entertainment functions within the CAZ. To base a policy on attempting to achieve almost suburban standards of amenity for all residential properties in the area is not realistic.

(ii) The West End is not a quiet residential neighbourhood. The basis of Policy TACE 8 should be re-assessed, taking into account that there may be a more direct potential conflict between consolidated residential communities and late night entertainment premises attracting substantial numbers of patrons than isolated residential properties in essentially commercial areas. Paradoxically, it could be argued that the increase in city centre living has arisen because of the emergence of the “24-hour city” and the fact that a diverse and vibrant local economy makes it more attractive to new residents.

(iii) The Stress Areas are defined in paragraph 8.62(B). This does not satisfactorily explain why the boundaries have been revised to include Market Place and 12 Great Portland Street. Previous policies have specifically encouraged restaurants and bars in Market Place, as part of the Oxford Street initiative, to help rejuvenate and enliven the area. The area is essentially commercial and previously fell into decline because of inflexible policies relating to the retention of wholesale showrooms. It is not a residential area. The very point of the Oxford Street initiative was to create a "piazza style" precinct using restaurants and bars to attract people to the area. This type of environment would help maintain the Council's shopping policies which seek to prevent changes of use along Oxford Street from retail to A3 uses. Proposals for new A3 uses should be considered on their merits.

(iv) The introduction of terminal hours (paragraph 8.63) is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise, that an A3 use might have on local residential amenity. The imposition of a 1.00am terminal hour in the WESA would have a negative effect on the ability of businesses to cater for their clientele, and flies in the face of attempts to create a “24-hour city”. Seeking to

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 723 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

terminate all entertainment uses at 1.00am will have the effect of forcing out of venues of all kinds at a particular time significant numbers of people who would be difficult to control, and be more likely to cause trouble than if they were allowed to leave in a staggered fashion. It would also do little to alleviate the problem of large volumes of people wishing to use the transportation system at stress points if people have to leave venues at the same time.

(v) The exceptional circumstances stated in paragraph 8.63d are too narrow and when assessed in conjunction with the considerations under Policy TACE 10 would, in effect, ban new entertainment uses.

(vi) Policy TACE 8 seeks to introduce a level of control which is considered to be entirely inappropriate for the centre of a world city. Planning control alone is too blunt a tool to effectively solve concerns that the plan is seeking to alleviate, many of which could be more properly covered by licensing regulations. If the West End is to prosper as part of a world city, it is naïve to assume that a “24- hour” culture can be excluded from the West End simply because other boroughs may wish to promote the “24-hour city” within their area. [842] [841]

(79) (i) This policy effectively creates a presumption against entertainment uses, which is unreasonable. [768]

(80) (i) It is not reasonable to propose that permissions for new entertainment uses (all uses within Class A3), or extensions to existing entertainment uses or hours of operation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The UDP recognises that public houses, restaurants and clubs provide essential services and facilities for people living, working in and visiting London. The policy needs to allow change and development within the Central Areas of the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater including the evolution of A3 and other leisure and entertainment uses. [707] [68]

(81) (i) We neither accept that the entertainment uses have reached a “saturation” point or that they have become unacceptable. Neither of this terms are defined. Challenge the assumption that a concentration of A3 uses is necessarily negative or stressful. It is often the case that it is the very fact that all the A3 uses are in the same place that helps them do well and that makes them easier to police. The areas are arbitrarily defined and are too large. [768]

(82) (i) This paragraph is based upon anecdotal comments rather than actual facts. The needs of the traders and the local economy should be balanced against the protection of residential amenity. A cross-reference to PPG1 guidance on material considerations would be more even handed. [681]

(83) (i) The "guideline" terminal hours have been introduced outside the local plan inquiry process. Their rigid application to all premises does not allow each case to be treated on its individual merits.

(ii) The intention, in para 8.63b & 8.63c, to apply terminal hours conditions to all planning applications even where there is no physical extension involved is unreasonable and potentially unenforceable. For instance, various parts of an individual unit may become subject to closure at different times. To restrict an entire existing premises in this way, when what is applied for may be a relatively minor extension or alteration would be clearly contrary to the advice in Circular 11/95.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 724 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) In paragraph 8.64, the importance of the entertainments industry to the character of central London is acknowledged, whilst in paragraph 8.65c it is accepted that cafes, restaurants and bars are visited in conjunction with shopping, cinema or theatre trips, thereby supporting the retail and cultural functions of the West End. The restrictive approach to hours of opening proposed in paragraph 8.63 is at variance with these comments. [681]

(84) (i) Object to wording of Policy (C) and (E) being identical. If the same wording is used, inappropriate entertainment uses may appear outside the CAZ with detrimental effect on the community and the environment. [10]

(85) (i) Terminal hours is supported but a blanket approach within different land use designations is inappropriate. Each case should be considered on its merits.[90]

(86) (i) Paragraph 8.63d is inappropriate and other factors should be considered. Alternatively, each case should be determined on its merits.

(ii) In any event, objection to Stress Area is maintained. [90]

(87) (i) The proposed expansion of the Edgware Road Stress Area into Seymour Place and Great Cumberland Place is inappropriate. Seymour Place is a retail parade where one would expect to find entertainment uses. [90]

(88) (i) The Stress Areas are defined in paragraph 8.62(B). This does not satisfactorily explain why the boundaries have been revised to include the eastern side of Rathbone Place. This section of Rathbone Place is, essentially, commercial in character and when considered in conjunction with the western side of Rathbone Place, there is little concentration of A3 uses along the road. There is no reason for Rathbone Place to be included within the Stress Area designation. In allowing the appeal (APP/X5990/A/01/1073779) at 3-5 Rathbone Place for a ground floor brasserie/bar in February 2002, the Inspector did not find an over- concentration of A3 uses along the road. [841]

(89) (i) It is unnecessary for the policy to speculate that the environmental effect may be detrimental to the area and discourage people from visiting traditional entertainment venues. There is no evidence to date that people are being distracted from visiting traditional entertainment attractions. Also query the definition of a traditional venue: for many people this would include pubs, bars, restaurants and nightclubs and many of those located in central London are tourist attractions in their own right. [768]

TA08: Summary of Council's Response

(1) (i) The valuable contribution that entertainment uses make is recognised in the introduction to the Entertainment policies. It is intended to protect the existing supply of entertainments in policy TACE8(A). New schemes like Paddington have allowed for a new supply of entertainment uses. It has not been a blanket ban on further entertainment uses. The City Council intends to manage the growth to minimise impacts.

(ii) It is City Council's aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can coexist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress. Whilst it is recognised that the entertainment industry is vital to the economy and a World Class City, there is a need to ensure that there is a mix of

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 725 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

entertainment uses which caters for the needs of all age groups in the community. If certain areas are dominated by uses which attract the same age groups, for one main purpose i.e.: consumption of alcohol, other groups are deterred from using these areas.

(iii) The Government sets out a vision in its White Paper (November 2000) for towns and cities. Part of this vision includes making all urban areas attractive, ensuring good design and planning, enabling a more environmentally sustainable way of life, and providing good quality services that meet people’s needs wherever they live. It emphasises the need to look after the existing urban environment well by stating that ‘The vast majority of the current urban fabric will still be with us in 30 years time. We must care properly for what we have by:"tackling litter, graffiti, vandalism and noise; maintaining and improving streets ". (Page 9).

(iv) The Council's policies on entertainment uses will assist in achieving this aim for Westminster, where currently in some areas the impact of conflicting uses is causing concern, and degrading the street environment. It is considered that there is an adequate supply (e.g. 2,600 A3 uses in Westminster) of entertainment uses in the City and therefore further growth should be limited. [789] [803] [64] [795] [702] [92] [780] [729] [748] [757] [141]

(2) (i) There is nothing in current Government guidance which leads the City Council to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the Entertainment Policies is contrary or in conflict with this guidance. In particular the policies are consistent with PPG 6, PPG 12 and the draft London Plan.

(ii) There is nothing in PPG6 which does not allow the designation of stress areas. PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. In the Stress Areas allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on the residential amenity and local environment cannot be controlled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances in the Stress Areas.

(iii) The Entertainment Policies fulfil the requirements of PPG12 by providing clear policies on Leisure uses, employment and wealth generating development. Chapter 4, on Sustainable Development, indicates in paragraph 4.1 that the planning system, development plans in particular, can make a major contribution to the achievement of the Government’s objectives for sustainable development.

(iv) The draft London Plan (2002) recognises that while London’s vibrant night-time economy is a major contributor to its world city status and that there is increasing demand for services to be provided later in the evening, the demands of the night time economy are concentrated in relatively small areas, including key parts of Central London, especially the West End and some town centres. (Paragraph 3D.27). Paragraph 3D.27 continues, “Longer opening hours contribute to the vibrancy and vitality of areas but can bring about their own problems, especially for the residents. Currently there are particular pressures on the West End.” Paragraph 3D.28 of the draft London Plan (2002) supports the City Council’s integrated response to tackling the wide range of issues associated with the night-time economy. Paragraph 3D.28 states that boroughs should ensure that planning, licensing, policing, transport and street management issues are managed through designated Entertainment Management Zones (EMZs). Although an EMZ has not been designated in the UDP the approach taken by the City Council in establishing a forum of agencies to co-ordinate issues affecting entertainment areas, mirrors that envisaged in the draft London Plan.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 726 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(v) It is not considered that the policy is contrary to PPG 1. The aim of the policy is not to hinder growth but to manage growth and channel growth into other areas where there is less stress on the environment. The Guidance does not account for areas where growth has reached a level which is considered to now lead to problems relating to residential amenity, character and function.

(vi) It is not considered that the policy is contrary to PPG15 as there is a policy provision which allows for exceptional circumstances, and the change of use of a historic building to ensure its protection, would warrant some consideration. Each application is considered on its merits.

(vii) Para 2.5 of PPG21 indicates that the preparation of statutory development plans should include existing and future provision for tourism and the relationship to other social, economic and environmental objectives. The policy provides for this but in specific locations having regard to local amenity and character issues. It is not considered that the policy is contrary to this guidance. There are other policies which support the growth in Tourism. There is a need to attract a mix of uses to cater for the needs of all visitors, and the ensure that there is not one particular type of use which dominates. Attraction to return to the City is crucial.

(viii) Policy TACE 10 accepts that noise must be a consideration when assessing an individual planning application. This is consistent with PPG. [299] [253] [769]

(3) (i) Terminal hours are guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. There also may be exceptional circumstances when the terminal hours may be varied. Terminal hours currently vary across the City. Closing times for Music and Dance Licensed premises in the West End vary more than any other area, with a range of 14 different terminal hours. The majority of licensed venues in the West End close between 3am and 4am. The numbers of licensed venues closing between this time rose dramatically from 45 in 1992 to 144 in 2000. As these variations already occur in closing times of premises, staggered operating hours are considered to already exist in the City. All residents have a right to a good night sleep. There needs to be a ‘window of opportunity’ to allow for this, where noise levels and disturbance are kept to a minimum.

(ii) There is need for time to service the streets i.e.: street/pavement cleansing and litter collection. This is best carried out when there are minimal people on the streets. In some parts of the City this time-frame is minimal, placing pressure on services.

(iii) In consideration of 27 recent A3 appeal cases the inspectors have imposed conditions relating to hours of operation and in 78% of cases imposed terminal hours of earlier or similar to that contained in the draft replacement UDP. [748] [724] [1] [680]

(4) (i) 'Stress Areas’ have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the West End Entertainment Impact Study (1991) which identifies

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 727 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts. The Mayor’s draft London Plan and SDS Technical Report six: Late Night London: Planning and Managing the Late Night Economy’ both recognise that the demands and pressures of the night time economy are concentrated in small areas- key parts of central London, especially the West End. The Technical report acknowledges that entertainment uses are over-concentrated in the West End. (Page 34).

(ii) The Stress Area concept originated in Westminster City Council in the early 1990’s when Stress areas were designated (Soho and Paddington) for enforcement purposes due to the problems associated with the degradation of the Street Environment. These locations were selected both because of the concerns expressed by the public and by Members and because they represented a range of difficulties facing the City Council in maintaining the quality and character of the street environment City-wide.

(iii) Following consultation during 1999 and serious concerns raised by members of the public on the deterioration of the street environment and impact on residential amenity, the City Council introduced Interim Policies during 2000 which re introduced the stress area concept for Planning and Licensing purposes with policies aimed to manage the growth of A3 /entertainment uses in particular parts of the City. The boundaries of these Stress Areas were incorporated into the 1st Deposit draft replacement UDP.

(iv) Following the 1st Deposit draft replacement UDP consultation process the stress area boundaries were reviewed. The City Council took into account the views expressed by the Licensing Policy & Procedures Working Group at its meeting on 24th August. The Working Group asked that consideration be given to extending the West End Stress Area boundary north of Oxford Street and west of Regent Street, the Edgware Road Stress Area to include Seymour Place and review the Westbourne Terrace area in the Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area. The City Council also considered the objections received at First Deposit, mapped the areas (identifying ‘entertainment uses’ in terms of both planning and licensing) and carried out also made to the areas to clarify boundaries e.g. boundaries now run along the middle of the road, where appropriate, to clearly indicate which side of the road is in the stress area.

(v) The Stress Area boundaries have been reviewed again having regard to the representations received at Sccond Deposit. Minor changes have been made to the boundaries having regard to these objections. See also response (a). [1] [803] [141] [843]

(5) (i) The onus will be on the applicant to present a case when making a planning application. [748]

(6) (i) See response (c). [748]

(7) (i) The policy allows for exceptional circumstances. The character and function of the CAZ is based on mixed use and not dominated by one use. However, in recent years this balance of uses has altered and a dominance of entertainment uses is occurring in some areas.

(ii) At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. There also may be exceptional

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 728 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

circumstances which arise where the terminal hours may be varied. See responses (a) and (b). [1] [729] [748] [795] [299] [855]

(8) (i) Disagree. See response (1) (2) and (4). [777]

(9) (i) It is the City Council's aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can coexist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(ii) Under ‘human rights’ provisions, residents have the right to a good night sleep. It must also be recognised that there are residents in Council housing who cannot move due to transfer housing constraints.

(iii) The policy approach is considered to produce an appropriate balance between the role of parts of the CAZ as an entertainment centre and the protection of residential amenity. The Plan in general aims to increase City Centre living in accordance with national and regional planning policy guidance. The policy approach does allow scope for new/ expanded entertainment uses within Westminster. Chapter 1 on Westminster's Central Area sets out the Council's planning approach to the CAZ and CAZ Frontages, including summaries of character and function of sub-areas of the CAZ. The advantages of living in Central London are pointed out in this chapter.

(iv) Additional references have been included to recognise that the A3 and D2 use classes contain a broad range of uses which may vary in terms of their impacts on amenity etc. Policy TACE 10 has been framed more positively and sets out clearer criteria against which entertainment use proposals can be assessed. Taken together the policies do allow scope for new/expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met. It is not accepted that the Stress Areas should be deleted. However the boundaries of all the Stress Areas have been reviewed and revised boundaries are indicated on maps 8.2 to 8.5.

(v) It is recognised that many of the issues affecting the public realm require management solutions that cannot be resolved through the application of planning policy and the UDP alone. The City Council is continuing to liaise with the entertainment industry and others to facilitate the improved management of the evening and night time economy. The City Council has commissioned and published research on the impacts of the entertainment industry in the West End and the management of the public realm. [64] [795] [141] [108] [855] [1] [729] [748] [299]

(10) (i) Licensing hours will be dealt with through the appropriate licensing controls. However it is legitimate for the Council to control the hours of operation of premises through planning conditions and to enforce these where appropriate through the planning process on protection of amenity and other grounds. Greater explanation has been included on the issue of operating/terminal hours and the application of conditions in the supporting text to policies TACE 8 and 10. See also (I) above. [64] [795] [141] [108] [777]

(11) (i) See responses (1), (2) and (4). [64] [108] [795] [141] [855]

(12) (i) See responses (1), (2) and (4). [64] [108] [785] [795] [141]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 729 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(13-14) (i) See responses (1-3), (4) and (9). [64] [108] [298] [785]

(15) (i) Support welcomed.

(16) (i) See responses (1-3) and (9). [780] [491] [851]

(17) (i) There is nothing specific in current Government Guidance which leads the City Council to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the Entertainment Policies is contrary or in conflict with this guidance. In particular the policies are consistent with PPG 6, PPG 12 and the draft London Plan. See also response (a), (b) and (d). [780] [491] [851]

(18) (i) Disagree. A unique situation has occurred in Westminster where an over concentration of entertainment uses has occurred and is having major impacts on residential amenity and character of some areas in the city. This situation requires recognition which has been given in recent Government documents such as the Mayor's draft London Plan. See responses (a), (b) and (d). [376] [777] [108]

(19) (i) The entertainment policy in the first deposit UDP, mainly relating to D2 uses, (policy TCE 8 ) has been revised and combined with policies relating to the control of A3 uses from the shopping chapter - policies SS3 and SS13 - to form 3 policies relating to the location of entertainment uses (policy TACE 8) , the location of large entertainment uses (policy TACE 9) and a policy setting out criteria to assess all entertainment uses (policy TACE 10). The chapter has been renamed the Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment chapter.

(ii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in paras 8.2a, 8.56b, 8.56c in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. The rationale for the introduction of the stress areas has been expanded. A clear statement of the indicators of environmental stress is given in para 8.65b. Stricter control over the location of entertainment uses is necessary in the stress areas for the reasons set out in the Plan. As pointed out in para 8.71m the continued expansion of certain types of large A3 and D2 entertainment uses could undermine the attractiveness of central Westminster to visitors. Examples of exceptional circumstances have been outlined in para 8.63d and 8.71h under both policies TACE 8 and TACE 9. Greater explanation has also been included on the issue of operating/terminal hours. Greater recognition of the linkages between small and large scale entertainment uses and visits to the theatre and cinemas and supporting shopping in the West End has been included in paras 8.65d and 8.71p. Additional references have been included to recognise that the A3 and D2 use classes contain a broad range of uses which may vary in terms of their impacts on amenity etc. Policy TACE 10 has been framed more positively and sets out clearer criteria against which entertainment use proposals can be assessed. Taken together the policies do allow scope for new/expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met. It is not accepted that the Stress Areas should be deleted. However the boundaries of all the stress areas have been reviewed and revised boundaries are indicated on maps 8.2 to 8.5 .

(iii) It is recognised that many of the issues affecting the public realm require management solutions that cannot be resolved through the application of planning policy and the UDP alone. The City Council is continuing to liaise with

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 730 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

the entertainment industry and others to facilitate the improved management of the evening and night time economy. The City Council has commissioned and published research on the impacts of the entertainment industry in the West End and the management of the public realm.

(iv) The Mayor of London supports Westminster's position in the draft London Plan where dispersal of uses is encouraged due to the impacts being experienced in the West End. Dispersal to areas requiring regeneration are the most suited. This will take some pressure off the West End. The World Class City incorporates places such as the City of London and Southwark, it is not just made up of Westminster.

(v) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. There also may be exceptional circumstances which arise where the terminal hours may be varied. Terminal hours currently vary across the City. Closing times for Music and Dance Licensed premises in the West End vary more than any other area, with a range of 14 different terminal hours. The majority of licensed venues in the West End close between 3am and 4am. The numbers of licensed venues closing between this time rose dramatically from 45 in 1992 to 144 in 2000. As these variations already occur in closing times of premises, staggered operating hours are considered to already exist in the City. [724]

(20) (i) The entertainment policy in the first deposit UDP, mainly relating to D2 uses, (Policy TACE 8 ) has been revised and combined with policies relating to the control of A3 uses from the shopping chapter - policies SS3 and SS13 - to form 3 policies relating to the location of entertainment uses (policy TACE 8) , the location of large entertainment uses (Policy TACE 9) and a separate Policy setting out criteria to assess all entertainment uses (Policy TACE 10). The chapter has accordingly been renamed the Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment chapter.

(ii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in paras 8.2a, and 8.56b, 8.56c in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster. The rationale for the introduction of the stress areas has been expanded. Stricter control over the location of entertainment uses is necessary in the stress areas for the reasons set out in the Plan. Examples of exceptional circumstances have been outlined in paras 8.63d and 8.71h under both policies TACE 8 and TACE 9. Greater explanation has also been included on the issue of operating/terminal hours. Policy TACE 10 has been framed more positively and sets out clearer criteria against which entertainment use proposals can be assessed. Taken together the policies do allow scope for new/expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met. The onus will be on the applicant to present a case when lodging a planning application. [803] [64] [795]

(21) (i) See responses (1-2). [64]

(22-24) (i) See responses (1-2) and (4). [748] [795]

(25) (i) See response (4). [795]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 731 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(26) (i) It is not intended for this paragraph to be used to justify a blanket ban on all A3 uses. Each application will be considered on its merits having regard to the overall cumulative impact. At the time of this decision, it is likely, that due to the status of the UDP, little material weight was given to the issues raised in the Plan including cumulative impact. [777]

(27) (i) "Exceptional Circumstances" are clarified in Para 8.63d and 8.71h where examples of what may constitute exceptional circumstances were provided at 2nd Deposit stage. This is in no way meant to be an exhaustive list of all the possible exceptional circumstances in which the City Council may grant permission for an entertainment use, extension to an entertainment use, etc. It is not possible or intended that the City Council identify all possible scenarios. It is recognised that there may be other exceptional circumstances that arise. The onus will be on the applicant to present a case when lodging a planning application. [777]

(28) (i) See response (1-2). [777]

(29) (i) There is nothing specific in current Government Guidance which leads the City Council to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the Entertainment Policies is contrary or in conflict with this guidance. The policies are consistent with PPG 6, PPG 12 and the draft London Plan. See also responses (a), (b), (d), (c), (i). [777] [795]

(30) (i) See response (3) and (9). [803] [772] [851] [693] [858] [843]

(31) (i) Disagree. See response (19). [803]

(32) (i) There has been a recent trend towards the establishment of larger bars, restaurants, night clubs and other entertainment uses. These large uses can be particularly harmful to residential amenity and can alter the character and function of an area. Large entertainment uses attract large numbers of people and therefore the locations of these types of uses should be adequately managed. There is concern that the supply of large entertainment uses has reached to point of saturation in the West End Stress Area. Council policy intends to protect the existing uses, however, and manage growth. Material considerations are still required to be taken into account having regard to the individual circumstances of the case.

(ii) There is a desire to disperse uses across London, which is supported by the draft London Plan, released by the Mayor of London. Minimal growth in the West End will allow for growth in other areas, particularly where regeneration is required. This would contribute to the World Class City status of London as a whole. [785]

(33) (i) The Stress Area boundary has been modified with minor changes. Refer to Map 8.2 of the pre-inquiry version of the Plan.

(i) The policy application in para 8.63a under policy TACE 8 has been amended to clarify that terminal hours earlier than the latest terminal hour specified for different parts of Westminster may be appropriate in certain circumstances. [719]

(34) (i) Examples of exceptional circumstances have been outlined in para 8.63d and 8.71h under both policies TACE 8 and TACE 9. [20]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 732 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(35) (i) Amendments have been made to the pre-inquiry version of the Plan.

In view of the likely liberalisation of the current strict gaming controls during the life of the Plan it is not considered appropriate to exempt casinos from the provisions of the entertainment policies. However a new paragraph has been added under Policy TACE 9. Para 8.71o states "Most casinos in Westminster exceed 800 sqm. New proposals for casinos or extensions to existing casinos would, therefore, be considered as large entertainment uses under policy TACE 9. It is recognised that casinos are currently more strictly regulated through additional controls imposed by the Gaming Board and the Licensing Justices compared to other ‘D2’ entertainment uses. Under existing national gaming legislation all casinos in London are permitted to open for gaming activity from 14.00 to 06.00 daily except on Sunday mornings when gaming activity must cease by 04.00. In addition the operational characteristics of casinos and the nature of their clientele means that casinos are not associated with crime, disorder or the drinking culture. The City Council will take into account the special circumstances relating to casinos in applying policy TACE 9"

(ii) However as it is likely that the current strict gaming controls relating to casinos will be relaxed during the life of the Plan, it is not considered that casino uses should generally be exempted from the provisions of policy TACE 9. Where proposals for casinos are considered acceptable, a planning condition will normally be attached to limit proposals to a casino and no other use within use class D2 (c).

(iii) A reference has been added to para 8.2a to recognise that Westminster is the main focus of the casino industry in London.

(iv) Para 8.71n has been amended to recognise that casinos as well as restaurants generally have less detrimental effects on amenity than other large entertainment uses such as pubs, bars and live music and dance venues.

(v) Para 8.71q has also been amended to acknowledge that currently casinos can only operate in certain limited areas outside Westminster.

(vi) Appendix 8.1 has been expanded to explain how the large entertainment use thresholds have been derived. [813]

(36) (i) Disagree that inclusion of these words necessarily weakens the intent of the paragraphs.

(ii) Support welcomed to paragraph 8.71o. Minor changes have been made to this paragraph to reflect the current situation.

(iii) Support welcomed to paragraph 8.71p. Comments noted.

(iv) Support for TACE8(E) welcomed. [104]

(37) (i) The exclusion of Leicester Square from the West End Stress Area and the introduction of an entertainment route is not accepted. New and expanded entertainment uses in this area would also be likely to contribute to the environmental stress within the Stress Area and could affect residential amenity beyond the area of the Square itself. The Covent Garden Entertainment Route in the adopted UDP has been deleted as circumstances have overtaken its

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 733 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

usefulness. The West End Stress Area has been modified but still includes Leicester Square as part of it. [757]

(38) (i) Support welcomed. [730]

(39) (i) It was not considered that Mayfair should at this stage be designated a Stress area as the concentration of entertainment uses is not considered at a level that would constitute saturation. Mapping and inspections of the area were carried out to confirm this position. [134]

(40) (i) The City Council has not included the designation of the Wider Central Area in the UDP for the reasons set out in the introduction to chapter 1 of the Plan and therefore the suggested amendments in relation to the Wider Central Area are not accepted. The boundary of the CAZ has, however, been reviewed and updated in the light of land use changes in the last 10 years. Suggested wording not considered appropriate.

(ii) Edgware Road Stress Area boundaries have been modified. The northern section of the area has been deleted as it overlaps with the Paddington Special Policy Area and there is not an over-concentration of A3 or entertainment uses in this area. The area fronting Cabbell Street and the area between Connaught Place and Bayswater Road have been deleted, as the areas are residential in nature and dominated by office and residential development, respectively. Two new areas have been included. The corner of Marble Arch and Great Cumberland Place, where a predominant A3 use is located and other opportunities exist and Seymour Place, which has a dominance of A3 uses on both sides of the road. There is no justification for the area mentioned to be removed from the Edgware Road stress area. There exists a concentration of entertainment uses in this location.

(iii) The West End Stress Area boundaries have been modified. The boundary has been extended north of Oxford Street to include part of Hanway Place, Hanway Street, and the eastern side of Rathbone Place. The rest of the boundary has been taken approximately one block north of Oxford Street along Eastcastle, Market Place and Great Castle Streets. The boundary has been extended to the west to include parts of Hanover Street, Maddox Street, Conduit Street, Heddon Street, Swallow Street, Vine Street and Air Street. A small area has also been included between Norris and Charles Street. The area bounded by St. Martins Place, William IV Street and Duncannon Street has been removed as there is little concentration or saturation of A3 or entertainment uses in this area. [90]

(41) (i) Support welcomed. The entertainment policy in the first deposit UDP, mainly relating to D2 uses, (policy TCE 8) has been revised and combined with policies relating to the control of A3 uses from the shopping chapter - policies SS3 and SS13 - to form 3 policies relating to the location of entertainment uses (policy TACE 8) , the location of large entertainment uses (policy TACE 9) and a policy setting out criteria to assess all entertainment uses (Policy TACE 10). The chapter has been renamed the Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment chapter.

(ii) Part (A) of policy TACE 8 which resists the loss of entertainment venues in the CAZ that do not have significant adverse effects on residential amenity is considered necessary to support central London's entertainment functions for the reasons set out in the Plan. [555]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 734 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(42) (i) See response (i). [680]

(43) (i) The West End Stress Area has been modified to encompass the area just north of Oxford Street and to take in the eastern side of Rathbone Place. It is not justified that the boundary be extended to take in Rathbone Street. Hanway Place and Hanway Street, up to the City Council boundary, have also been included. [549]

(44) (i) The policy approach is considered to produce an appropriate balance between the role of parts of the CAZ as an entertainment centre and the protection of residential amenity. The Plan in general aims to increase City Centre living in accordance with national and regional planning policy guidance. The policy approach does allow scope for new/ expanded entertainment uses within Westminster. Chapter 1 on Westminster's Central Area sets out the Council's planning approach to the CAZ and CAZ Frontages including summaries of character and function of sub-areas of the CAZ. The advantages of living in central London are pointed out in this chapter. See responses (a), (b), (c), (d) also. [141] [795] [757] [298]

(45) (i) Balancing a mix of uses and creating a sustainable urban environment. It is City Councils aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can coexist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(iii) Our Towns and Cities: The Future, Delivering an Urban Renaissance: White Paper: (November 2000) outlines the Government’s vision for revitalising urban areas and sets out its policies and proposals for achieving this. London is recognised as competing as a global city with diverse communities and differences between the suburbs and the centre of the Cities highlighted.

(v) It emphasises the need to look after the existing urban environment well by stating that "The vast majority of the current urban fabric will still be with us in 30 years time. We must care properly for what we have by:

tackling litter, graffiti, vandalism and noise;

maintaining and improving streets;….." (Page 9).

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 735 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(vii) It is considered that there is an adequate supply (e.g. 2600 x A3 uses in Westminster) of entertainment uses in the City and therefore further growth should be limited.

For these reasons above it is not agreed to amend the policy. [108]

(49) (i) As para 8.71m states " Large entertainment uses which attract large numbers of people can cause relatively greater environmental nuisance and amenity problems." Para 8.71n has been amended to recognise that " the broad A3 and D2 Use Classes contain a range of entertainment uses which may generate different impacts and result in varying degrees of environmental and amenity problems." [108]

(50) (i) It is not considered that St James's Conservation Area should at this stage be designated a Stress area as the concentration of entertainment uses is not considered at a level that would constitute saturation. Mapping and inspections of the area were carried out to confirm this position. [121]

(51) (i) Further consideration of the West End Stress Area has been made at pre-inquiry stage and some minor alterations have been made to the boundary of the Stress Area to exclude Conduit Street from Stress Area. This is having regard to the fact that there are no existing A3 or D2 uses located in this street. The boundary has been redrawn on Map 8.2. The other side streets leading off Regent Street have been reconsidered. It is considered that these have an over-concentration of A3 and D2 uses which satisfactorily supply the needs of the shoppers. Paragraph 8.63d has also been modified to add 2nd Floor and above in Oxford Street, Regent Street and Piccadilly to serve the needs of shoppers as an exceptional circumstance for permitting the establishment of A3 uses. See responses (a) (b) also. [680]

(52) (i) There is no reason why conditions should not be imposed on Planning permissions. This is standard and reasonable planning practice which is used by many authorities and by the Planning Inspectorate. When considering issues of amenity, hours of operation can be crucial in determining whether a proposal should be granted permission. [843]

(53) (i) "Exceptional Circumstances" are clarified in Para 8.63d and 8.71h. This is in no way meant to be an exhaustive list of all the possible exceptional circumstances in which the City Council may grant permission for an entertainment use, extension to an entertainment use, etc. It is not possible or intended that the City Council identify all possible scenarios. It is recognised that there may be other exceptional circumstances that arise. The onus will be on the applicant to present a case when lodging a planning application. See also responses (a), (b) and (c). [853]

(54) (i) Suggested wording not accepted. See response (13) and (22). [299]

(55) (i) See response (74) and (4). [680]

(56) (i) Para 8.71p has been amended to ensure no inconsistency between Para (B) and this paragraph.

(ii) Para 8.63D: Not agreed. The supply of entertainment uses has reach a level of saturation in the designated Stress Areas. Therefore any growth in entertainment should be in exceptional circumstances only, including expansion

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 736 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

of existing uses, due to the current problems being experience in these areas. The issues are related to more than just amenity. Character and function of an area are also taken into account in the policy. [845]

(58) (i) See response (aa). [843]

(59) (i) The City Council will consider the issue of cumulative impact when determining planning applications, and therefore each application will be considered on its merits, having regard to cumulative issues. The City Council does not support the intensification of background noise levels where current levels are unacceptable in a particular area. This is clearly outlined in Councils Noise Policy, ENV6. [843]

(60) (i) The City Council's Visitors Survey identified concerns from visitors. The greatest barriers to returning were begging, litter and rubbish, fear of pickpockets, fear of violent street robbery and lesser concerns of street urination, noise and nuisance. If these issues continue to rise it is expected that peoples' perceptions of the city will alter, and returning may be under question. This paragraph specifically mentions the ' cumulative effect' which can be detrimental.

(ii) This, however, is not the only issue of concern. It is City Councils aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure/entertainment, commercial activities can coexist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress. Whilst it is recognised that the entertainment industry is vital to the economy and a World Class City, there is a need to ensure that there is a mix of entertainment uses which caters for the needs of all age groups in the community. If certain areas are dominated by uses which attract the same age groups, for one main purpose i.e.: consumption of alcohol, other groups are deterred from using these areas. It is not intended that this statement links drinking and drug taking. It states 'late night drinking and drug taking' as two separate pursuits. [843] [768]

(61) (i) See responses (s) and (c). [859] [851] [693] [858] [768]

(62) (i) Support welcomed. Not considered necessary to change the name of the Stress Area at this stage. [381]

(63) (i) Support welcomed. A new definition of Entertainment Use has been included in the Glossary of the pre-inquiry version of the Plan.

(ii) Para 8.57: Agreed to include the word 'size' after 'location' in this paragraph as the policy aims to manage the expansion of existing uses also.

(iii) (A) Not agreed to omit the word significant. A certain amount of flexibility has to be provided fairly and reasonably in the Plan.

(iv) (E) Support welcomed.

(v) Support welcomed for paras 8.60 and 8.61.

(vi) This is conditioned as part of any planning permission (para 8.63).

(vii) Not agreed. Need to provide some flexibility in the Plan, to be reasonable.

(viii) Support welcomed.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 737 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ix) Not agreed. There are cases that this could occur. I.e.: A night club converted to a restaurant or café and could be in the interests of adjoining residents.

(x) Cumulative impact is covered elsewhere in the policy. It is given that refuse can cause effects on an individual and cumulative way. This does not need to be spelt out in the Plan.

(xi) There is need to be reasonable and accept that it is not in every case that an additional A3 use or Minor extensions will have a harmful effect on residential. I.e.. There may be exceptional circumstances.

(xii) Support welcomed for para 8.65b.

(xiii) Support welcomed.

(xiv) Support welcomed.

(xv) The content of these paragraphs are covered elsewhere in the policies. These were repetition. See 8.65b and Introduction. [381]

(64) (i) Support for exceptional circumstances acknowledged. See response (c) also. [779]

(65) (i) Disagree. Entertainment Use is now defined in the Glossary in the Pre-Inquiry version of the UDP. See also response (a).

(ii) These types of uses can have the potential to impact on residential amenity dependant on the types of uses contained within them and the numbers of people they attract etc. Not agreed to amend this paragraph.

(iii) Modifications have been made to the Pre-Inquiry version of the plan to recognise the special consideration that should be made for Casinos. Paragraph 8.65c has been modified to recognise that Casinos and Bingo Halls differ from other D2 uses such as Night Clubs when considering issues of residential amenity and impacts on the environment. It is recognised that Bingo Hall and Casinos are currently separately regulated and can operate until 6am. This is taken into account by the City Council when processing planning applications. Para 8.63b has been modified to reflect the current situation regarding operating hours for Casinos and Bingo Halls. Modifications have been made to policies TACE 8 and 9 to make it clear that Casinos could be considered and exceptional circumstance under current legislation, depending on the proposal.

(iv) Modifications have been made to Appendix 8.1, Para 8.1.5 recognising that different types of large D2 uses may have different capacities. For example, the regulations currently governing the layout of casinos, their nationally regulated opening times and the larger back of house areas (for kitchens, administration, staff facilities and security equipment/CCTV) can result in lower densities of customer usage and higher than normal staff/customer ratios. [860]

(66) (i) There is nothing specific in current Government Guidance which leads the City Council to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the Entertainment Policies is contrary or in conflict with this guidance. In particular the policies are consistent with PPG 6, PPG 12 and the draft London Plan. Disagree. See responses (a) and (b). [693]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 738 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(67) (i) There are residential premises located completed surrounding Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus. These residents are subject to unwelcome noise from patrons leaving premises and walking through their streets to reach public transport, or to move from venue to venue. It is the City Council's intention to support the retention of entertainment uses which do not have a significant adverse effects on residential amenity. This is stated in the Policy. (TACE 8 (A)).

(ii) The decision for venues to charge an entrance fee is not a planning matter for consideration.

(iii) It is the City Council's responsibility to ensure that residential amenity is protected, regardless of how many people are affected. [855]

(68) (i) There is no reason why conditions should not be imposed consents. This is standard and reasonable planning practice which is used by many authorities and by the Planning Inspectorate. When considering issues of amenity, hours of operation can be crucial in determining whether a proposal should be granted permission. Where no physical extension is involved, might include scenarios where there is a proposal to change a condition on a permission to allow a greater capacity of people or a change of a type of A3 use i.e.. A condition restricting the use to a restaurant, changing to a bar. It could also be in the instance of a new shopfront being fitted or new plant. These changes could result in further impacts on residential amenity which need to be considered in light of the hours of operation. [859] [858] [843]

(69) (I) This is implicit. No change considered necessary. [858]

(70) (i) It is not agreed that the part of Conduit Street should be excluded from the Stress Area. The entire area surrounding this part of Conduit street has an over- concentration of entertainment uses. This street is affected by the general environmental stress of the area. Future growth in this area should therefore be carefully managed. [856]

(71) (i) It is not the City Council's intention to reduce the offer of entertainment uses. It is recognised that this entertainment offer is part of what attracts people to the City and contributes to it being a Word Class City. The key is to supply a balance of uses to meet all needs. It is considered however that residential amenity should be taken into account to ensure that impacts are minimised. This is considered a reasonable approach. [785]

(72) (i) See responses (19), (26) and (32). [785]

(73) (i) See response (3). [785] [768]

(74) (i) It is not intended for paragraph 8.66a to be used to justify a blanket ban on all A3 uses. Each application will be considered on it's merits having regard to the overall cumulative impact. It may be that a small restaurant which agrees to conditions maintaining this as a restaurant with reasonable operating hours may be supported in particular locations where amenity considerations have been satisfied. See response (m) also. [859] [858]

(75) (i) See response (9). [707] [843]

(76) (i) The Use Classes Order is a Planning matter. Once this is amended the City Council can review and amend the UDP. There is currently no clear Government

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 739 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

timetable on the UCO review. The Planning system needs to be consistent with the Licensing system. Not agreed that the use of an SPG is the correct planning tool to manage land use balance. It needs a clear strategic policy to achieve this, which is the role of the UDP. [768] [843]

(77) (i) Agree that entertainment uses can be part of an area's character and function. However this is not the case in the CAZ where mixed use forms the character and function. If these uses are unbalanced, the character and function changes and in the case of Westminster, detrimental effects on residential amenity occur. [768]

(78) (i) Not agreed. There is evidence of conflict. [768]

(79) (i) See responses (1-2), (4) and (9). [768]

(80) (i) Support for extension to Stress Area at 2nd Deposit welcomed.

(ii) It is not agreed to extend the West End Stress Area further to the North to include Charlotte Street and Goodge Street. Even though it is recognised that there is a supply of A3 uses in these localities the entire extension of the Stress Area to this location is not justified. There are areas in the vicinity where A3 and D2 uses are sparse. There is currently little evidence that the amenity and character of the entire area (from the current stress area boundary to this area) is eroding due to an over concentration of entertainment uses. This area however can be monitored and reviewed during the life of the Plan.

(iii) The City Council is working with LB Camden on Licensing matters. See response (3) on terminal hours. [719]

(81) (i) Disagree. See responses (1-3), (9), and (65). [842] [841]

(82) (i) Disagree. See responses (1-4), and (9). [768]

(83) (i) See responses (1), (26-27). [707] [68]

(84) (i) Saturation is considered to be where there is an over concentration of entertainment uses in an area which then results in environmental stress being present. It relates to the issue of balance where the vitality and viability of an area must be maintained. Activities outgrown the capacity for public transport, policing and public services to cope with demand. The three designated Stress Areas are considered by the City Council to have reached this point of saturation or over-concentration, where growth needs to be managed to ensure impacts are kept to a minimum. See responses (a), (b) also (d). [768]

(85) (i) The policies aim to strike that balance. See responses (1-2), (4) and (9). [681]

(86) (i) See response (3). [681]

(87) (i) Provision must be made for some growth. However all applications will need to be assessed against the criteria set out to ensure there is no detrimental effect on residential amenity. [10]

(88) (i) Support welcomed. Each case is considered on its merits. [90]

(89) (i) See responses (1-2) and (4). [90]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 740 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(90) (i) In reviewing the stress area boundaries, officers had regard to the views expressed by the Licensing Policy & Procedures Working Group at its meeting on 24th August. The Working Group asked that consideration be given to extending the West End Stress Area boundary north of Oxford Street and west of Regent Street, the Edgware Road Stress Area to include Seymour Place and review the Westbourne Terrace area in the Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area. Officers considered the objections received at First Deposit, mapped the areas (identifying ‘entertainment uses’ in terms of both planning and licensing) and carried out site inspections of the stress areas and environs. General amendments were made to the areas to clarify boundaries e.g. boundaries now run along the middle of the road, where appropriate, to clearly indicate which side of the road is in the stress area.

(ii) The corner of Marble Arch and Great Cumberland Place, where a predominant A3 use is located and other opportunities exist and Seymour Place, which has a dominance of A3 uses on both sides of the road were included in the Stress Area. It is considered important that the retail function of Seymour street is not undermined any further. Adequate entertainment uses exist to cater for needs in this locality. It is not agreed to modify the Stress Area map. [90]

(91) (i) The boundary has been extended north of Oxford Street to include part of Hanway Place, Hanway Street, and the eastern side of Rathbone Place. The rest of the boundary has been taken approximately one block north of Oxford Street along Eastcastle, Market Place and Great Castle Streets. There is likely to be continued pressure for A3 uses here, to the detriment of shopping. [841]

(92) (i) See responses (1-2), (4) and (60). [768]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.8.1 As already stated, the degree of overlap, complexity and the somewhat repetitive nature of the various objections made to to Policies TACE 8-10 means that they will be considered together. Consideration will be given under the generic headings that have been used to group the various objections and the conclusions I have reached upon them collectively. The attached matrix schedule indicates under which heading(s) I have considered individual objections to Policy TACE 8. My conclusions are set out under these headings later in the report (see TA10):

Recommendations

SEE UNDER POLICY TACE 10 RECOMMENDATIONS

TA08-10: General Entertainment Policies

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 18 Scottish & Newcastle Retail 64 Shaftesbury PLC 66 Restaurant Property Advisors' Society 264 Business in Sport & Leisure Ltd 340 British Beer and Pub Association 532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion) 724 Grosvenor Limited

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 741 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

768 Covent Garden Restaurant Association 777 J D Wetherspoon Plc 813 Grosvenor Casinos 825 The British Hospitality Association 826 The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) 843 Westminster Licensees Association 846 Marylebone Warwick Balfour 858 Fish! 859 Manto Group

TA08: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements (sequentially numbered as following from (89) see above under TA08)

(90) (i) Welcome acknowledgement that casinos are different from other entertainment uses. But this should be reflected in policies. There should be an exclusive policy dealing only with casinos. [813]

(91) (i) Stress Areas are arbitrary in their definition and insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the identification of their boundaries. Delete them. Whilst we acknowledge that local authorities have an obligation to consider law and order issues, there are alternative and better targeted ways of approaching such problems other than through the imposition of stringent planning conditions on legitimate business operations. The effect of crime and disorder should be controlled on a premises by premises basis e.g. through environmental health, licensing or other existing forms of control. [18] [66] [768] [777] [843]

(92) (i) The issues raised in the Unitary Development Plan can more effectively be addressed through enforcement and management rather than through straits of land use planning control. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that residential communities are declining as a result of the West End’s continuing pre-eminence as an entertainment destination, quite the contrary, the central area is becoming a more popular residential location in spite of the burgeoning entertainment industry. The Plan effectively indicates that the local authority are disenfranchising a huge section of the working and visiting population of Westminster from the development of new entertainment facilities. These policies are too restrictive. [1] [64] [84] [264] [340] [724] [768] [777] [825] [826]

(93) (i) Westminster City Council should cite the actual not alleged number of breaches and to explain the link between them and the growth in tourism made later in the same paragraph. [768] [843] [858] [859]

(94) (i) The growth of the entertainment industry in the next 10 years is not the relevant criterion; rather it is the degree to which it will expand within Westminster and whether that will harm interests of acknowledged importance. In this regard all indications are that the growth will come from the “grey” market, which should hardly be viewed as a source of disorder, and is unlikely to cause a huge expansion in outlets. The “saturation” assumption if correct, overlooks the fact that the market would reallocate growth to different areas. [768] [843]

(95) (i) The Stress Area boundaries are arbitrary. Moreover within the Stress Areas there is not a uniform picture emerging as to crime and anti-social behaviour. This generalisation is contrary to PPG6 which includes pubs and bars as part of vital and vibrant town centres. There is an implicit assumption which is not

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 742 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

accepted that pubs and bars cause crime and anti-social behaviour. [768] [858] [859]

(96) (i) It is noted that this section states that there “may” be conflicts and not that there “will” be conflicts between entertainment and residential needs. There is no evidence that there is such a conflict, or that such a conflict is in any way harmful. Much of the increase in commercial demand, in particular the development of uses within the central activity zone, stems directly from Council policies to stimulate investment [843] [859]

(97) (i) Note that the aspiration for liberalisation of opening hours comes from a far wider sector of society than just the entertainment industry itself. [858] [859]

(98) (i) The Council had previously designated "Quiet Enclaves" where there was little A3 or entertainment business and a substantial amount of residential property. It is our belief that this is a fair approach, assuming of course that the "Quiet Enclaves" are fully detailed and realistic. Again, this would give specific guidance to operators that A3 and entertainment businesses would be unlikely to gain consent in these areas.[532]

(99) (i) Pleased to see that the revised UDP acknowledges that the entertainment industry in London plays an important part "in contributing to London as a World City. Central London has been at the cutting edge of the entertainment industry for a considerable period."

(ii) Note that "the City Council acknowledges that restaurants, bars, clubs, casinos and other entertainment uses form an essential and valuable feature of London life". But the new paragraphs under this section undermine this comment. [532]

(100) (i) Redraw Edgware Road Stress Area to exclude Marble Arch Tower. [846]

TA08: Summary of Council Response (sequentially numbered from (89) see above)

(90) (i) Amendments have been made to the pre-inquiry version of the Plan to address concerns. In particular, refer to:

Page 21 Page 81 Page 83, para. 1.46 Page 91 Page 447, para 8.63b [NB: Incorporating this amendment would remove the need to modify 8.71g] Page 449, para 8.65c Page 455, para. 8.71o Page 469, para. 8.1.5

(ii) The main reason for not including a separate policy for Casinos is the forthcoming deregulation. It is clear from the White Paper that Casinos will be permitted to allow people to enter their premises without the current 24 hour notice rule, and will be permitted to have live entertainment and bars open for as long as the establishment operates. There proposes also to be no further restriction on the consumption of alcohol at Gaming Tables. It is clear from the White Paper that Casinos will have the ability to become more entertainment complexes. TACE 8, TACE 9 & TACE 10 provide for exceptional circumstances and if it can be demonstrated in a particular case that exceptional

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 743 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

circumstances should be applied there may be provision to allow for a Casino use. It is not considered that Casinos warrant their own separate policy due to emerging legislation. [121] [813]

(91) (i) It is the City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(ii) Whilst it is recognised that the entertainment industry is vital to the economy and a World Class City, there is a need to ensure that there is a mix of entertainment uses which caters for the needs of all age groups in the community. If certain areas are dominated by uses which attract the same age groups, for one main purpose i.e.: consumption of alcohol, other groups are deterred from using these areas. In some areas the impacts of conflicting uses is causing concern and degrading the street environment. It is considered that there is an adequate supply (2600 A3 uses in Westminster) of entertainment uses in the City and therefore further growth should be limited.

(iii) Stress Areas are defined areas which have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the West End Entertainment Impact Study (1991) which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts. The Mayor’s draft London Plan and SDS Technical Report six: Late Night London: Planning and Managing the Late Night Economy’ both recognise that the demands and pressures of the night time economy are concentrated in small areas- key parts of central London, especially the West End. The Technical report acknowledges that entertainment uses are over-concentrated in the West End. (Page 34).

(v) The Stress Area concept originated in Westminster City Council in the early 1990’s when Stress areas were designated (Soho and Paddington) for enforcement purposes due to the problems associated with the degradation of the Street Environment. These locations were selected both because of the concerns expressed by the public and by Members and because they represented a range of difficulties facing the City Council in maintaining the quality and character of the street environment City-wide.

(vi) Following consultation during 1999 and serious concerns raised by members of the public on the deterioration of the street environment and impact on residential amenity, the City Council introduced interim policies during 2000 which re- introduced the Stress Area concept for planning and licensing purposes, with policies aimed to manage the growth of A3 entertainment uses in particular parts of the City. The boundaries of these Stress Areas were incorporated into the First Deposit draft replacement UDP.

(vii) Following the First Deposit draft replacement UDP consultation process the stress area boundaries were reviewed. The City Council took into account the views expressed by the Licensing Policy and Procedures Working Group at its meeting on 24th August. The Working Group asked that consideration be given

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 744 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

to extending the West End Stress Area boundary north of Oxford Street and west of Regent Street, the Edgware Road Stress Area to include Seymour Place and review the Westbourne Terrace area in the Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area. The City Council also considered the objections received at First Deposit, mapped the areas (identifying ‘entertainment uses’ in terms of both planning and licensing) and carried out site inspections of the stress areas and environs. General amendments were also made to the areas to clarify boundaries e.g. boundaries now run along the middle of the road, where appropriate, to clearly indicate which side of the road is in the stress area.

(viii) The Stress Area boundaries have been reviewed again having regard to the representations received at 2nd Deposit. Minor changes have been made to the boundaries having regard to these objections. [18] [66] [768 [777] [843]

(92) (i) The City Council has introduced a number of initiatives to tackle the problems arisen particularly in the Stress Areas. i.e. anti-social behaviour, noise and degradation of the street environment. The City Council recognises that it is a combination of planning and licensing policy and management of the street environment which is required. Planning is the land use tool which allows for the management of current and future land uses. This is a crucial tool for ensuring a balance of mixed uses is provided for residents, visitors and workers. This policy approach works alongside various other Council initiatives, e.g. provision of adequate servicing, provision of mobile street urinals, a warden scheme, and enforcement. As it is the entertainment uses which contribute substantially to the late night economy and play a major role in attracting visitors and customers to the West End, there is clearly a link between land use and the impact of uses on residential amenity and character and function of areas. This is clearly a planning matter which should be addressed in part through planning policy. The Mayor of London recognises in the draft London Plan that ‘boroughs should ensure that planning, licensing, policing, transport and street management issues are managed….’ It is not considered that these policies are too restrictive. [1] [64] [264] [340] [724] [768] [777] [825] [826] 843]

(93) (i) This is not the case. The City Council should be concerned about the growth in breaches of planning consents as this is administered by the City Council. Between 1996 and 2000 the number of complaints of alleged breaches of planning control in the West End alone, relevant to entertainment uses, rose from 60 to 160. These figures should be considered in context with all the issues explained under the general proof on entertainment growth and future trends. It is accepted that this issue alone will not directly affect the growth in tourism, but a combination of factors contributes to the degradation of the character, function of the environment in which visitors expect to see at a certain standard. [768] [843] [858] [859]

(94) (i) The policies have been designed to manage this growth in particular areas. The Mayor’s draft London Plan recognises that there are problems in the West End and that there is a need to disperse entertainment uses across London, particularly in areas where regeneration is required. Council's policies support this approach. [768] [843]

(95) (i) See response (b) above.

(ii) The Stress Area boundaries have been reviewed again having regard to the representations received at Second Deposit. Minor changes have been made to the boundaries having regard to these objections. There is nothing specific in

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 745 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

current Government Guidance which leads the City Council to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the Entertainment policies is contrary or in conflict with this guidance. In particular the policies are consistent with PPG 6, PPG 12 and the draft London Plan.

(iii) PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. In the Stress Areas, allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on residential amenity and the local environment cannot be controlled solely through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances in the stress areas. The Entertainment policies fulfil the requirements of PPG 12 by providing clear policies on leisure uses, employment and wealth generating development.

(iv) The policies are not stating that Pubs and Bars are the sole cause of crime and anti- social behaviour. However there are proven links between the consumption of alcohol, crime and disorder. The issues affecting Westminster are not just anti social behaviour and crime, but noise levels from premises and from the amount of people on the streets, increased traffic ( including demand for taxis and mini cabs), the ability to cope with servicing the streets and general degradation of the environment in some areas. [768] [858] [859]

(96) (i) There is evidence that these conflicts exist. Disagree. There has been support from the City Council in the past but the detrimental effects on these areas are now evident. See topic proof of evidence on Entertainment, WCC/PT/TP05/ENTS/1–3. [843] [859]

(97) (i) Noted. Do not agree that a change needs to be made. This paragraph notes that the demand is coming from domestic and overseas customers as well as the industry. It is unclear whether this demand for 24 hour opening covers a far wider sector of society. [858] [859]

(ii) These figures should be considered in context with all the issues explained under growth and future trends. It is accepted that this issue alone cannot directly affect the growth in tourism, but a combination of factors contributes to the degradation of the character, function of the environment which visitors expect to see at a certain standard.

(98) (i) It is not agreed that the Stress Areas should be defined in specific streets. The pressures of over-concentration spill outside single streets to surrounding areas where residents are often affected. This is often due to noise and anti social behaviour in the streets away from the venues where customers have spent their evenings.

(ii) The concept of quiet enclaves is not supported. In a mixed use city, quiet areas are difficult to define. Would these areas then be excluded from permitting entertainment uses? This approach would go against the general Government policy to encourage sustainable mixed use communities in cities. The concept of quiet enclaves was not supported during the UDP informal consultation process. [532]

(99) (i) Support for the rewording welcomed.

(ii) It is not considered that the paragraphs undermine the positive comments on entertainment uses forming an essential and valuable feature of London life. [532]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 746 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(100) (i) The southern section of Edgware Road and the Marble Arch area are considered to have a concentration of entertainment uses and therefore should be included in the Stress Area. [846]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.8.2 As already stated, the degree of overlap, complexity and the somewhat repetitive nature of the various objections made to to Policies TACE 8-10 means that they will be considered together. Consideration will be given under the generic headings that have been used to group the various objections and the conclusions I have reached upon them collectively. The following matrix schedule indicates under which heading(s) I have considered the individual objections to Policy TACE 8. My conclusions are set out under these headings later in the report (see TA10):

Recommendations

SEE UNDER POLICY TACE 10 RECOMMENDATIONS

TA08A: Former Chapter 7 Shoping Policies

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 2 Greater London Authority 18 Scottish & Newcastle Retail 28 London Tourist Board 64 Shaftesbury PLC 66 Restaurant Property Advisors' Society 68 Howard de Walden Estates 90 Portman Estates 92 GVA Grimley 104 Consort House Residents Assn. 108 Society of London Theatre 121 St James's Conservation Trust 131 Marylebone Association 140 Moving Image Restaurants Plc 141 Burford Group plc 209 Clyder Enterprises Limited 247 Rock Garden 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 264 Business in Sport & Leisure Ltd 298 AZ Restaurants 299 JPA 340 British Beer and Pub Association 370 The Theatres Trust 371 Restaurant Association 375 Government Office for London 376 London First 380 Whitbread Plc 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 403 Councillor Barbara Grahame 491 Mercers Company 532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion)

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 747 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

533 Moshi Moshi Sushi 549 Paul Graham 680 The Crown Estate 681 Bell Cornwell Partnership 692 London & Regional Properties 693 Yates Group PLC 694 Dalton Warner Davis 698 Abou Zaki Holding Company 700 Meard & Dean Street Residents' Association 702 Warner Village Cinemas 707 BT Plc 709 Dover Street Wine Bar 715 The Trustees of the Pollen Estate 719 Charlotte Street Association 724 Grosvenor Limited 729 Bass Hotels and Resorts 730 White Star Line Restaurants 731 The Equitable Life Assurance Society 748 British Land Company PLC 757 Gascoyne Estate 759 The Thorney Island Society 764 Robin Bretherick Association 765 Mapeley Ltd, Mapeley Columbus Ltd, Mapeley Columbus III Ltd 768 Covent Garden Restaurant Association 772 Land Securities Properties Limited 777 J D Wetherspoon Plc 778 Church Commissioners for England 779 London Business School 780 Selfridges & Co. 785 Delancey Group plc 786 Brett Nabarro 789 St George Plc 794 Six Continents Retail 795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited) 803 Standard Life Assurance Company 821 SFI Group PLC 825 The British Hospitality Association 826 The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR)

Inspector’s Note on Policies TACE 8-10 Objections

ABCDEFGHI J KL 22 3

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 748 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TA08A: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(1) (i) Pre Inquiry Comment

The changes to 8.63d and 8.71h do not meet the thrust of our objections.

(ii) 2nd Deposit Comments

Now TACE 8 B, and amended to relate solely to the designated West End Stress Area. Whilst we acknowledge the incorporation of examples of ‘exceptional circumstance’, we maintain an objection against the designation of Stress Areas in principle. We object to the presumption against entertainment uses, and that the policy has not been amended to reflect a ‘merits’ and criteria based assessment.

(iii) We note that the examples given as potentially constituting an exceptional circumstance do not reflect the conclusions drawn by the Inspector at a recent appeal at 40-44 Windmill Street (4th December 2000). We strongly object to this and to paragraph 8.66a.

(iv) We maintain a strong objection in principle to the designation of the Stress Areas.

(v) 1st Deposit Comments

The ‘stress areas’ are at the heart of a World City, and as such are entirely appropriate locations for Class A3 use and would lead to the future stagnation of the City.

(vi) SS3 (A) is ambiguous in that it does not provide an explanation of what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’. On this matter, in a recent appeal at 40- 44 Windmill Street (Decision 4/12/00) the Inspector considered that given the high levels of background noise in the vicinity late, the proposal would not result in additional noise and disturbance to residents. Each application should be assessed on its merits, with an explanation given as to what may be considered ‘exceptional circumstance’.

(vii) The “Stress Area” designation should be deleted. If this is not deleted detailed criteria should be included setting out the factors against which A3 uses will be judged. [777]

(2) (i) Second Deposit Comments

Now paragraph 8.71ad and new paragraph 8.71ae. Support amendments to paragraph 8.71ad and new paragraph 8.71ae.

(ii) First Deposit Comments

At paragraph 7.29, it states that extended or intensified A3 uses will ‘nearly always cause or exacerbate amenity problems’. This is not necessarily the case (for example, the provision of ancillary facilities such as toilets). Any marginal impact of the extended A3 uses would be capable of being controlled through conditions. [777]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 749 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(3) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Now paragraph 8.71aa.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Propose the provision of greater flexibility within Paragraph 7.28. [777]

(4) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

The issue of entertainment 'type' is dealt with at. Although the revisions to paragraph 8.65c go some way in terms of recognising that different types of facilities can have different operating characteristics, the emphasis is only placed on restaurants, and still presumes that all pubs and bars attract a specific customer base, necessarily have a greater capacity, and are less likely to form part of a linked trip. We note that paragraph 7.27 has been replaced by paragraph 8.71t.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

PARAGRAPH 7.27

At paragraph 7.27, the criteria against which an application will be assessed are set out. Concern in regards to the ‘type of operation proposed’, and to the ‘size of the unit proposed’. [777]

(5) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Now TACE 10 C.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

The policy does not explain the term ‘where appropriate’. We object to SS3 (D).

(iii) Applications for Class A3 use should be looked at on their merits, and should not be subject to a generalisation because of its type of operation.

(iv) We consider that the policy should be amended deleting sub-policies (a), (c) and (d) and setting out criteria against which applications for A3 uses can be assessed (as referred to in paragraph 7.27). The other restrictions included within the Plan are contrary to government guidance and contain an undue emphasis upon residential amenity above commercial activity within the CAZ. [777]

(6) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Now TACE 10 B (we assume that the policy indicated as having been deleted adjacent to TACE 10 B should be SS 3 C). Given the proposed changes to the policy, the wording ‘above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation’ is, in our view, unnecessary and cumbersome, and for this reason should be deleted. See comments on TACE 10

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

SS3 (C) contradicts objective of encouraging a mixture of uses.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 750 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) There are many examples of Class A3 and C3 uses next to one another without a detrimental impact upon residents.

(iv) Policy is vague in terms of "immediate" proximity.

(iv) SS3 (C) assumes all A3 uses have an adverse impact on residential amenity. [777]

(7) (i) Policy SS3 should be deleted in favour of a Policy supporting A3 Uses, subject to meeting a number of criteria relating to noise and disturbance mitigation measures.

(ii) Not appropriate to place an embargo on the provision of restaurant uses adjacent to residential properties. Instead, each application should be treated on its merits.

(iii) Central London represents one of the few suitable locations to adopt a flexible approach to the late night opening of restaurants and clubs and therefore the Council should not seek to restrict applications for late night opening (beyond mid night), unless there would be a quantifiable effect on residential amenity. [92]

(8) (i) Conditions for controlling A3 uses, are an onerous restriction on the occupier as well as unenforceable. [765]

(9) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Now paragraph 8.65b.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Paragraph 7.38 fails to recognise the benefits of such uses in terms of increasing natural surveillance.

(iii) Full consideration of crime issues takes place at the licensing hearing and is dependent upon the characteristics of the operator. [777]

(10) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

As far as we can see, paragraph 7.25 of the First Draft is now broadly reflected/replaced by paragraph 8.57. This marginally shifts the balance between commercial activity and residential amenity, however, in our view the primary objective remains the same, and we object to the weight attached to safeguarding residential amenity within the CAZ.

We note that Class A3 use is generally referred to as an ‘entertainment’ use for the purposes of the relevant policies within the Second Draft.

We note that Policy SS 3 has been relocated within the plan to form Policy TACE 8.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Paragraph 7.25 – object to emphasis on residential amenity. [777]

(11) (i) There should be a less restrictive approach to new A3 uses and clearer explanation of the criteria against which new proposals will be tested. [702]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 751 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(12) (i) [2nd Deposit Comments]

This objection was to the Council’s general policy on A3 and entertainment uses, which were considered to present possible problems, in particular by appearing to rule out further such uses in most parts of the borough through setting a test that was too restrictive and thus potentially contrary to PPG1.

We note that (a) Policy STRA11 has been modified to delete the reference to late night entertainment uses, (b) the relevant part of policy SS3 has been amended and moved to a new policy TACE8, (c) the relevant parts of SS6 and SS13 have been moved to new policy TACE10, and (d) a preamble to the new chapter provided such that the issues are more clearly defined and the need for a varying approach in different areas identified. The general thrust of the revisions is to identify more clearly the areas of stress where such uses could cause problems and to provide more flexibility in the consideration of proposals for entertainment uses. On this basis, we accept that the revisions largely meet the Secretary of State’s objections. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn .

The objection would be overcome by a qualification of (C) of Policy STRA 11 and the deletion of SS3(C), SS6(E) and SS13(D). [375]

(13) (i) Objection to Stress Areas. Policy SS3 should be replaced by a criteria based policy. [765]

(14) (i) The policy approach to new A3 units is a difficult one. We understand that the Council has to balance the interests of residents against the promotion of Westminster as a vibrant part of a world city.

(ii) Some residential parts of Westminster are inappropriate for the new, large A3 users. Other parts, such as Haymarket, are acceptable if properly policed. Some flexibility must be available.

(iii) Intermediate areas like Soho, need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. [772]

(15) (i) Second Deposit Comments

see comments on TACE policies as well

(ii) First Deposit Comments

(A) Comments.

Change to the areas referred to?

Delete "or hours of operation"

Substitute "will not normally be granted" for "granted in exceptional circumstances"

(B) Comments:-

Substitute "will normally be granted unless the use would"

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 752 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Add "unless it can be demonstrated that adequate safeguards can be put in place or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the immediate vicinity"

(D) Suggestion to change in wording:-

Consider revising this policy so conditions only used if harm demonstrated. [340]

(16) (i) Withdrawn. [777]

(17) (i) This policy is restrictive and negative and overly concerned with issues of residential amenity.

(ii) The SS 3 (D) seeks to introduce an inappropriate level of control and furthermore it is a matter that is properly covered by licensing regulations. [803]

(18) (i) This is a regressive policy which will run counter to the government's aims for a 24 hour city. [140]

(19) (i) Policy far too restrictive should allow for flexible approach to account for needs of London. [253]

(20) (i) The designated Stress Area boundary should be extended a few yards north or Oxford Street, to include the area of Westminster between the borough boundary in the East, and Rathbone Place/Rathbone Street in the West and North. Principally this would include the Westminster parts of Hanway Street and Rathbone Place. [549]

(21) (i) The Conservation Trust objects to Policy SS 3(A) due to the omission of St James's within the areas where permission for new A3 uses will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. [121]

(22) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Also see 2nd deposit objections on TACE policies

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Policy is too inflexible, especially in relation to those areas located outside the identified stress areas. [779]

(23) (i) Policy SS2 - Protecting Non -A1 Retail Uses

(ii) Delancey object to this policy. Delancey considers that such policy is inflexible in view of the profound changes that have occurred in the financial services industry in recent years, including technological advancements, the introduction of Internet and telephone banking and as a result of the demutualisation of building societies and other company merger.

(iii) Delancey consider that the UDP needs to maintain flexibility towards proposals to change the use if non-retail uses give the dynamism and future for change within the sector. Delancey reiterates its objection to the proposed 3 years long- term vacancy and considers that this should be more flexible, particularly in secondary and local shopping areas. [785] MOVE TO SS 2

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 753 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(24) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Paragraph deleted.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Leaving it to the applicant to demonstrate, that the proposal is in a location where harmful effects will be minimal. This is not the correct approach. It is for the Council to justify refusal. There can be no other more appropriate location in principle in this regard than within the heart of a World City within the CAZ. [777]

(25) (i) Second Deposit Comments

see comments on TACE policies as well

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Policy represents a presumption against planning, whereas it has always been accepted that there should be a presumption in favour of development. Westminster is a city, not a residential enclave and therefore its planning policies should have due regard for all stakeholders, residents, workers, visitors and business.

Fixed terminal hour results in worse problems than if hours were staggered.

Public services are there to serve the public. Services should be provided to match demand, not vice versa.

It seems that the thrust of the policy review is to put a general restriction on the operation of entertainment premises. This is contrary to PPG6 and PPG12. [825]

(26) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Now paragraph 8.65a.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Majority of problems are capable of being controlled by way of condition . [777]

(27) (i) Does not sufficiently recognise that A3 would be welcomed in some areas, particularly as part of a regeneration strategy, and when well-controlled. [403]

(28) (i) Policy is unduly restrictive especially given the wording in para. 7.73 [786]

(29) (i) Objects to proposals for 'Stress Areas' . The policy assumes that new A3 uses can not be accommodated without adversely affecting residential amenity or the character of the area. Restrictive policy would lead to stagnation in the A3 leisure and entertainment sector and would undermine the important role of the restaurant and late night entertainment industry to London as a Capital and World Class City. Policy SS3 should be replaced by a criteria based policy.

(ii) Overall importance of the A3 and leisure industry in some areas outweighs the currently limited residential population. [785]

(30) (i) This conflicts with strategic objectives in the UDP.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 754 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) All references to stress areas in the UDP should be deleted

(iii) Policy SS3 should be amended as follows:-

(A)Delete and replace with criteria based policy relating to CAZ and CAZ frontages.

(B)This should read:-

Elsewhere planning permissions for A3 uses will normally be permitted providing applicants can demonstrate that the use would …"

(C)Delete. Residential amenity is protected and insured by the application of various other policies within the UDP. [778]

(31) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Now paragraphs 8.71ac and 8.65c. The amendments demonstrate that the Council have accepted that there are A3 restaurants that have ‘vertical drinking’ space, and by virtue of this that there can be different operational characteristics within A3 ‘types’. However, notwithstanding the Council’s concession in this regard, the assumption regarding pubs and bars remains, and is in our view wholly inaccurate.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Inspectors at appeal have agreed that J D Wetherspoon pubs have a high level of interaction with other town centre uses. Our client’s pubs are not dissimilar in character to restaurants in terms of their impact on residential amenity and the local environment. [777]

(32) (i) Opening shopfronts, together with tables and chairs outside class A3 catering establishments can substantially enhance the vitality and attractiveness of locations.

(ii) Licensing conditions can be imposed to ensure that residential amenity is adequately protected late into the evening. [803]

(33) (i) see o) above - [825]

(34) (i) The imposition of conditions to provide public toilets, etc., or the requirement of Section 106 agreements requiring the same is unduly onerous and should be deleted. [66]

(35) (i) The policy is restrictive in respect of new A3 uses. The planning system alone cannot address the wider issues of the management. Class A3 uses form an important part of the offer of the West End as a World Class Centre.

(ii) The designation of Stress Areas should be deleted and criteria based policies

(iii) Applied. The policy approach is not consistent with the aspirations of Policy SS17.

(iv) Policy SS 3 (C) is too restrictive.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 755 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(v) Policy SS 3 (D) introduces terminal hours. The imposition of such terminal hours in the centre of the world city is not appropriate and is contrary to emerging national policy. [724]

(36) (i) SS3 and SS13 are too constrictive and good planning assessments should always be having regard to any amenity impact on residents. There is however no need to specifically create a presumption against such uses. No objection to the objectives of the policy but alterations are suggested. [768]

(37) (i) The wording and requirements are too strict. In SS3(C) suggest delete the words "above, below, adjoining or opposite” existing residential accommodation, or".

(ii) The obligation on the applicants to demonstrate that the use would not have a detrimental effect on resident amenity is inappropriate. It is for the LPA to justify a refusal, not for the applicant to justify his case.

(iii) Environmental Impact Appraisal does not apply at this level. Suggest the words "unless the Council is satisfied that" be substituted for "unless applicants can demonstrate that". [764]

(38) (i) Inside the CAZ but outside the West End Stress Area the terminal hour should be 23.00 as in the rest of the City. [Alternatively, the CAZ is redefined so as to exclude the currently tranquil areas of the CAZ between Victoria and Millbank; see our recommendation on STRA 3.]

(ii) The Society also proposes that the term "hours of operation" be defined so as to ensure that residents are not disturbed by noisy activities carried on after the relevant establishment has closed, e.g.. the collection of rubbish. [759]

(39) (i) Policy SS3 is seriously over-restrictive in its approach to new A3 uses. Paragraph 7.40 acknowledges that different A3 uses have different impacts; however, criteria (A) and (B) are anti all A3 uses. Criterion (B) is unnecessarily negative and should be re-worded. [681]

(40) (i) The policy is unnecessarily negative and contrary to national planning policy guidance as contained in PPG1, PPG6 and PPG12.

(ii) "Stress areas" are arbitrary in their definition and include areas which are not adjacent to residential use. In such areas additional A3 development is appropriate.

(iii) Part D of the policy is contrary to the advice and guidance set out in the Use Classes Order 1987. The introduction of a blanket "terminal hour" is an arbitrary term and takes no account of the degree of impact or otherwise an A3 use might or might not have on residential amenity. [748]

(41) (i) Conditions to limit an A3 use to a particular type of operation is contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order, 1987, which advises against the imposition of conditions imposing restrictions within a Use Class. [66]

(42) (i) Policy supported, with reservations.

(ii) A complete definition of “Entertainment Uses” should be incorporated in the Glossary. Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 756 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) 8.57 Please add the word ‘ size,’ after the word ‘location’. It is very important to have a policy to control the size of premises because very large premises, or ‘mega-venues’ can create extra amenity problems by their very size and the numbers of people debauching onto the street at one time. Inside the CAZ.

(iv) Agree terminal hour for Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area to be midnight.

(v) Do not agree that in the Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area that premises should be allowed to open beyond midnight, even under exceptional circumstances.

(vi) Agree that an applicant needs to prove that a proposal will not cause harm and that hours of operation may be earlier than the guideline specified hour in certain circumstances.

(vii) 8.64a - do not support the striking out of ‘individually and cumulatively’. The question of cumulative impact is a crucial one to be retained, as clearly recognised under 8.65 it states ‘cumulative impact must therefore be considered by the City Council’.

(viii) 8.65a Do not agree with the insertion of ‘in some cases’.

(ix) 8.65b Agree additions of ‘eating’ under (i) and ‘drug taking’ under (iv).

(x) 8.66a New paragraph supported.

(xi) 8.67 We agree the deletion of this paragraph.

(xii) 8.68 & 8.69. opposed to the striking out of these paragraphs D2 premises should be under the same constraints as A3 premises and we strongly recommend that you include them under policy SS 3.

(xiii) concerned that coffee shops and Internet cafes are displacing what were once A1 convenience shops in our area.

(xiv) Under 7.27, 8th bullet point “the provision and numbers of tables and chairs” – should apply to tables and chairs placed outside the premises on private forecourts as they can create amenity problems, particularly for residents who live directly above or adjacent to the premises.

(xv) Under 7.30 we recommend that after “the City Council may restrict the hours of opening “ you add “and the numbers of tables and chairs on a private forecourt”.

(xvi) Under 7.32 we recommend that after “Additional refuse” you should add “and recycling”.

(xvii) Under 7.33 after “environmental disturbance” you should add “and are energy inefficient”.

(xviii) Under 7.35 after “number of covers” you should add “and tables and chairs on private forecourts”.

(xiv) Under 7.38 after “pavement drinking” you should add “and eating”. [104]

(43) (i) Under 7.41 after “hot food take-aways” you should add “and home deliveries”.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 757 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Welcome the recognition in 7.38 that the growth of night-time activity has created extreme stress for local residents which has led to the designation of Queensway as a Stress Area.

(iii) There are numerous locations across Westminster where additional A3 uses, or the intensification of an existing A3 use, would have no impact whatsoever.

(iv) This paragraph also states that new A3 uses adjoining or opposite existing residential units will not be permitted. This statement is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on a residential property opposite or adjacent to the site. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS3 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1046757 at 3-4 Vere Street, W1, dated 13 November 2000) concluding that residential flats above the application site would not be adversely affected by the proposed use. It is therefore proposed that the final sentence of this paragraph be deleted. [66]

(44) (i) The presumption that adding to a concentration of A3 uses will nearly always cause or exacerbate amenity problems is a false one. The introduction of a high quality operator could reasonably have the opposite effect. [140]

(45) (i) Why should the provision of public toilets become, in effect, the responsibility of restaurants and bars? [140]

(46) (i) The imposition of terminal hours of 1 am in the West End Stress Area and midnight and 11 p.m. elsewhere would have a number of negative effects. [140]

(47) (i) This is a regressive policy which will run counter to the Government's aims for a 24 hour city. It will have an adverse affect on tourism, it will distort the property market and serve only to funnel the increasing demand for eating out in Central London into proportionately fewer restaurants. In addition, the thresholds that applicants will be required to meet are overly subjective, too widely drawn and consequently open to interpretation and presume, falsely, that restaurants have a negative effect on residential amenity or the local environment. [140]

(48) (i) See [140]

(49) (i) See comments on new TACE policies

(ii) Section (A) of this policy relates to permission for new A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation within the proposed “Stress Areas”. It is considered that the proposed Stress Areas are arbitrary in their definition and that insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the identification of their boundaries.

(iii) Section (A) and Section (B) propose a presumption against granting permission for new or extended A3 uses. Given that the primary reasoning behind the introduction of Stress Areas is the impact on residential amenity and the local environment, provided that the proposed use or extension would not have a detrimental effect on either of these two issues permission for such proposals should be granted.

(iv) Section (C) is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on a residential property opposite or adjacent to the site. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 758 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS3 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1046757 at 3-4 Vere Street, W1, dated 13 November 2000) concluding that residential flats above the application site would not be adversely affected by the proposed use.

(v) Section (D) relates to the imposition of conditions to limit an A3 use to a particular type of operation. This section is contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order, 1987, which advises against the imposition of conditions imposing restrictions within a Use Class.

(vi) Section (D) also refers to the imposition of conditions relating to an “appropriate terminal hour” on permissions for A3 uses. It is considered that the introduction of ‘Terminal Hours’ is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on local residential amenity. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS3 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1035299 at 40 – 44 Great Windmill Street, W1, dated 4 December 2000), concluding an extension of opening hours for the existing A3 use until 3am would not adversely affect local residential amenity.

(vii) It is therefore proposed that Section (D) be deleted from Policy SS3. [66]

(50) (i) Section (A) should be deleted in favour of the criteria specified in section (B).

(ii) Section (B) states that elsewhere planning permission for A3 will be refused unless certain criteria are adhered to relating to the environment and residential amenity. These policies could therefore be simply combined to provide criteria which must be met in order for new A3 uses or extensions to be permitted, depending on what the 'exceptional circumstances' might be.

(iii) Paragraph 7.12 is not accurate: no evidence is given to support this.

(iv) Paragraph 7.30. Future residential amenity is not able to be judged, and this would therefore be insufficient reason to apply a condition restricting closing hours and plant operation.

(v) Paragraph 7.31 is unnecessary, and in fact Westminster has already lost appeals where the Planning Inspectorate have allowed A3 uses with conditions to govern air-conditioning. The provision of full air-conditioning and ducting details is not only an expensive burden to the developer, but delays the entire planning process, contrary to government guidance.

(vi) Paragraph 7.32 suggests that developers will be asked through section 106 agreements to fund public toilets. This is far too onerous a requirement, as restaurants are already required to provide toilets on their premises. [698]

(51) (i) Reference to the provision of toilet facilities either within or outside new A3 premises should not be part of the UDP. These are matters already properly covered under the building regulations and do not need to be duplicated as part of the planning process. [803]

(52) (i) It will often be inappropriate, or impossible to address all the criteria set out in paragraph 7.27 as being necessary for an application will be entertained.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 759 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Paragraph 7.28 should be modified to allow appropriate building services to run on after the closure, in order to facilitate servicing after patrons vacate premises. Paragraph 7.29 is far too prescriptive and its sweeping generalisations that A3 uses “will nearly always cause or exacerbated amenity problems” provides the key element of prejudice within the plan which motivates the approach to the entire chapter.

(iii) The whole basis of what these policies are seeking to achieve needs to be reassessed in light of providing more for the needs of the Westminster as the centre of a World City rather than has a quiet residential neighbourhood. Paradoxically, the attractiveness of residential accommodation within the identified Stress Areas does not appear to be undermined or prejudiced by the presence of late-night activities or the “24-hour City”. Quite the contrary, it is arguable that the presence of such diverse and vibrant local economy form the main reasons for the attraction of new residents to the area.

(iv) The UDP must look forward and seek to promote the development of the City's shopping centres in a managed and positive manner that supports London's position as a major international centre of entertainment and cultural interest and excellence. Licensing and law-and-order issues are properly the concern of wider primary legislation from the Government and are not matters that land use planning should be explicitly involved with. [803]

(53) (i) Within the policy application paragraphs there is considerable reference made to “exceptional circumstances”, where the implication is that planning permission might be permitted for new class A3 or club activities. Nowhere within this section or within the Plan as a whole are these exceptional circumstances identified or spelt out.

(ii) As presently drafted the policy and background reasoning are too negative and restrictive to be of any positive or meaningful benefit to the location of new A3 activities which might support the wider character and function of the City. The policy should be amended to be far less prescriptive. [803]

(54) (i) The proposed change to criterion (A) is supported through the inclusion of criteria and more positive wording, and the alteration to criterion (C) which provides a new criteria based policy. Support the deletion of SS6(G) and SS3(A).

(ii) The character appearance and vitality of the defined areas including the West End, Edgware Road, Queensway and Bayswater is characterised by a lively and vital environment. Imposing a restriction across all of these areas for premises to be closed by 1 a.m. is a blanket approach and is not be supported.

(iii) Paragraph 8.63(b) - It is inappropriate to restrict the hours of operation to all planning applications for entertainment premises even where there is no physical extension involved. This criterion does not take into account whether there have been previous Environmental Health complaints in relation to the premises. It is overly restricted to control premises in such a way where there have previously been no previous complaints with adjacent residential premises.

(iv) Support the inclusion of the definition of the exceptional circumstances in paragraph 8.63(d), however a criterion should be included for operational development required to ease access or the operation of premises.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 760 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(v) This policy, in conjunction with the proposals map, defines those areas where new and extended Class A3 uses will be permitted.

(vi) Three “Stress Areas” are identified where new or extended Class A3 uses will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. There is no explanation as to how these exceptional circumstances are defined, nor to how the stress areas were identified. It is not considered that this prescriptive approach accords with the operation of national policy as set down in PPG1 allowing all cases to be assessed on their merits. [821]

(55) (i) The definition of large A3 premises is to be welcomed for the sake of clarity. However, the threshold is too small and will give rise to practical difficulties, particularly where premises with existing unconstrained lawful A3 use as restaurants change to bars A potential effect of the policies and this definition will be to create a new market with potentially undesirable consequences, older A3 restaurants being acquired and converted into the types of pub and bars that the Council is so concerned about. [803]

(56) (i) See comments on TACE Chapter as well.

(ii) Support policy application and reasons, but a lobby area should be included in new or enlarged A3 units to contain noise and smells within premises. Private forecourts should not be allowed. [381]

(57) (i) The policy is extremely restrictive in respect of new A3 uses. The concerns of the City Council cannot be resolved through a strict application of the land use planning policy in respect of Class A3 and D2 uses. The planning system alone cannot address the wider issues of the management as a whole, which requires a strategic approach from a range of private and public sector organisations. Class A3 uses form an important part of the offer of the West End as a world class centre of tourism, culture and entertainment, the function of which should be fully supported.

(ii) The designation of Stress Areas should be deleted and criteria based policies applied as hitherto. Boundaries create anomalies. The vibrancy of Soho and Covent Garden is part of London’s appeal world-wide. The policy approach is not consistent with the aspirations of Policy SS17.

(iii) Policy SS3(C) is too restrictive. There are, and have always been, many cases where a Class A3 use exists with residential accommodation above, below, adjoining or opposite, in a satisfactory manner. The issue is to address the nature of the A3 function and the proper use of both planning conditions and enforcement powers.

(iv) Policy SS3(D) introduces terminal hours. The imposition of such terminal hours in the centre of the world city is not appropriate and is contrary to emerging national policy.

(v) The policy and reasoned justification should, therefore, be amended accordingly to address these objections. [729]

(58) (i) These policies set out to control A3 uses by the use of appropriate “terminal hours”. Concern is expressed over blanket closing hours, particularly of large establishments that may cause surges of these people requiring access to rail services late at night. [73}

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 761 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) It is considered that the introduction of “Terminal Hours“ is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on local residential amenity. It is therefore proposed that this paragraph is deleted. [66]

(59) (i) Public toilet facilities is an issue which should be addressed through town centre management, not on an ad-hoc basis when determining applications for A3 uses. The imposition of such conditions or the requirement of Section 106 agreements requiring the same is unduly onerous. [66]

(60) (i) The proposed Stress Areas detailed on UDP Map Nos. 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. are arbitrary in their definition and that insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the identification of their boundaries. It is proposed that the concept of “Stress Areas”, and all references to them, be deleted.

(ii) It is considered that the introduction of “terminal hours“ is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on local residential amenity. [66]

(61) (i) SS3 (A) is a blanket ban on new, extended and longer hours in A3 uses in “Stress Areas”, unless there are exceptional circumstances. This indiscriminate policy is not justified, and is excessively restrictive in relation to its aim in para 7.25.

(ii) The aim of “safeguarding residential amenity and the environmental quality of areas” is firstly achieved by focusing demand for A3 uses within the CAZ. To introduce a sub area within the CAZ where further such uses are acceptable only in “exceptional circumstances” contradicts and undermines the purpose of the CAZ which in the Key Diagram (Map P1, following page 54) is shown as an area of “Mixed use with a strong arts, cultural or entertainment character.” Confirmation of this character is found in 1.8 to 1.10.

(iv) In our clients’ view policy SS3(A) cannot be justified over such large areas of the CAZ as “Stress Areas” and should be deleted.

(v) Further, the test of harm in SS3(B) is unduly strict for application within the CAZ, bearing in mind the benefits to surrounding residential areas of focusing demand for these uses within the CAZ. This policy should not apply in the CAZ.

(vi) SS3 (C) should not apply within the CAZ. Residential accommodation is found scattered throughout the CAZ. The effect of this policy would be to prohibit “on principle” A3 uses, if any residential accommodation fell within the criteria, however innocent and harmless the proposals were shown to be. [730]

(62) (i) The Stress Area proposed for Edgware Road is inappropriate. Where residential accommodation exists, this is at a high level and would not be harmed in what is a fairly busy location (traffic, shopping) within Westminster.

(ii) Part (C) should be deleted as this test is allowed for in Part (B). It is also an inappropriate test because residential uses can coexist with A3 uses provided certain controls are in place. Also, as with Edgware Road, certain types of developments because of their design mean that the impact on residential amenity is less likely. Furthermore, within traditional shopping streets with residential above, a policy should be not be used to prevent A3 in these busier locations (i.e. Seymour Street and New Quebec Street). These are areas where the provision for A3 should indeed be focused as opposed to isolated locations.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 762 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Paragraph 7.26 in its drafting conflicts with the Part (A). The paragraph sets out that permissions will only be granted in exceptional circumstances for uses beyond certain times of the day/night depending on location (i.e. 1am in the West End Stress Area; midnight in the Edgware Road Stress Area). The policy as worded however, would not allow any new permission or new extensions irrespective of hours of operation. The policy and paragraph should be made consistent, favouring a move towards paragraph 7.26.

(iv) Paragraph 7.29 raises the same difficulties as Part (C). This should be modified along the above lines and that each application is determined on the merits. [90]

(63) (i) Paragraph 7.26 of the supporting text, in its drafting, conflicts with the part (A) of the policy. The paragraph sets out that permission will only be granted in exceptional circumstances for uses beyond certain times of the day/night depending on location (i.e. 1am in the West End Stress Area; midnight in the Edgware Road Stress Area). The policy as worded however, would not allow any new permission or new extensions irrespective of hours of operation. The policy and paragraph should be made consistent, favouring a move towards paragraph 7.26.

(ii) Paragraph 7.29 raises the same difficulties as Part (C). This should be modified along the above lines with each application being determined on the merits.

(iii) It is inappropriate in this ppolicy to include Leicester Square within the West End Stress Area, as shown on Map 7.2 in the draft review plan. If the City Council wishes to continue with the concept of a Stress Area, then Leicester Square should be excluded as it is a location where entertainment uses should be directed. [757]

(64) (i) It is not reasonable to propose such onerous restrictions on new A3 uses or extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation. The UDP recognises that public houses, restaurants and clubs provide essential services and facilities for people living, working in and visiting London. The policy needs to allow change and development within the Central Activity Zone and specifically in the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater, including the evolution of A3 and other leisure and entertainment uses. [794]

(65) (i) In order to be financially viable, a theatre or arts use may have to incorporate a bar or catering facility that would in other circumstances be the subject of an application for A3 use and therefore contravene the UDP policies which seek to restrict the growth of such facilities. Normally we would expect such a facility to be ancillary to the main (sui generis) theatre use, but the restaurant below the new Soho Theatre demonstrated the need to take a flexible approach.

(ii) Large A3 uses can provide essential revenue support to theatre (e.g. the new Soho Theatre) and we are therefore concerned by the strength of policies restricting A3 use. [370]

(66) (i) The proposed Stress Areas detailed on Map Nos. 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 are arbitrary in their definition and insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the identification of their boundaries. It is proposed that the concept of 'Stress Areas' and all reference to them, be deleted from this paragraph.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 763 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) It is considered that the introduction of 'terminal hours' is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on local residential amenity. [18]

(67) (i) This policy is neither precise nor defensible. It should be re-worded to make clear those proposals that will or will not be permissible. Guidance is currently contained in the accompanying that will or will not be permissible. Guidance is currently contained in the accompanying text, but we consider that this should form part of the upper case policy. [715]

(68) (i) This paragraph states that the Council will use conditions to limit an A3 use to a particular type of operation. This statement is contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order 1987, which advises against the imposition of conditions imposing restrictions within a Use Class. [18]

(69) (i) This paragraph states that, through the use of Section 106 agreements, developers may be requested to provide funding for additional nearby public toilets. Public toilet facilities is an issue which should be addressed through town centre management, not on an ad-hoc basis when determining applications for A3 uses. The imposition of such conditions or the requirement of Section 106 agreements requiring the same is unduly onerous and it is therefore proposed that the second sentence of this paragraph be deleted. [18]

(70) (i) No justification is given for the statement in the RUDP:

"Adding to a concentration ofA3 uses, or intensifying an existing A3 use, will nearly always cause or exacerbate amenity problems".

(ii) There are numerous locations across Westminster where additional A3 uses, or the intensification of an existing A3 use, would have no impact whatsoever. It is therefore proposed that this sentence be deleted.

(iii) This paragraph also states that new A3 uses adjoining or opposite existing residential units will not be permitted. This statement is arbitrary and take no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on a residential property opposite or adjacent to the site. [18]

(71) (i) It is considered that the introduction of 'terminal hours' is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise, that an A3 use might have on local residential amenity. [18]

(72) (i) See comments on policies TACE8 and TACE10.

(ii) There is nothing in Government guidance or strategic guidance which permits the designation of “Stress Areas” as a means of controlling A3 uses. The approach is inflexible and fails to provide the opportunity for individual proposals to be assessed on their merits. It is contrary to the positive attitude towards leisure and the evening economy in PPG6 and RPG3.

(iii) There will be circumstances where A3 uses will be appropriate within “Stress Areas” and given London’s World City status, these uses should be encouraged. The application of a “blanket ban” on A3 uses is wholly inconsistent with London’s World City status, and will lead to a restriction of commercial activity to the detriment of London’s position in relation to other World Cities.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 764 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) It is considered that the City Council should be seeking to control A3 uses with appropriate planning conditions not ban them altogether. The policy is too rigid and needs a fundamental revisit. [491]

(73) (i) Public toilet facilities is an issue which should be addressed through town centre management, not on an ad hoc basis when determining applications for A3 uses. The imposition of such conditions or the requirement of Section 106 agreements requiring the same is unduly onerous. [18]

(74) (i) The City Council is urged to add the category D2 (night-club or disco) to the provisions of this policy. Reason: that they may cause more harm to the residential amenity than most A3 uses. Equally it would be possible for applications to be made to change use from A3 to D2 to avoid the protection afforded by this policy. [131]

(75) (i) As for (65) above. [18]

(76) (i) The amended wording of policy SS3 is less restrictive than before. However, concerned about the proposed blanket ban against all large A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 premises leading to the same, in the three stress areas given. The plan should have sufficient flexibility to allow for such developments, subject to amenity considerations. [28]

(77) (i) It will often be inappropriate, or impossible to address all the criteria set out in paragraph 7.27 as being necessary for an application will be entertained. The policy should be revised to indicate that it would beneficial for applicants to provide an indication of these issues but that failure to do so need not result in refusal of permission. Conditions governing capacities are unenforceable and unreasonable.

(ii) Appropriate building services should be allowed to run on after the closure, in order to facilitate servicing after patrons vacate premises.

(iii) If properly managed, A3 uses need be no more harmful to residential amenity than other cultural or entertainment functions within the CAZ.

(iv) The whole basis of what these policies are seeking to achieve needs to be reassessed in light of providing more for the needs of the West End as the centre of a World City rather than has a quiet residential neighbourhood. Paradoxically, the attractiveness of residential accommodation within the CAZ and within the identified Stress Areas does not appear to be undermined or prejudiced by the presence of late-night activities or the “24-hour City”. Quite the contrary, it is arguable that the presence of such diverse and vibrant local economy form the main reasons for the attraction of new residents to the area.

(v) The UDP must look forward and seek to promote the development of the West End in a managed and positive manner that supports London's position as a major international centre of entertainment and cultural interest and excellence. The UDP does not provide a sufficiently positive land use framework for this to happen, placing as it does undue weight upon the interests of only one sector of the community and economy. Licensing and law-and-order issues are properly the concern of wider primary legislation from the Government and are not matters that land use planning should be explicitly involved with. [141]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 765 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(78) (i) Within the policy application paragraphs there is considerable reference made to “exceptional circumstances” where the implication is that planning permission might be permitted for new class A3 or club activities. Nowhere within this section, or within the Plan as a whole, are these exceptional circumstances identified or spelt out.

(ii) The planning policy SS3 in general is concerned about controlling issues of general law and order that are not strictly speaking appropriate planning matters, the motivation behind the land use concerns being more to do with property management and the licensing laws. The wider public interest and perception of the West End as the entertainment and cultural heart of London will be undermined by the rigid application of this policy. [141]

(79) (i) The policy is concerned far too much with issues of residential amenity as opposed to providing positive guidance for the location of class A3 activities, particularly within the CAZ. Policy fails to acknowledge the importance of Class A3 activities can make in supporting the wider retail, cultural, entertainment and World City function of Central London.

(ii) Policy SS 3 (C) places an unreasonable and restrictive condition upon the location new A3 uses, effectively precluding any A3 use in the vicinity of any residential accommodation. This places far too high a test of acceptability, and one that would effectively prohibit such activities from anywhere within the CAZ, given the generally scattered nature of residential accommodation in this part of the City.

(iii) The SS 3 (D) seeks to introduce a level of control which for the centre of a World City is considered to be entirely inappropriate, and furthermore it is a matter that is properly covered by licensing regulations and not by town planning policies. [141]

(80) (i) See comments on TACE 8, 9,10.

(ii) The policy goes against the presumption in favour of development. Westminster has a number of stakeholders, not just its residents and voters. It is a city, not a residential enclave and therefore its planning policies should have due regard for all stakeholders, residents, workers, visitors and business. It is recognised that these stakeholders do not always have compatible interests, but this policy does not seek a balance between them and is restrictive in the extreme.

(iii) In respect of proposals for the terminal hour to be 11.00 pm or 1.00 am, rather than helping with the perceived problem, this can only exacerbate and encourage problems with law and order. It has been demonstrated elsewhere in the UK that having a fixed terminal hour results in worse problems than if hours were staggered and consumers had the opportunity to make their own choice of hours.

(iv) A solution to the pressure put on public services would be to look at Town Improvement Zones or Business Improvement Districts.

(v) Public disorder cannot be addressed through planning policy alone and, indeed, there is ample precedent that, where decisions made are based upon police opinion or considerations, their opposition to applications have not been upheld at subsequent planning appeals. Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) direct leisure to town centres rather than out-of-town or on the edge-of-town.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 766 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(vi) It seems that the thrust of the policy review is to put a general restriction on the operation of entertainment premises. This is contrary, not only to PPG6, but also to PPG12 (February 1992). [340]

(81) (i) The issue of protection of residential amenity should be addressed within policies relating to proposals for new (or extended) A3 development within defined areas of the City (e.g. CAZ/district centres). In this regard, the policy is unnecessarily prescriptive and duplicates the requirements of other policies within the Plan.

(ii) Given the Borough-wide proliferation of residential use, the draft policy is also considered to preclude new or extended A3 development throughout Westminster. This is considered to conflict with the aim of the UDP to promote London as a World City in Policy STRA1. [380]

(82) (i) As for (79) above.[826]

(83) (i) As for (79) above. [264]

(84) (i) Policy SS3 should support A3 uses, subject to meeting a number of specified criteria such as relating to noise and disturbance mitigation measures.

(ii) It is not considered to be appropriate to place an embargo on new A3 Uses in the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater (Part (A)).

(iii) It is not considered appropriate to place an embargo on the provision of restaurant uses adjacent to residential properties whether above or below or adjoining. (Part (B)).

(iv) Finally, it is considered that Central London represents one of the few suitable locations to adopt a flexible approach to the late night opening of restaurants and clubs and therefore the Council should not seek to restrict applications for late night opening beyond midnight, unless there would be a quantifiable effect on residential amenity. [789]

(85) (i) Opening shopfronts, together with tables and chairs outside class A3 catering establishments, can substantially enhance the vitality and attractiveness of locations as places to visit and shop. The use of the public realm for catering purposes and its management in conjunction with neighbouring restaurants or bars is successfully handled in other major cities, and indeed within parts of the West End. Every effort should be made to support the beneficial use of the public realm in the interests of promoting the retail character and function of shopping areas.

(ii) Licensing conditions, either through highway legislation or through the magistrates in relation to licensed premises, can be imposed to ensure that residential amenity is adequately protected late into the evening, these being more readily enforceable than planning conditions. [64]

(86) (i) Reference to the provision of toilet facilities either within or outside new A3 premises should not be part of the UDP. These are matters already properly covered under the Building Regulations and do not need to be duplicated as part of the planning process.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 767 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) If the City Council is concerned about the provision of new public toilets, then it is for the City Council to advance proposals of its own for these facilities and to incorporate such proposals within the Plan. [64]

(87) (i) As above for (76) [64]

(88) (i) Within the policy application paragraphs, there is considerable reference made to “exceptional circumstances”, where the implication is that planning permission might be permitted for new class A3 or club activities. Nowhere within this section or within the Plan as a whole are these exceptional circumstances identified or spelt out.

(iii) As presently drafted, the policy and background reasoning are too negative and restrictive to be of any positive or meaningful benefit to the location of new A3 activities which might support the wider character and function of the Central Activities Zone.[64]

(89) (i) Policy SS3 should be deleted and a single policy relating to new A3 uses suggested which will simplify matters and the adopted SS13 more than adequately covers the circumstances, whilst protecting residential amenity and local environment. Alternatively the policy should be more positively worded only refusing applications which would lead to unacceptable harm to residential needs or local environment. Conditions would rarely be required as they are an unnecessary restriction on the operation of the premises. [209]

(90) (i) The policy will create an unfair market. Those already with a late licence will have an advantage over those applying for a late licence irrespective of the quality of the A3 use.

(ii) The policy allows no incentive for good management. If the A3 use is badly managed but already has a late licence, it will still be better off than if well- managed but applying for a late licence.

(iii) There is no guidance as to what "exceptional circumstances" and there is no differentiation between various uses within A3. For example, bars may propose more of a concern to the local environment than restaurants and yet both are subject to the same restrictions.

(iv) Early terminal hours could just exacerbate the problems trying to solve, with everyone leaving at the same time rather than a gradual decanting of people. [826]

(91) (i) Part (A) identifies Stress Areas in which permissions relating to Class A3 uses will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. No guidance is given in either the policy or the supporting text for what may be considered by the Council to be exceptional circumstances.

(ii) The approach will effectively place a moratorium on any further Class A3 uses in those areas, which are internationally renowned as entertainment destinations.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 768 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) The reference in the policy to proposals only being granted in "exceptional circumstances" does not provide sufficient clarity or precision for an applicant to understand when an application is likely to be acceptable. Decision making will consequently not be properly informed by the development plan.

(iv) The Stress Areas policy is overly restrictive as the development of Class A3 uses in these areas can be adequately controlled through the other parts of the policy.

(v) Part (B) places the onus on applicants to demonstrate that their proposal would not have a detrimental effect on residential amenity or the local environment. If the Council do consider that there is a detrimental effect then there is no provision within the policy to consider the benefits of the scheme which may outweigh the harm or for conditions on an approval to mitigate any adverse impact.

(vi) Part (C) of the policy is unacceptably prescriptive as it assumes that proximity to residential accommodation will give rise to an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. There is no provision for the assessment of harm or impact and no consideration of the type of Class A3 use which is being proposed.

(vii) Parts (B) and (C) do not provide adequate flexibility to enable the consideration of a planning application based on its merits.

(viii) Part (D) of the policy indicates that conditions will be used to prevent operation between the appropriate terminal hour. Paragraph 7.26 indicates that this would be 1.00am for all uses within the West End Stress Area. This does not allow for any consideration of the local context to be taken into account, for instance the opening hours of adjoining uses.

(ix) A greater degree of flexibility needs to be instilled in the policy to allow for local circumstances to be considered.

(x) The policy should be amended to provide a presumption in favour of Class A3 uses, unless the proposal would cause significant harm on residential amenity or the local environment. The Stress Areas policy should be deleted from the UDP. [731]

(92) (i) (A) It is unreasonable to apply a blanket restriction on new A3 uses and extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation except in exceptional circumstances. Each planning application should be treated on its merits but this subsection removes that inherited right of the planning system.

(ii) (B) It is contended that sub section (B) is unreasonable and over detailed in that it goes beyond what is normally required of a development plan. Consequently, the policy is contrary to guidance set out on Local Plans in PPG12, Development Plans, at paragraph 3.11 to 3.14, which, inter alia, advises that excessive detail should be avoided and the use of supplementary planning guidance should be used as a means of setting out more detailed guidance.

(ii) Many of the amenity issues raised in subsection B could be and usually are controlled by the use of conditions attached to planning decisions. Their inclusion in the UDP, making them subject to Section 54A of the Town and County Planning Act 1990, is unnecessary and will over complicate development control decisions.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 769 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) (C) This criteria is inflexible and does not take into account the site-specific details of each planning application, which may outweigh such criteria. The use of a blanket policy such as in subsection C, does not allow for extenuating circumstances to be taken into account and will lead to unnecessary planning appeals. Such a criteria is unnecessary.

(iv) (D) Sub section (D) to the policy, in proposing to restrict the type of operation within a Class A3 Use, seeks to remove the benefits of the Use Classes Order (1987) and is contrary to advise contained in Circular 11/95, The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. Circular 11/95 states that a condition, which restricts future changes of use that the Use Classes Order would otherwise allow, should not be applied save for in exceptional circumstances. The inclusion of a policy, which promotes the use of potentially unreasonable conditions, is unnecessary given the provisions of Circular 11/95. Moreover, conditions restricting the hours of operation of licensed premises are unnecessary when it is governed by other legislation. [693]

(93) (i) The definition of Large A3 Premises is to be welcomed for the sake of clarity. However, the threshold is too small and will give rise to practical difficulties, particularly where premises with existing unconstrained Lawful A3 use as restaurants change to Bars A potential effect of the policies and this definition will be to create a new market with potentially undesirable consequences, older A3 restaurants being acquired and converted into the types of pub and bars that the Council is so concerned about. More research into the consequential impacts on the property market is required to establish the potential consequences and effects that imposing such thresholds in combination with policies SS3 and SS13 will have.

(ii) Conditions relating to maintaining these thresholds are likely to be completely unenforceable and as such contrary to Government Advice on such matters. [141]

(94) (i) The policy is extremely restrictive in respect of new A3 uses. The concerns of the City Council, which have lead to this policy, cannot be resolved through a strict application of the land use planning policy in respect of Class A3 (& D2) uses. The planning system alone cannot address the wider issues of the management of the West End as a whole, which requires a strategic approach from a range of private and public sector organisations. Class A3 uses form an important part of the offer of the West End at a World Class Centre of Tourism, Culture and Entertainment, the function of which should be fully supported.

(iii) Policy SS 3 (C) is too restrictive. There are, and have always been, many cases where a Class A3 use exists with residential accommodation above, below, adjoining or opposite, in a satisfactory manner. The issue is to address the nature of the A3 function and the proper use of both planning conditions and enforcement powers.

(iv) Policy SS 3 (D) introduces terminal hours. The imposition of such terminal hours in the centre of the world city is not appropriate and is contrary to emerging national policy. [68]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 770 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(95) (i) Opening shopfronts, together with tables and chairs outside class A3 catering establishments can substantially enhance the vitality and attractiveness of locations as places to visit and shop. The use of the public realm for catering purposes and its management in conjunction with neighbouring restaurants or bars is successfully handled in other major cities, and indeed within parts of the West End.

(96) (i) Reference to the provision of toilet facilities either within or outside new A3 premises should not be part of the UDP. These are matters already properly covered under the building regulations and do not need to be duplicated as part of the planning process.

(97) (i) Second Deposit Comment

Policy SS3 has been moved in Chapter 8, a revised chapter now called Tourism, Arts and Entertainment and combined with ACE 8 to create a new policy TACE 8: Location of Entertainment uses. Amendments have been made to the 1st deposit policy SS3 and are reflected in the new policies. SS3 (c) has been modified to create greater flexibility. The policies generally have been clarified.

(ii) First Deposit Comments

Paragraph 7.36 acknowledges that ‘restaurants, pubs and bars....form an essential and valuable feature of London life and are an attraction for residents, workers and visitors’, and seeks a balance between these activities which contribute to London’s World City status and protecting neighbouring residential amenity.

(iii) However this policy, particularly point (B) (‘planning permission will not be granted for an A3 use above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation, or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the vicinity’) , has an excessively protectionist focus. This point applies throughout Westminster and, given the spread of residential use throughout the City, would effectively ban any further A3 anywhere.

(iv) This policy reflects an excessively local perspective and is contrary to Strategic Part 1 Policy STRA 1: World City Status. It also conflicts with Policy SS 6, paragraph 7.61 of which sets out suitable locations for new A3 uses in the CAZ.

(v) Object but reserve position: would welcome further discussion with Westminster on the detailed operation of this policy and its impact on London’s World City status. [2]

(98) (i) The policy is unduly restrictive and negative. The policy is concerned far too much with issues of residential amenity as opposed to providing positive guidance for the location of class A3 activities, particularly within the CAZ. Policy

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 771 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

fails to acknowledge the importance of class A3 activities can make in supporting the wider retail, cultural, entertainment and World City function of Central London.

(ii) Policy SS 3 (C) places an unreasonable and restrictive condition upon the location new A3 uses effectively preclude in any A3 use in the vicinity of any residential accommodation. If A3 uses are not to be permitted in the vicinity of residential accommodation, is residential space to be permitted above established A3 uses? There may be instances where this is desirable, e.g. Chinatown. The policy places too high and unreasonable a test of acceptability, and one that would effectively prohibit A3 activities from anywhere within the CAZ, given the generally scattered nature of residential accommodation in this part of the City.

(99) (i) No case needs to be made to suggest that Policy SS3, if adopted, would have the effect of precluding all new restaurants and extensions to restaurants in Westminster. This is because the draft policy is already having this effect. This cannot be consistent with the councils strategy set out on pages 14&15 of the deposit draft which seeks, inter alia, to enhance the West End as a World Class City centre and to foster economic vitality and diversity. It also conflicts with PPG6 which provides diversity of use in town centres (para. 2.11 to 2.12) and support for the economy of town centres (para. 2.19 to 2.23). [298]

(100) (i) as for (87) above. [795]

(101) (i) as for (92) above. [795]

(102) (i) There is nothing in central government guidance or strategic guidance which permits the designation of "stress areas" as a means of controlling A3 uses. The approach is inflexible, and fails to provide the opportunity for individual proposals to be assessed on their merits. It is contrary to the positive attitude towards leisure and the evening economy in PPG6 and RPG3. Paragraph 2.21 of PPG6 recognises that leisure uses may disturb nearby residents, but the approach advocated is for local planning authorities to ensure that the design of a leisure development and the conditions attached to planning permissions mean that the amenities of nearby residents are fully considered.

(ii) The application of a "blanket ban" to A3 uses is wholly inconsistent with London's World City status, and will lead to a restriction of commercial activity to the detriment of London's position in relation to the World Cities. [780]

(103) (i) The policy should be more flexible. [371]

(104) (i) It should be clarified whether, where an A3 consent is already held, would planning permission be denied for any changes or extensions? [371]

(105) (i) This section of the policy assumes that, in all circumstances, A3 uses are incompatible with residential accommodation. The acceptability of locating these two uses together has been established by the City Council where residential accommodation has been provided above or adjacent to existing A3 units. In terms of the compatibility of residential and A3 uses the primary issues should be

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 772 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

wholly the effect on residential amenity and as such the Policy should be revised accordingly. [709]

(106) (i) This is a regressive policy that will create an unfair market. Those already with a late license will have an advantage over those applying for a late license irrespective of the quality if the A3 use.

(ii) The Policy allows no incentive for good management. If the A3 use is badly managed but already has a late licence, they will most likely still be better off than would a well-managed operator be applying for a late license.

(iii) There is no guidance as to what are 'exceptional circumstances'. It would be more helpful to suggest circumstances when A3 Permissions would be granted.

(iv) The Policy does not differentiate between various uses within A3. For example, bars and night clubs may pose more of a concern to the local environment than restaurants, and yet all are subject to the same restrictions.

(v) The early terminal hour could exacerbate the problems the UDP is trying to solve. Large numbers of people leaving at the same time is more likely to cause public nuisance and control problems than a gradual decanting of people. [371]

(107) (i) This policy is unduly restrictive and negative. The policy is concerned far too much with issues of residential amenity as opposed to providing positive guidance for the location of class A3 activities, particularly within the CAZ. Policy fails to acknowledge the importance of class A3 activities can make in supporting the wider retail, cultural, entertainment and World City function of Central London.

(ii) Policy SS 3 (C) places an unreasonable and restrictive condition upon the location new A3 uses effectively preclude in any A3 use in the vicinity of any residential accommodation. This places far too high a test of acceptability, and one that would effectively prohibit such activities from anywhere within the CAZ, given the generally scattered nature of residential accommodation in this part of the City.

(108) (i) It is unreasonable to require restaurant operators to provide public toilets in the immediate area.

(ii) This is the councils responsibility and contrasts with the closure by the council of public toilets throughout the city of Westminster over a period of many years. Sites may not be available to either the council or operators and this should not preclude the provision of restaurants. [298]

(109) (i) It is not reasonable to require the provision of CCTV equipment. This could be wholly inappropriate in smaller family restaurants and would be likely to affect adversely the atmosphere of all restaurants. [298]

(110) (i) It will often be inappropriate, or impossible to address all the criteria set out in paragraph 7.27 as being necessary for an application will be entertained. The policy application paragraph should be revised to indicate that it would beneficial

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 773 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

for applicants to provide an indication of these issues but that failure to do so need not result in refusal of permission. Conditions governing capacities are unenforceable and unreasonable.

(ii) Paragraph 7.28 should be modified to allow appropriate building services to run on after the closure, in order to facilitate servicing after patrons vacate premises.

(iii) Paragraph 7.29 is far too prescriptive and its sweeping generalisations that A3 uses “will nearly always cause or exacerbated amenity problems” provides the key element of prejudice within the plan which motivates the approach to the entire chapter. If properly managed, A3 uses need be no more harmful to residential amenity than other cultural or entertainment functions within the CAZ.

(iv) The whole basis of what these policies are seeking to achieve needs to be reassessed in light of providing more for the needs of the West End as the centre of World City rather than has a quiet residential neighbourhood. Paradoxically, the attractiveness of residential accommodation within the CAZ and within the identified Stress Areas does not appear to be undermined or prejudiced by the presence of late-night activities or the “24-hour City”. Quite the contrary, it is arguable that the presence of such diverse and vibrant local economy form the main reasons for the attraction of new residents to the area.

(v) The UDP must look forward and seek to promote the development of the West End, in a managed and positive manner that supports London's position as a major international centre of entertainment and cultural interest and excellence. The UDP does not provide a sufficiently positive land-use framework for this to happen, placing as it does undue weight upon the interests of only one sector of the community and economy. Licensing and law-and-order issues are properly the concern of wider primary legislation from the Government and are not matters that land use planning should be explicitly involved with. [108]

(111) (i) as for (106) above. [108]

(112) (i) It is not reasonable to propose that permissions for new A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The UDP recognises that public houses, restaurants and clubs provide essential services and facilities for people living, working in and visiting London. The policy needs to allow change and development within the Central Areas of the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater including the evolution of A3 and other leisure and entertainment uses. [794]

(113) (i) Welcome the recognition that traditional public houses whether within or outside shopping areas, contribute to character and function, particularly when in a Conservation Area. We welcome the recognition that they provide a valuable services for local residents and can provide a focus for residential communities. However we do not accept that it is only the traditional public houses which fulfil this role. The evolution of the A3 market means that bars, café bars can fulfil similar roles.

(ii) It is not reasonable to propose “(B)” that planning permission will normally be refused unless the applicant can demonstrate that the use would not have a detrimental affect on residential amenity. The policy fails to recognise properly the mixed use character of the Central Areas and in so doing the policy fails to take into account that those who live within or close to the Central Area of the capital must expect a certain amount of disturbance. It also fails to recognise

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 774 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

that “unacceptable” harm to residential amenity in significant and cohesive residential areas should be the concern.

(iii) Neither it is not reasonable to propose that any detrimental effect would be unacceptable, again any policy should distinguish “unacceptable and demonstrable harm”.

(iv) It is not reasonable to propose “(C)” that planning permission will not be granted for an A3 use above, below, adjoining or opposite residential accommodation etc. There are innumerable examples of A3 in such relationship with residential accommodation which operate without unacceptable harm to amenity.

(v) It is not reasonable to propose “(D)” that the City Council will use conditions to limit an A3 use without further details of the conditions. Paragraph 7.27 does not provide the requisite explanation. The “residential area” concerns fails to take into account the mixed use character of the Central Area and the policy fails to take into account that those who live within or close to the Central Area of the capital must expect a certain amount of disturbance. [794]

(114) (i) The emphasis should be to encourage A3 uses unless they cause harm. It would be preferable to operate a system of controls to balance competing interests rather than impose a blanket system. [371]

(115) (i) SS3 and SS13 appear too constrictive and good planning assessments should always be having regard to any amenity impact on residents. There is however no need to specifically create a presumption against such uses. [247]

(116) (i) It is not reasonable to propose “(A)” that permissions for new A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The UDP recognises that public houses, restaurants and clubs provide essential services and facilities for people living, working in and visiting London. The policy needs to allow change and development within the Central Areas of the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater including the evolution of A3 and other leisure and entertainment uses.[707]

(117) 1. Policy SS3 is too prescriptive and discourages determination of planning applications on their individual merits and circumstances.

2. The policy and supporting paragraphs apply general, broad-brush criteria, against which all planning applications for A3 (food and drink) uses will be assessed, which do not take into account the specific locational characteristics of individual sites.

3. The policy and supporting paragraphs do not accord with Central Government advice in national planning policy guidance notes (PPG's).

4. The policy and explanatory paragraphs are unnecessary and should be deleted from the Plan. [299]

(118) (i) (A) the tenet of land use planning is to assess applications on merit. It is contrary to central government policy and to human rights generally to exclude A3 uses or extensions other than in exceptional circumstances. It has to be accepted that there will have to be a balance between the effects of mixed uses in town centres. London is a capital city and has to be treated as such. If control

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 775 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

is required then there should be a criteria based policy to assess the merits and demerits of competing uses.

(ii) (C) this policy is over prescriptive and should be deleted. [694]

(119) (i) Object to the principle of defining stress area within central London where permission for new A3 uses or extensions to existing uses or hours of operation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

(ii) Central London is at the heart of London as a World City and the imposition of such a negatively worded policy is wholly inappropriate given one of the strategic UDP aims of enhancing the attraction of London as a world city.

(iii) It is acknowledged that there is an issue regarding the impact of A3 use on residential amenity in parts of Westminster but a suitable policy ought to be drafted which would ensure that individual applications for A3 uses within the stress areas would considered having regard to their potential impact on residential amenity.

(iv) Notwithstanding the above objection to this aspect of the policy, if the stress area is to be retained, we would request that the boundary of the stress area be amended to exclude Lower Regent Street east to Haymarket (south of Piccadilly Circus ) and its western boundary be redrawn to the east of Regent Street along Kingly Street and Warwick Street. [680]

(120) (i) The introduction of Stress Areas is inappropriate in the CAZ, which is identified as the only suitable location in Westminster for the provision of A3 and entertainment uses. There is no policy which attempts to limit the operating hours of retail units which can trade for 24 hours a day. The restriction of the licensing hours does not accord with the Central Governments proposed deregulation order to change the law on Sunday Observance of with the Government White Paper – Time for Reform: Proposals for the modernisation of Licensing Laws.

(ii) The assumption that adding to or intensifying A3 uses is not substantiated and we would contend that problems can be addressed within existing legislation, for example noise controls, EHO issues, etc. The paragraph does not give any definition in respect of the number of residents and, as worded, would require only that one residential premises be affected regardless of the size of development of level of investment proposed.

(iii) It does not state to whom these facilities should be fully accessible and there are licensing and good management issues which this paragraph fails to address.

(iv) The policy makes no recommendation regarding the way in which businesses would be expected to respond to people requiring admission to use the toilet facilities if they were drunk, abusive or under the influence of any illegal substance.

(v) Current building regulations also require that sufficient toilet facilities to serve the number of patrons allowed within a building are provided. This paragraph does not indicate whether or not the toilet provision anticipated will be in line with Building Regulations or whether the Council intend to initiate a different and revised standard.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 776 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(vi) Street drinking and external tables and chairs can be controlled through existing legislation and Westminster are already taking action, quite properly, to ensure that outside seating has the necessary consents. Refuse can be dealt with in an appropriate manner, although there have been problems with Westminster City Council’s own contractors and refuse disposal can be a major problem with retail developments and also offices. These issues can all be dealt with by ensuring that current legislation is implemented.

(vii) Stress Areas in the CAZ are inappropriate and do not add to the status of London as either a Capital or World City. The CAZ has been identified as the only location in Westminster where extended licensing hours will be granted. The West End Stress Area covers almost all the area colloquially known as The West End including both sides of Oxford Street, Regent Street, Piccadilly Circus, Coventry Street, Leicester Square, China Town and The Strand, many of which streets have no residents whatsoever. That new consents should not be granted in such areas beyond 01.00 is, we believe, totally unreasonable. We believe that there is a substantial part of the West End Stress Area which is not over- developed or residential, where A3 development would be entirely appropriate and where there is no reason why hours beyond 1.00 am should not be granted. Examples of such locations include the Pavilion, the Trocadero both in Piccadilly Circus and the former Fashion Café in Coventry Street.

(viii) There are locations where there are already a significant number of A3 and entertainment businesses where it may be desirable, on the part of the City Council, to ensure that future development of similar businesses is carefully controlled. However, we do not agree that the vast swathes of Soho and Covent Garden designated as the ‘West End Stress Area’ is sufficiently specific. We believe that it could be appropriate to identify certain specific streets where should businesses would not be encouraged.

(ix) The Council had previously designated ‘Quiet Enclaves’ where there was little A3 or entertainment business and a substantial amount of residential property. It is our belief that this is a fair approach, assuming of course that the ‘Quiet Enclaves’ are fully detailed and realistic. This would give specific guidance to operators that A3 and entertainment businesses would be unlikely to gain consent in these areas.

(x) Hot food take-aways, together with night-cafes, can have a specific and detrimental effect on the environment. They are often places where young people congregate after leaving public houses and bars. The customers have frequently drunk too much and simply are not the type of customers who would be welcomed in other businesses in the centre of London. Stricter regulations governing night cafes should be seriously considered as we believe that these businesses create problems substantially out of proportion to their size. [532]

(121) (i) The policy as drafted is unreasonably restrictive in respect of new A3 uses whether in the “Stress Areas” or elsewhere. Such uses are an integral part of and a valuable contribution to the continuing prosperity and vibrancy of the city centre and should not be ruled out by the use of blanket policies which make no allowance for judgement of individual applications (e.g. “Planning permission will not be granted for A3 use above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation…”).

(ii) The Policy should be re-worded to the effect that new A3 uses will be permitted subject to evidence that appropriate environmental and other criteria are met,

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 777 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

and that other uses which may be protected by policies are not unreasonably displaced and subject also to an indication that conditions may be imposed, e.g. to control hours of opening, noise, fume extraction etc. [533]

(122) (i) Reference to the provision of toilet facilities either within or outside new A3 premises should not be part of the UDP. These are matters already properly covered under the building regulations and do not need to be duplicated as part of the planning process.

(123) (i) The policy is restrictive in respect of new A3 uses. The planning system alone cannot address the wider issues of the management as a whole, which requires a strategic approach from a range of private and public sector organisations. Class A3 uses form an important part of the offer of the West End as a World Class Centre of Tourism, Culture and Entertainment, the function of which should be fully supported.

(iv) Policy SS3(D) introduces terminal hours. The imposition of such terminal hours in the centre of the world city is not appropriate and is contrary to emerging national policy. [1]

(124) (i) As for (84) above. [795]

(125) (i) SS3 and SS13 appear too constrictive and good planning assessments should always be having regard to any amenity impact on residents. There is however no need to specifically create a presumption against such uses. [247]

(126) (i) It is not reasonable to propose that permissions for new A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The UDP recognises that public houses, restaurants and clubs provide essential services and facilities for people living, working in and visiting London . The policy needs to allow change and development within the Central Areas of the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater including the evolution of A3 and other leisure and entertainment uses. [692]

(127) (i) As for (112) above. [692]

(128) (i) It is not reasonable to propose such onerous restrictions on new A3 uses or extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation. The UDP recognises that public houses, restaurants and clubs provide essential services and facilities for people living, working and visiting London. The policy needs to allow change and

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 778 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

development in within the Central Activity Zone and specifically in the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater including the evolution of A3 and other leisure and entertainment uses.[692]

(129) (i) As for (76) above. [795]

(130) (i) Concentrated entertainment and A3 uses can have a negative impact on the area and result in anti-social behaviour, but the issue is one of management which to a large extent needs to be addressed through policing and improved transport, not by preventing the future development of the entertainment industry.

(ii) A3 uses in Westminster are important to London, not just to tourism, but also as part of the vital infrastructure of a world class city. In an era of telecommunications where companies are more foot-loose, the decision about where to located is frequently about attracting and retaining the best staff and therefore quality of life is paramount. London is an attractive location for a variety of reasons. Staff locating from overseas may not want to live in central London, but they do look to it to provide a lively social and cultural centre comparable with New York. The introduction of terminal hours not only creates management problems in getting people safely home and in crowding, it is not commensurate with a modern world class city. [376]

(131) (i) West End Stress Area: Objection is made to Oxford Street being the northern boundary of the West End Stress Area (Map 7.2). There are similar problems in parts of East Marylebone that are being exacerbated by the declaration of the West End Stress Area. At a minimum the boundary should be extended to include the area between Newman Street in the west, Goodge Street on the north and the Borough boundary on the east. [719]

(132) (i) There should be a uniform policy of midnight closing where an exception can be made. Midnight has been supported by planning inspectors. In order to show an exception applications will need to show that the ambient noise level in the vicinity of the proposed site is below levels set out in the WHO report on noise - which is specifically referred to in PPG24 and Government guidance on noise. There also need to be a test of the cumulative effect of development on the area in terms of noise, people, crime and disorder, fouling , public safety in order to justify an exception. It is not sufficient to argue that there will be no material deterioration to the existing environment: there must be a test as to whether the existing environment is acceptable for residents and others. This is a requirement of Article 8 of the ECHR.

(ii) There needs to be a full explanation in the UDP for the reasons for these policies, the importance of residential in these areas, policies and obligations on the City Council including references to the ECHR and the WHO report on noise. There needs to be a policy stating that openable shopfronts will not be permitted in A3 venues/A1 where food is served and a standard condition that imposes New York noise code conditions on new premises and where appropriate on existing premises. The UDP also needs to give the City Council powers to amend existing planning consents to deal with openable shopfronts particularly those which have been installed without planning consents before and after the time limit for taking enforcement action; imposing the New York noise code provision on noise from commercial operations on existing premises; controlling tables and chairs on alleged private forecourts which abut the pavement; placing of lights in the street; restricting the hours at which services may be provided to the facilities e.g. deliveries and waste cleansing; and controlling takeaway

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 779 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

operations. There also needs to be a recognition that certain D2 (nightclubs, discos, music and comedy venues) and A1 venues serving food, when they exist in concentration on their own and in conjunction with A3 concentrations, can give rise to the same problems: the policies in this section should also apply to these premises.

(133) (i) There also needs to be a policy encouraging A3, D2 and other entertainment uses to relocate outside the Stress Areas, where appropriate and economic to do so. This might be a City Council will "not resist…the relocation…." policy. [555]

(134) (i) The location of A3 uses should be restricted within or near residential areas, in order to reduce disturbances and late night noise. [125]

(ii) Non-A1 uses in Queensway already exceed the permitted Core Frontage maximum of 25%. We are concerned that internet cafes and coffee houses are accorded A1 use, particularly as there have been a proliferation of the latter in Queensway in recent years. These are of limited use to residents but attract people into the area, increasing noises and disturbance into the late evening.

(135) (i) Nuisance is also caused by A1 use to coffee houses which are, in effect, catering establishments, causing the same problems with noise, disturbance, refuse and litter. [212]

(136) (i) Support the policy but needs to be strengthened to protect residents from D2 uses, and home delivery food shops where motor cycles, scooters, vans etc. can cause extreme nuisance. [381]

(137) (i) Recycling and hours of use should be controlled. Open shopfronts can be energy inefficient. Noise and smells not only permeate into the street but also adjacent premises and residential properties. Pavement drinking is often noisier and is as bad from people eating outside, especially when under or opposite residential properties. A3 uses often change during the day (i.e. restaurant use lunch and evening, mainly drinking late evening) and can even vary during week (i.e. Monday-Thursday mainly restaurant, Friday and weekends mainly drinking). [381]

(138) (i) Support. [121] [753] [129] [139] [138] [28] [20]

(ii) D2 and food A1 premises should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

(139) (i) Permission for the use of A1 premises for the sale primarily of food and drink should not be allowed. [555]

(140) (i) Support but need a balanced approach. For some, the pubs, bars and restaurants that this policy seeks to control form a large part of the reason why Westminster is an attractive place in which to live. [485]

(141) (i) As for 555 above.

(ii) Support the West End Stress Area but this should be extended to include D2 premises also.

(iii) There are many examples of A3 premises in the West End that transmogrify into D2 premises after around 23.00 i.e. the tables & chairs are removed and that area becomes a dance floor.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 780 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(142) (i) The implications of S77 of the 1964 Licensing Act need to be looked at in relation to A3 premises which have Music & Dance Licenses from the City Council. All such premises fall within S77 of the Act, and are thus required to serve alcohol as ancillary to BOTH food and music & dancing, and thus, in fact require D2 consents. [700]

(143) (i) As for 555 above.

(144) (i) The ratio of food to alcohol should be added to the list of factors to be considered when granting extensions to hours or capacity, and whether or not there are to be tables and chairs on any private forecourt. Conditions should be included to govern the number of covers and standing customers at any one time. People leaving restaurants where food has been served by waiters can be expected to be less drunk than those leaving premises where the consumption of food has not been compulsory. [131]

(145) (i) Strongly support. However believe that other Stress Areas, such as Edgware Road should have the same level of protection against nightclubs, discos, casinos, etc., as is proposed in the West End Stress Area. [131]

(146) (i) We support the proposed policies in this section and would be pleased to give evidence at any public inquiry setting out our reasons why. We feel that it essential that this aspect of the proposed UDP is kept intact for the foreseeable future and agree with the Council’s analysis of ‘saturation’ in the West End Stress Area. We feel that any additional smaller uses allowed should be under single ownership and should demonstrably augment the West End’s world city status. [700]

(147) (I) Support is conditional on the understanding that “only granted in exceptional circumstances” , relating to the Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater stress areas, is even more restrictive than “not normally”, relating to elsewhere outside the CAZ. [381]

TA08A: Summary of Council Response

(1) (i) Policy SS3 has been moved into Chapter 8, a revised Chapter now called Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment and combined with ACE 8 to create a new Policy TACE 8: Location of Entertainment Uses. Parts of the SS3 criteria have also be included in new Policy TACE 10: Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Amendments have been made to the 1st deposit policy SS3 and are reflected in the new policies.

(ii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taking together the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(iii) It is City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 781 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) It is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of saturation with A3 and entertainment uses and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that character of the area is being eroded by entertainment uses. The level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The Stress Area concept has developed over a period of time following original concerns over degradation of the street environment in certain locations.

(v) The City Council does not agree with the position taken by the Inspector at the Windmill Street inquiry regarding background noise levels.

(vi) Examples of exceptional circumstances have been provided in policy TACE 8, Para 8.63d. This is not an extensive list and each application will be considered on their merits.

(vii) The Stress Area approach is justified and explained further in new policy TACE 8. This is also supported by the West End Entertainment Impact Study which identifies the West End growth in A3 uses at 35% over the past ten years and outlines the impacts of that growth. [777]

(2) (i) Withdrawal of objection acknowledged. [777]

(3) (i) Para 7.28 can now be found in TACE 10, Para 8.71aa. It is not considered unreasonable to expect that plant and equipment be shut down at closing time. This should assist in moving customers out of the premises and ensures that residential amenity is protected. [777]

(4) (i) There is recognition to a certain extent of the differing impacts from differing A3 uses, however due to the current Use Classes Order categorisation. It is very difficult for City Council to distinguish between the uses as a change of use within this Use Class can occur with planning permission. The onus would be on the applicant to prove that the A3 use proposed was in some way different, in its likely impacts, from another A3 use.

(ii) Type and size of unit are considered justified in including in the policy. There is no doubt that a bar with vertical drinking, music and dancing is likely to have greater impact on residential amenity than a restaurant, due to the focus on drinking and the leaving of people from the premises mostly at closing time. The larger the unit the greater the capacity and therefore depending upon the use could have greater impact. Conditions restricting the use cannot always mitigate the problems associated on the streets when the venue closes. [777]

(5) (i) SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants at the outset prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant at the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. The use of 'where appropriate' is considered acceptable in planning terms. This provides flexibility of imposing conditions only where it can be relevant and reasonable. [777]

(6) (i) TACE10 (B) is necessary to ensure that consideration is given to the likely impact of the proposal on neighbouring residential uses. This has been modified

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 782 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

from policy SS 3 in the First Deposit to provide greater flexibility as previously it was effectively a ban against entertainment uses locating above, below, adjoining, or opposite residential uses. The policy is proposed to remain. [777]

(7) (i) Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taken together the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(ii) Other programmes such as cleansing, lighting, provision of conveniences, CCTV are being improved by the City Council to support the evening economy.

(iii) There are currently many venues which operate with permission beyond midnight.[92]

(8) (i) It is considered that conditions relating to seating capacity and covers and the provision and number of tables and chairs are and can be enforced. [765]

(9) (i) There are benefits of natural surveillance, 'having more eyes' on the street. However, there can still be situations where fear of crime and personal safety can be a problem, such as anti-social behaviour on the streets. The influence of alcohol can induce this type of behaviour. [777]

(10) (i) It is not the City Council's intention only to protect residential amenity, but to protect the character and function of the city for visitors, workers and the industry. If the balance is tipped too far, this will result in the loss of residential uses and a less vibrant, lively and sustainable city. This would go against Government guidance and aims. The CAZ is designated as a mixed use area an therefore requires a mix of uses to ensure its character is maintained.

(ii) Policy TACE 8 provides a new aim which recognises Westminster's position as an internationally important entertainment centre. This is complementary to the World Class City status. [777]

(11) (i) Withdrawal acknowledged. [702]

(12) (i) Withdrawal acknowledged. [375]

(13) (i) It is City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.[765]

(14) (i) It is City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(ii) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. The Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise, etc. which support the planning and licensing process. [772]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 783 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(15) (i) SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 & 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

(ii) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(iii) SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provides clear guidance to applicants at the outset prior to the Licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the Policy to advise applicants at the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. [340]

(16) (i) Withdrawal acknowledged. [777]

(17) (i) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(ii) SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the Licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the Policy to advise the applicant up front. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. [803]

(18) (i) The revised policies are considered generally more positive in approach. It is still questionable as to whether the Government’s aim is for a 24 hour city. [140]

(19) (i) Reference has also been made to the changing trends in lifestyles and the future trends in the entertainment industry. [253]

(20) (i) Withdrawal acknowledged. [549]

(21) (i) Whilst it is accepted that there has been a growth in A3 uses in the St James's Conservation Area, as outlined in the representation, the level of growth and the current level of A3 and entertainment uses is not considered to have reached saturation level, in comparison to the other designated Stress Areas. The boundaries of the West End Stress Area have been modified.

(ii) Based on objections received, and mapping of these areas (which identifies concentrations of A3 uses and places which hold a public entertainment licence) the boundaries have been extended. The boundary has been extended north of Oxford Street to include part of Hanway Place, Hanway Street, and the eastern side of Rathbone Place, due to the presence of A3 uses and vertical drinking premises which occur in these streets outside present venues. The rest of the boundary has been taken approximately on block north of Oxford Street along East Castle, Market and Great Castle Street. The boundary has been extended to the west to include parts of Hanover Street, Maddox Street, Conduit Street, Heddon Street, Swallow Street, Vine Street and Air Street. A small area has also been included between Norris and Charles Street.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 784 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) The area bounded by St Martin’s Place, William IV Street and Duncannon Street has be removed from the Stress Area as there is no concentration or saturation of A3 entertainment uses in this area. [121]

(22) (i) Opportunities will exist for entertainment uses to establish outside the Stress Areas and in particular in those areas where regeneration is occurring. i.e. Paddington. [779]

(23) (i) This objection relates to Policy SS2 and not to SS3.

(ii) Policy SS2 has been modified: however it currently provides the ability to consider applications on their merits. The long term vacancy rate has been reduced to 18 months. [785]

(24) (i) Withdrawal acknowledged. [777]

(25) (i) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises thereby creating staggered operating hours.

(ii) The concept of Business Improvement Districts is currently being considered by Council, and is generally supported. This concept is considered for working alongside the planning policies.

(iii) A holistic approach to dealing with crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour is required. This is the Council’s approach and it is considered that a combination of planning, licensing and enforcement can work towards creating a safe and attractive city to live, work in, and visit.

(iv) It is not considered that the policy is contrary to PPG 6 or PPG 12. [825]

(26) (i) In some cases conditions can be appropriately used to mitigate expected problems associated with a proposal. However this is not considered the case in all circumstances.

(ii) Para 7.37 can now be found in policy TACE 8, para 8.65a.

(iii) Para 7.38 can now be found in Policy TACE 8, para 8.65b and has been modified. [777]

(27) (i) The policies provide some flexibility outside the Stress Areas to allow entertainment uses, where impacts are minimised and where regeneration is required. Including Paddington Special Policy Area and North West Westminster. [403]

(28) (i) Withdrawal of objection acknowledged. [786]

(29) (i) It is the City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential, leisure and commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress. [785]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 785 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(30) (i) Stress Areas have been further justified and explained in the new policy. Example criteria for exceptional circumstances have been provided in Policy TACE 8. Policy SS3(C ) has been modified to provide greater flexibility. [778]

(31) (i) Agreed that this can sometimes be the case, however it is considered that these linked trips are more common with restaurants and cafés rather than pubs and bars.

(ii) There is no reason why the applicant for a public house proposal could not put forward an argument for exceptional circumstances under the current policies. Each application is considered on its merits under the TACE policies. The Use Classes Order 1987 restricts the extent to which the City Council can distinguish between various A3 uses. [777]

(32) (i) Open shopfronts will not be permitted in A3 premises or composite entertainment uses, as they can lead to noise and smells permeating into the street, adjacent premises and residential properties. They are also considered inappropriate in design terms and can be energy inefficient. It is not agreed that they are required to ensure the vitality of an area. There may however be areas in the public realm where tables and chairs outside for customers may be appropriate.

(ii) Licensing conditions are a licensing issue. The planning process acts as a first stop to consider the likely impact on residential amenity and impact on established character of an area. [803]

(33) (i) Policy SS3(A) has been moved to TACE 8 but not modified. The reasoned justification for this policy is contained in Policy TACE 8. Exceptional circumstances have been clarified in Para 8.63d. Examples of what may be constituted as exceptional circumstances have been provided.

(ii) SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

(iii) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(iv) SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants at the outset prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant at the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals.[825]

(34) (i) Para 7.32 can now be found in policy TACE 10, Para 8.71x, and has been modified.

(iii) In addition the Council is currently trying to address the issue of street urination through the provision of temporary urinals, extended opening of public conveniences and the introduction of a by-law prohibiting street urination. [66]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 786 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(35) (i) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process.

(ii) Stress Areas are areas which have been designated within Westminster, where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The Stress Area boundaries have been modified.

(iii) The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the recently published West End Entertainment Impact Study which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three stress areas. Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(iv) SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant up front. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals.

(v) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises thereby creating staggered operating hours. [724]

(36) (i) Policy SS3(A) has been moved to TACE 8, but not, however, modified. The easoned justification for this policy is contained in Policy TACE 8.

(ii) SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 & 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

(iii) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(iv) SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the Policy to advise the applicant up front. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals.

(v) Para 7.34 has been deleted.

(vi) Para 7.37 can be found in policy TACE 8, para 8.65a. The paragraph has been modified. [768]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 787 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(37) (i) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility. [764]

(38) (i) Withdrawal acknowledged. [759]

(39) (i) Para 7.40 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ac and has been modified.

(ii) Policy SS3(A) has been moved to TACE 8 but not however modified. The reasoned justification for this policy is contained in Policy TACE 8.

(iii) SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

(iv) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(v) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified.

(vi) SS3(D) has not been modified, but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant up front. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. [681]

(40) (i) It is not considered that the policy is contrary to PPG 1, PPG 6 or PPG 12. Stress Area boundaries have been developed based on a concentration of A3 and entertainment uses. Boundaries have been reconsidered as part of the review.

(41) (i) Para 7.35 can now be found in Policy TACE 10, para 8.71z. This paragraph reflects the contents of policy SS3(D). Policy SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant up front. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. It is not considered that this policy is in conflict with the Use Classes Order. [66]

(42) (i) Support for TACE 8 welcomed.

(ii) The definition of entertainment uses is covered in TACE 8, paragraph 8.58, where it states that TACE 8 applies to all uses which fall within Class A3 Use Classes Order (1987). It also applies to night clubs, live music and dance venues, discotheques, entertainment centres, casinos and bingo halls. The Glossary has been amended to include Entertainment Uses.

(iii) The word ‘size’ has been added to the paragraph as recommended.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 788 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) The word 'significant' was inserted in para 8.57 (A) following First Deposit responses. It is the City Council’s aim not to reduce the amount of entertainment uses but to maintain those uses which are not having a significant adverse effect on residential amenity. Significant cannot be quantified but is a reasonable planning term that can be interpreted.

(v) (E), 8.60, 8.61 Support welcomed.

(vi) Para 8.63: The Terminal Hour refers to the time at which it is expected that the premises will be closed to the public. I.e.. The premises should not be kept open after this time. The detail regarding this would be attached as a condition of any planning consent and enforced.

(vii) Para 8.63a: There is need to have some flexibility in the controls over terminal hours, and a 'blanket ban' over all premises not opening after 12 midnight would be unreasonable in planning terms.

(viii) Para 8.63b, 8.63c: Support welcomed

(ix) Para 8.63d: not agreed. This provides some flexibility to encourage the change of use say from a night club to a restaurant where the impacts may be reduced.

(x) Para 8.64a: not agreed. Cumulative impact is referred to in paragraph 8.65 and throughout the Entertainment Policies. There is no need for individually and cumulatively to be referred to in this paragraph.

(xi) Para 8.65a: not agreed. It would be unreasonable to say that all A3 extensions and A3 uses have a harmful effect on residential amenity. There is a need to reasonable and flexible in these statements.

(xii) Paras 8.65b, 8.66a 8.67: support welcomed.

(xiii) Paras 8.68 and 8.69: not agreed. These paragraphs were deleted as they are essentially repetition of what is already stated in this policy and in Policy TACE 10 . i.e.. The same message has been conveyed elsewhere.

(xiv) 1st Deposit Comments

Support welcomed.

D2 uses such as night clubs are covered by the new policy TACE 8.

Coffee shops are defined as A1 under the Use Classes Order 1987. Council has lobbied Government about this issue and the Use Classes Order is currently under review by the Government.

Tables and Chairs under 7.27 refers to the total amount of Tables and Chairs being used in the A3 use whether they be inside or outside the building.

In some circumstances Council has no control over the provision of Tables and Chairs on Private Forecourts.

The use of Acoustic Lobbies has been included in new policy TACE 10 where consideration will be required to be given to the design of the entrance and inclusion of an acoustic lobby. The requirement of windows being kept shut can

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 789 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

be dealt with on an application basis and can be conditioned on any planning permission.

7.30, not agreed to add private forecourts.

7.32, agreed and added recycling.

7.33, agreed and added energy inefficient

7.35, not agreed to add private forecourts

7.38, agreed and added eating

7.41, agreed and added home deliveries [104]

(43) (i) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified to reflect a more flexible approach. [66]

(44) (i) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified. [140]

(45) (i) Para 7.27 can now be found in Policy TACE 10, para 8.71t, and has been modified.

(ii) Where is can be established that there is a link between the proposed use and the need for additional public toilets this will be dealt with through the s106 process. Operators will not be required to provide public access to their toilets provided in the premises, these must be made available to customers only. [140]

(46) (i) It is not clear that the Government has a policy of creating a 24 hour city.

(iii) These policies are creating under the Planning regime and are not intended to undermine the Government' s White Paper on Licensing Reform which has now been put ‘on hold’ by the Government. [140]

(47) (i) The Second Deposit policies are considered generally more positive in approach. It is still questionable as to whether the Government’s aim is for a 24 hour city. [140]

(48) (i) The Second Deposit policies are considered generally more positive in approach. It is still questionable as to whether the Government’s aim is for a 24 hour city. [140]

(49) (i) The Stress Areas have a historic development which will be subject to scrutiny at the public inquiry. They are justified on the basis of concentration of A3 and entertainment uses and stress being experienced on residential amenity and the local environment. The boundaries of the Stress Areas have been modified.

(ii) The policy now gives examples of what City Council would consider as exceptional circumstances.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 790 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Policy SS3(C) has been modified to provide greater flexibility.

(iv) Policy SS3(D) is not contrary to the Use Classes Order 1987. Conditions have been imposed recently through the appeal process.

(v) The terminal hours controls take into account the impact of entertainment uses being open until certain times. Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises thereby creating staggered operating hours. There may be an exceptional circumstance where it is considered that the proposal could operate beyond the guideline terminal hour, based on the merits of the case. Cumulative impact is expected to be taken into account. [66]

(50) (i) Some ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been outlined in Policy TACE 8. Criteria is outlined in Policy TACE 10 which provides some flexibility in determining applications. Paragraph 7.12 has been amended. Paragraph 7.30: Future residential amenity should be considered and has been supported in appeal cases. Paragraph 7.31: it is considered necessary that adequate details be provided by the applicant to enable the full impact of any proposal to be properly assessed. Paragraph 7.32: there has been a established link between the provision of public toilets and the demand from customers leaving entertainment premises. Rewording not agreed as suggested: however, policy amended. [698]

(51) (i) Para 7.32 can now be found in policy TACE 10, Para 8.71x, and has been modified. Access only needs to be for customers. This is reinforcing the requirement upfront prior to building control process.

(ii) Where is can be established that there is a link between the proposed use and the need for additional public toilets this will be dealt with through the S106 process and will need to be justified. This is a relevant planning matter.

(iii) In addition, the Council is currently trying to address the issue of street urination through the provision of temporary urinals, extended opening of public conveniences and the introduction of a by-law prohibiting street urination. [803]

(52) (i) Para 7.27 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71t, and has been modified. The onus is placed on the applicant to provide the relevant information to enable the Council to make a satisfactory assessment. There is no reason to believe why this information could not be supplied. It is not considered unreasonable.

(ii) Para 7.28 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71aa. It is not considered unreasonable to expect that plant and equipment be shut down at closing time. This should assist in moving customers out of the premises and ensures that residential amenity is protected.

(iii) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified.

(iv) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process. [803]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 791 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(53) (i) ‘Exceptional circumstances’ have been clarified in para 8.63d, where examples of what may be constituted as exceptional circumstances have been provided.

(ii) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process. [803]

(54) (i) Support for SS 3 (A) , (C) and paragraph 8.59 is welcomed.

(ii) Para 8.63: the terminal hours set under the TACE Policies are specified as guideline terminal hours and there may be exceptional circumstances which arise which may warrant a variation from these times. Therefore there is considered to be flexibility within the plan. Westminster is already served well with staggered closing hours throughout the night, across the City, to cater for the needs of the customers.

(iii) Para 8.63(b): in considering an application, matters such as environmental health complaints are likely to be considered to establish the current impact that the use may be having on surrounding residential amenity. This paragraph has been included to make it clear that uses can intensify without physical extensions to the building occurring, i.e. proposed extension of opening hours, and in such cases the City Council will consider the information in 8.63(a). All applications are considered on their merits.

(iv) Para 8.63(d): part support for this paragraph welcomed. This list contained in exceptional circumstances is not exhaustive. The onus in this case is on the applicant to prove that the redevelopment of the premises should be an exceptional circumstance. This could be an option for consideration on its merits. The current paragraph does not rule out this option.

(v) The new TACE 8 gives examples of exceptional circumstances.

(vi) The Stress Areas have a historic development which will be subject to scrutiny at the public inquiry. They are justified on the basis of concentration of A3 and entertainment uses and stress being experienced on residential amenity and the local environment. The boundaries of the Stress Areas have been modified.

(vii) Policy SS3(B)has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10: it provides more flexibility and is reworded more positively.

(viii) Policy SS3(C) has been modified to allow greater flexibility.

(ix) The approach n Policy SS3Dis consistent with Government policy, as there are concerns that additional types of entertainment uses in some areas are likely to exacerbate the effects on the residential amenity and local environment.

(x) The terminal hours controls take into account the impact of entertainment uses being open until certain times. Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises thereby creating staggered operating hours. There may be an exceptional circumstance where it is considered that the proposal could operate beyond the

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 792 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

guideline terminal hour, based on the merits of the case. Cumulative impact is expected to be taken into account. It is common planning practice for hours of operation conditions to be placed on planning permissions to ensure the protection of the surrounding amenity. [821]

(55) (i) The definition of Large A3 uses in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city. It is considered that thresholds of capacity can be enforced and is a matter for City Council. It is not considered that this is contrary to Government guidance. [803]

(56) (i) Support welcomed.

(ii) Para 7.27 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71t, and has been modified. This addresses the issue of design of the entrance and provision of acoustic lobbies. Para 8.71w also discusses this and raises the issue of energy efficiency. It also clarifies that this covers new uses, extensions to, or variation in opening hours.

(iii) No mention has been made of private forecourts which Council has no control over.

(iv) Policy TACE 11 now deals with tables and chairs on the footway. [381]

(57) (i) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. The Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process.

(ii) Stress Areas’ are areas which have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The Stress Area boundaries have been modified.

(iv) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(v) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant up front. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 793 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(vi) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises, thereby creating staggered operating hours. [729]

(58) (i) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises, thereby creating staggered operating hours. [73]

(59) (i) Para 7.28 can now be found in TACE 10, Para 8.71aa and has been modified.

(60) (i) Para 7.27 can now be found in policy TACE 10, Para 8.71t, and has been modified.

(ii) Where is can be established that there is a link between the proposed use and the need for additional public toilets this will be dealt with through the s106 process and will need to be justified. In addition Council is currently trying to address the issue of street urination through the provision of temporary urinals, extended opening of Public Conveniences and the introduction of a by-law prohibiting street urination. [66]

(61) (i) Stress Areas are areas which have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. These areas have been developed through mapping and inspections. The creation of the stress areas has been supported by the recently published West End Entertainment Impact Study which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three Stress Areas.

(iii) Variations already occur in closing times of premises thereby creating staggered operating hours. [66]

(62) (i) The Stress Area approach is justified and explained further in new Policy TACE 8. This is also supported by the West End Entertainment Impact Study which identifies the West End growth in A3 uses at 35% over the past ten years and outlines the impacts of that growth.

(ii) Policy SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 794 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.[730]

(63) (i) The Edgware Road Stress Area has been reviewed having regard to saturation of entertainment uses (A3 and D2) and the effects on the general amenity, character and function. Small amendments have been made to the Stress Area which include:

(a) The most northern section of the stress area has been deleted based on the fact that it is located within the Paddington Special Policy Area where regeneration is being encouraged. There are no problems of conflict happening in this area due to entertainment uses. There is no over concentration of A3 or entertainment uses in this area.

(b) The area fronting Cabbell Street has been removed, as it is predominantly residential in nature.

(c) The area between Connaught Place and Bayswater Road is dominated by office and residential development which are not likely to be converted to entertainment uses. This area has been removed.

(d) Two new areas have been included. The corner of Marble Arch and Great Cumberland Place where a predominant A3 use is located and other opportunities exist and Seymour Place, which has a dominance of A3 uses including restaurants on both sides of the road and a Public House. It was not agreed to delete the entire Stress Area, due to the concentration of entertainment uses which exist in this area. The area designated on the plan submitted does contain A3 uses at ground floor level and a casino. This area cannot be considered in isolation to the other surrounding uses and their impacts. It is considered this area contributes to the concentration of entertainment uses in this area and therefore there is no justifiable reason why it should be removed from the stress area.

(vi) Policy SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

(vii) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility. Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified.

(viii) Para 7.26 has been deleted. [90]

(64) (i) Para 7.26 has been deleted.

(ii) Para 7.29 has been moved to Policy TACE 10 (Para 8.71ad) and modified.

(iii) It is not agreed that Leicester Square should be deleted from the West End Stress Area. The square contains a concentration of A3 and entertainment uses and is a major focus of night time activity. There are residential uses which are located close by and there is concern that residential amenity and the local environment is under stress. The entertainment route approach is no longer considered to be relevant to the West End, where high concentrations of entertainment uses already exist across the area.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 795 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility. [757]

(65) (i) See general paragraph on City Council’s response to SS 3 objections. [794]

(66) (i) Where a planning application is required for an A3 use in a theatre it is correct in saying that it would be subject to consideration under the Policies TACE 8, 9 and 10. There are however exceptional circumstances which can apply for the provision of additional A3 uses. This provision provides a form of flexibility to allow for uses which are unlikely to impact on the residential amenity and character of the area. The onus would be on the applicant to make a case at application stage. It is noted that the Trust has not suggested that there are insufficient large A3 uses in the West End for theatregoers’ use.

(ii) Policy SS3(A has been moved to TACE 8 but not modified. The reasoned justification for this policy is contained in Policy TACE 8.

(iii) Policy SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

(iv) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility. [370]

(67) (i) Stress Areas are areas which have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. These areas have been developed through mapping and inspections. The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the recently published West End Entertainment Impact Study which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three stress areas.

(68) (i) The Second Deposit policies are considered clearer and more emphasis has been placed on explaining exceptional circumstances and criteria to be considered when processing a planning application. They are defensible policies which have been backed up by the preparation of the West End Entertainment Impact Study. [715]

(69) (i) Para 7.35 can now be found in Policy TACE 10, para 8.71z. This paragraph reflects the contents of Policy SS3(D). SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provides clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant up front. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. It is not considered that this policy is in conflict with the Use Classes Order. [18]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 796 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(70) (i) Para 7.32 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71x, and has been modified.

(71) (i) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified to reflect a more flexible approach. [18]

(72) (i) Para 7.28 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71aa and has been modified.

(73) (i) There is nothing in Government Guidance which does not allow the designation of Stress Areas.

(ii) PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. In the Stress Areas allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on residential amenity and local environment cannot be controlled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances in the Stress Areas.

(iii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taken together the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(iv) It is the City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential, leisure and commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress. [491]

(74) (i) Para 7.27 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71t, and has been modified.

(ii) Where is can be established that there is a link between the proposed use and the need for additional public toilets this will be dealt with through the s106 process and will need to be justified. In addition the Council is currently trying to address the issue of street urination through the provision of temporary urinals, extended opening of public conveniences and the introduction of a by-law prohibiting street urination. [18]

(75) (i) D2 uses were previously covered in TCE 8 and are now covered by policies TACE 8 to TACE10, combined with A3 uses. [131]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 797 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(76) (i) The Stress Areas have a historic development which will be subject to scrutiny at the public inquiry. They are justified on the basis of concentration of A3 and entertainment uses and stress being experienced on residential amenity and the local environment. The boundaries of the Stress Areas have been modified.

(ii) The policy now gives examples of what City Council would consider as exceptional circumstances.

(iii) Policy SS3(C) has been modified to provide greater flexibility.

(iv) Policy SS3(D) is not contrary to the Use Classes Order 1987. Conditions have been imposed recently through the appeal process.

(v) The terminal hours controls take into account the impact of entertainment uses being open until certain times. Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises, thereby creating staggered operating hours. There may be an exceptional circumstance where it is considered that the proposal could operate beyond the guideline terminal hour, based on the merits of the case. Cumulative impact is expected to be taken into account. [18]

(77) (i) There is not considered to be a blanket ban over all large A3 uses, or extensions leading to the same, in the Stress Areas. Within the Stress Areas it is suggested that large entertainment uses will not be permitted. However each application is required to be considered on its merits, having regard to the material considerations under Section 54a. There may be exceptional circumstances which may arise where a large A3 use would be permitted. There are examples of where applications have been dealt with in this way under the draft replacement plan. There is a recognised need, however, to slow down the growth in entertainment uses in the Stress Areas due to their impact so far. In the Stress Areas allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on the residential amenity and local environment cannot be controlled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. All applications must be considered having regard to the criteria in TACE 10 which would take into account amenity considerations.

(78) (i) Para 7.27 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71t, and has been modified. The onus is placed on the applicant to provide the relevant information to enable the Council to make a satisfactory assessment. There is no reason to believe why this information could not be supplied. It is not considered unreasonable.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 798 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified.

(iv) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taking together the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(v) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. The Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc., which support the planning and licensing process. [141]

(79) (i) Exceptional circumstances have been clarified in Para 8.63d, where examples of what may be constituted as exceptional circumstances have been provided.

(ii) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process.

(iii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taking together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met. The policies are generally more positive. [141]

(80) (i) The new policies recognise the importance of the entertainment industry in partly supporting the World Class City status. The policies have been reworded to reflect this. Policy SS3 (C) has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(ii) It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the Policy to advise the applicantat the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. [141]

(81) (i) The new polices recognise the importance of the entertainment industry in partly supporting the World Class city.

(ii) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises, thereby creating staggered operating hours. The City Council is currently considering the use of BIDs (Business Improvement Districts). The current problems are being dealt with through a number of initiatives including enforcement, licensing, responsible management schemes and the planning policy process. It is not considered that the policy is contrary to PPG 6 or PPG 12. Blanket restrictions have not been imposed. Some flexibility is provided. The entertainment industry provides a vibrant economy particularly in the Stress Areas and therefore PPG 6 has been satisfied. Growth

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 799 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

in entertainment uses will tip the balance of viability for retail in these areas. [340]

(82) (i) Duplication has been removed from the policies through the combining of TACE 8 and SS3, part of SS6 and SS13 into the three new policies TACE 8, 9and 10.

(ii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taking together, the policies do allow scope for new/expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(iii) The policies do not preclude further A3 uses in all areas throughout the City. [380]

(83) (i) The new policies have been reworded in a more positive manner.

(ii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taking together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(iii) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises thereby creating staggered operating hours.

(iv) The concept of Business Improvement Districts is currently being considered by Council, and is generally supported. This concept is considered for working alongside the planning policies.

(v) A holistic approach to dealing with crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour is required. This is the Council’s approach and it is considered that a combination of planning, licensing and enforcement etc. can work towards creating a safe and attractive city to live, work in, and visit.

(vi) It is not considered that the policy is contrary to PPG 6 or PPG 12. [826]

(84) (i) The Second Deposit polices recognise the importance of the entertainment industry in partly supporting the World Class city.

(ii) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises thereby creating staggered operating hours. City Council is currently considering the use of BIDs (Business Improvement Districts). The current problems are being dealt with through a number of initiatives including enforcement, licensing, responsible management schemes and the planning policy process. It is not considered that the policy is contrary to PPG 6 or PPG 12. Blanket restrictions have not been imposed. Some flexibility is provided. The entertainment industry provides a vibrant economy

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 800 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

particularly in the Stress Areas and therefore PPG 6 has been satisfied. Growth in entertainment uses will tip the balance of viability for retail in these areas. Policy SS3(C) has been amended to provide greater flexibility. [264]

(85) (i) Policy SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively. [789]

(86) (i) Open shopfronts will not be permitted in A3 premises or composite entertainment uses, as they can lead to noise and smells permeating into the street, adjacent premises and residential properties. They are also considered inappropriate in design terms and can be energy inefficient. It is not agreed that they are required to ensure the vitality of an area. There may however be areas in the public realm where tables and chairs outside for customers may be appropriate.

(ii) Licensing conditions are a licensing issue. The planning process acts as a first stop to consider the likely impact on residential amenity and impact on established character of an area. [64]

(87) (i) Para 7.32 can now be found in Policy TACE 10, para 8.71x, and has been modified. Access only needs to be for customers. This is reinforcing the requirement at the outset prior to building control process.

(ii) Where is can be established that there is a link between the proposed use and the need for additional public toilets this will be dealt with through the s106 process and will need to be justified. This is a relevant planning matter. In addition the Council is currently trying to address the issue of street urination through the provision of temporary urinals, extended opening of public conveniences and the introduction of a by-law prohibiting street urination. [64]

(88) (i) Para 7.27 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71t, and has been modified. The onus is placed on the applicant to provide the relevant information to enable Council to make a satisfactory assessment. There is no reason to believe why this information could not be supplied. It is not considered unreasonable.

(ii) Para 7.28 can now be found in TACE 10, Para 8.71aa. It is not considered unreasonable to expect that plant and equipment be shut down at closing time. This should assist in moving customers out of the premises and ensures that residential amenity is protected.

(iii) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified.

(iv) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taking together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster, so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(v) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the picensing process. The Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process. [64]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 801 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(89) (i) Exceptional circumstances have been clarified in Para 8.63d, where examples of what may be constituted as exceptional circumstances have been provided.

(ii) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planing policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. The Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process.

(iii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taking together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met. The policies are generally more positive. [64]

(90) (i) It is agreed that the policies needed simplifying, and this is why they were combined with the TCE 8 policy. The policies have been more positively reworded and provide slightly more flexibility. Conditions are considered important to ensure impacts are minimised. [209]

(91) (i) Policy SS3(A) has been moved to TACE 8, but not, however, modified. The reasoned justification for this policy is contained in Policy TACE 8.

(ii) Exceptional circumstances have been clarified in para 8.63d, where examples of what may be constituted as exceptional circumstances have been provided.

(iii) Policy SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

(iv) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(v) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provides clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant at the ouset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. [826]

(92) (i) Poliocy SS3(A) has been moved to TACE 8 but not modified. The reasoned justification for this policy is contained in Policy TACE 8. Exceptional circumstances have been clarified in para 8.63d, where examples of what may be constituted as exceptional circumstances have been provided.

(ii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taken together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(iii) Policy SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 802 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility. Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified.

(v) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified, but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant at the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals.

(93) (i) Policy SS3(A) has been moved to TACE 8, but not, however, modified. The reasoned justification for this policy is contained in Policy TACE 8.

(ii) Policy SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 and 10. It provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively.

(iii) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(iv) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified, but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant up front. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. It is not considered that this is contrary to the Use Classes Order or Circular 11/95. [693]

(94) (i) The definition of large A3 uses in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city. It is considered that thresholds of capacity can be enforced and is a matter for City Council. It is not considered that this is contrary to Government guidance. [141]

(95) (i) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. The Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process.

(ii) Stress Areas are areas which have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 803 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The Stress Area boundaries have been modified.

(iii) The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the recently published West End Entertainment Impact Study which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three Stress Areas. Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(iv) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant at the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals.

(v) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises, thereby creating staggered operating hours. [68]

(96) (i) Open shopfronts will not be permitted in A3 premises or composite entertainment uses as they can lead to noise and smells permeating into the street, adjacent premises and residential properties. They are also considered inappropriate in design terms and can be energy inefficient. It is not agreed that they are required to ensure the vitality of an area. There may however be areas in the public realm where tables and chairs outside for customers may be appropriate.

(ii) Licensing conditions are a licensing issue. The planning process acts as a first stop to consider the likely impact on residential amenity and impact on established character of an area. [141]

(97) (i) Para 7.32 can now be found in policy TACE 10, p ara 8.71x, and has been modified. Access only needs to be for customers. This is reinforcing the requirement up front prior to building control process.

(ii) Where is can be established that there is a link between the proposed use and the need for additional public toilets this will be dealt with through the s106 process and will need to be justified. This is a relevant planning matter. In addition Council is currently trying to address the issue of street urination through the provision of temporary urinals, extended opening of public conveniences and the introduction of a by-law prohibiting street urination

(iii) Policy SS3(C) has been modified to create greater flexibility. The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taken together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met. [2]

(99) (i) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 804 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provide clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the policy to advise the applicant at the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. [64]

(100) (i) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taken together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met. [298]

(101) (i) Exceptional circumstances have been clarified in para 8.63d where examples of what may be constituted as exceptional circumstances have been provided.

(102) (i) The definition of large A3 uses in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city. It is considered that thresholds of capacity can be enforced and is a matter for City Council. It is not considered that this is contrary to Government guidance. [795]

(103) (i) There is nothing in Government guidance which does not allow the designation of Stress Areas.

(ii) PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. In the Stress Areas allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on the residential amenity and local environment cannot be controlled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances in the Stress Areas.

(iii) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taken together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(104) (i) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provides clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 805 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

be imposed be included in the Policy to advise the applicant at the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. Conditions will only be imposed 'where appropriate' meaning that there is a test of reasonableness and concern over potential impact of the proposal. [371]

(105) (i) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility. This policy relates to all applications for new entertainment uses, extensions to, or change in hours of operation etc. [371]

(106) (i) The clause relating to A3 uses above, below, adjoining and opposite residential has been modified to provide greater flexibility. [709]

(107) (i) Policy SS3(A) has been moved to TACE 8, but not, however, modified. The reasoned justification for this policy is contained in Policy TACE 8.

(ii) Inspectors in recent decisions relating to Development Plans have not supported the use of 'not normally'. To clarify the interpretation of this policy examples of ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been provided in the Plan at Policy TACE 8, para 8.63d. In general the policy has been worded in a more positive manner.

(iii) The management of premises can be monitored through the licensing process. [371]

(108) (i) Poloicy SS3(C) has been modified to provide greater flexibility.

(ii) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provides clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. [795]

(109) (i) The policy does not require the provision of public toilets. There may be a requirement for an applicant to contribute funding for additional nearby toilets. This would be subject to a s106 agreement and would need to be justified in each particular case. [298]

(110) (i) The policy application says 'where appropriate' conditions will be added relating to CCTV equipment. The policy reasons states that 'Provision of CCTV equipment may be requested on A3 premises in order to discourage anti-social behaviour.' Conditions will not normally be added where the nature of the proposed operation would indicate that anti-social behaviour would be unlikely. [298]

(ii) Para 7.27 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71t, and has been modified. The onus is placed on the applicant to provide the relevant information to enable the Council to make a satisfactory assessment. There is no reason to believe why this information could not be supplied. It is not considered unreasonable.

(iii) Para 7.28 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71aa. It is not considered unreasonable to expect that plant and equipment be shut down at closing time. This should assist in moving customers out of the premises and ensures that residential amenity is protected.

(iv) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 806 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(v) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. The Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process. [108]

(111) (i) Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(ii) Policy SS3(D) has not been modified but moved to TACE 10. It is a relevant planning policy and provides clear guidance to applicants up front prior to the licensing process. It is considered important that details of conditions which may be imposed be included in the Policy to advise the applicant at the outset. It is considered appropriate that the planning system controls uses and operation of proposed developments. These conditions have been imposed by Inspectors at recent appeals. [108]

(112) (i) There is currently a saturation of entertainment uses operating in the Stress Areas which are causing conflict with residents. Provision of entertainment uses are therefore considered to have been supplied and may continue to operate where lawful consent has been granted. [94]

(113) (i) See general paragraph on City Council’s response to objections to Policy SS 3. [794]

(114) (i) SS3(B) has been modified and is in TACE 8 & 10, it provides more flexibility, is more criteria based and is reworded more positively. [371]

(115) (i) Para 7.26 has been deleted.

(ii) Para 7.27 can now be found in Policy TACE 10 and has been modified.

(iii) Rewording recommended not agreed.

(iv) Para 7.33 can now be found in Policy TACE 10 and has been modified. Not agreed that open shopfronts will be permitted due to their impacts on residential amenity and established character of areas.

(v) Para 7.34 has been deleted.

(vi) Para 7.37 can be found in Policy TACE 8, para 8.65a. The paragraph has been modified. [247]

(116) (i) This part of the policy allows for flexibility in exceptional circumstances, thereby providing some flexibility. A great deal of scope exists with existing premises and existing consents for entertainment uses to change. Further development of these uses is not encouraged due to current problems of saturation. [707]

(117) (i) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taken together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 807 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Policy TACE 10 is a criteria based policy which provides clear guidance on how entertainment uses will be assessed.

(iii) It is considered that the new policies are not in conflict with Government guidance. [299]

(118) (i) The policies provide some flexibility outside the Stress Areas to allow entertainment uses where impacts are minimised. It is considered the policies are consistent with Government policy. [694]

(119) (i) Withdrawal of objection acknowledged. [680]

(120) (i) Para 7.26 has been deleted.

(ii) Para 7.29 has been amended and can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. Applications are considered on their merits having regard to this policy.

(iii) Para 7.32 has been modified and can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71x. This has been clarified to say that 'Toilet facilities within entertainment facilities should be fully accessible for all customers…..'. It was not intended for facilities to be open for the general public, but for customers only. This has been misunderstood and now clarified. Toilet provision will be in line with Building Regulation standards.

(iv) Para 7.37 can now be found in TACE 8, para 8.65a. This policy relates to entertainment uses only and not relevant to Class A1 retail development. Controls relating to these are found in Chapter 7.

(v) Para 7.39 has been deleted.

(vi) The West End Stress Area boundaries have been reconsidered and amendments have been made to delete a small section of the stress area however has been extended both to the north and west. Mapping and inspections reveal there are some areas that are more concentrated with entertainment uses than others. However the stress being experienced, in the form of impact on residential amenity, impact in the local environment, effect on established character and function across the whole Stress Area is considered unsatisfactory and unsustainable. If policy seeks to encourage world class city status, it is important to find a balance of uses. It is considered that balance has not been struck and that the Stress Area controls may assist in achieving that balance.

(vii) The aim of the Stress Areas is to identify concentration and saturation of entertainment uses and to minimise the impact that these uses, and their associated activities, have on the Stress Areas. The Central Actiities Zone Information Note (which is to become SPG) sub-divides the CAZ into eight smaller sub areas and it is considered that this, the new policies in the Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment Chapter and the review of the Stress Area boundaries is considered adequate. The use of ‘quiet enclaves’ approach is not considered appropriate.

(viii) Para 7.41 can now been found in TACE 8, Para 8.65d and has been modified.

(ix) The Council’s Entertainment and Night Café guidelines are currently also under review. [532]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 808 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(121) (i) Withdrawal of objection acknowledged. [533]

(122) (i) Para 7.32 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71x, and has been modified. Access only needs to be for customers. This is reinforcing the requirement upfront prior to the building control process.

(ii) Where is can be established that there is a link between the proposed use and the need for additional public toilets, this will be dealt with through the s106 process and will need to be justified. This is a relevant planning matter. In addition the Council is currently trying to address the issue of street urination through the provision of temporary urinals, the extended opening of public conveniences and the introduction of a by-law prohibiting street urination. [795]

(123) (i) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. Council has other initiatives relating to anti social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process.

(ii) ‘Stress Areas’ are areas which have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The Stress Area boundaries have been modified.

(iii) The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the recently published West End Entertainment Impact Study which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three Stress Areas. Policy SS3 (C) has been moved to Policy TACE 10 and has been reworded to provide greater flexibility.

(v) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. Terminal hours do vary across the City. Variations already occur in closing times of premises, thereby creating staggered operating hours. [1]

(124) (i) Open shopfronts will not be permitted in A3 premises or composite entertainment uses as they can lead to noise and smells permeating into the street, adjacent premises and residential properties. They are also considered inappropriate in design terms and can be energy inefficient. It is not agreed that they are required to ensure the vitality of an area. There may however be areas in the public realm where tables and chairs outside for customers may be appropriate.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 809 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Licensing conditions are a licensing issue. The planning process acts as a first stop to consider the likely impact on residential amenity and impact on established character of an area. [795]

(125) (i) Policy SS3(C) has been amended to provide greater flexibility. [247]

(126) (i) There are opportunities for entertainment uses to expand into other areas. The current level of these uses is considered saturated. [692]

(127) (i) Has also been included in the new Policy TACE 10: Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Amendments have been made to the First Deposit Policy SS3 and are reflected in the new policies. [692]

(128) (i) Policy SS3 has been moved into Chapter 8, a revised Chapter now called Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment and combined with TCE 8 to create a new Policy TACE 8: Location of Entertainment Uses. Part of SS3 criteria has also been included in new Policy TACE 10: Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Amendments have been made to the First deposit policy SS3 and are reflected in the new policies. [692]

(129) (i) Para 7.27 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71t, and has been modified. The onus is placed on the applicant to provide the relevant information to enable Council to make a satisfactory assessment. There is no reason to believe why this information could not be supplied. It is not considered unreasonable.

(iii) Para 7.29 can now be found in TACE 10, para 8.71ad. This has been modified.

(iv) The policies generally have been clarified. Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan and in this chapter of the Plan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. Taken together, the policies do allow scope for new or expanded entertainment uses in Westminster so long as the criteria set out in the policies are fully met.

(v) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However, planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process. [795]

(130) (i) It is recognised that the planning system alone cannot deal with all the problems identified. However planning policy provides a framework for considering applications, followed by the licensing process. Council has other initiatives relating to anti-social behaviour, waste, noise etc. which support the planning and licensing process. [376]

(131) (i) The West End Stress Area has been modified. Extension north of Oxford Street, including Hanway Street (up to the City boundary), part of Rathbone Place, a small part of Newman Street, up to Castle Street Market and Eastcastle Street

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 810 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

have been included in the Stress Area. (Refer to Map 8.2, Chapter 8). It was not considered justified to take the boundary of the Stress Area to Goodge Street as saturation of entertainment uses was not considered to have been reached. [719]

(132) (i) A uniform policy for midnight is not supported as it is considered too restrictive and does not allow for flexibility or distinction between the different areas. The policy now refers to the terminal hours as maximum hours and makes clear that not all premises will be granted permission for the maximum hour. This will be assessed based on location and potential impacts. Reference has been made in the policy to assessing the cumulative impact of a development on the local environment. Reasons for the policies have been outlined. References to the ECHR and WHO report on noise have been inserted. A section on restricting open shopfronts is contained in TACE 10. The City Council does not have the power to amend existing planning consents.

(ii) It is agreed that D2 uses add to the concentration of entertainment uses in the Stress Areas. This has been recognised in the new TACE Chapter in Policies TACE 8, TACE 9 and TACE 10. Greater flexibility is built into the TACE policies to permit entertainment uses outside the Stress Areas. [555]

(133) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Withdrawal of support noted.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Support welcomed. Policy SS3 has been moved into Chapter 8, a revised Chapter now called Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment and combined with TCE 8 to create a new Policy TACE 8: Location of Entertainment Uses. Part of SS3 criteria has also be included in new Policy TACE 10: Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Amendments have been made to the First Deposit policy SS3 and are reflected in the new policies. The new TACE 10 policy outlines the criteria to be satisfied before Council will grant consent. These include considerations of residential amenity. [125]

(134) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Withdrawal of support acknowledged.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

Support welcomed. Policy SS3 has been moved into Chapter 8, a revised Chapter now called Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment and combined with ACE 8 to create a new Policy TACE 8: Location of Entertainment Uses. Part of SS3 criteria has also be included in new Policy TACE 10: Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Amendments have been made to the First Deposit policy SS3 and are reflected in the new policies.

(135) (i) The current Use Classes Order determines how coffee shops and internet cafés are defined. The Use Classes Order is currently under review. Depending on their hours of operation, in general, internet cafés and coffee shops tend not to have major impacts on residential amenity or the local environment. [212]

(137) (i) Support welcomed.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 811 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Most D2 uses are covered in the new TACE 8, 9, and 10 policies. Applications for home delivery food shops will be considered having regard to the criteria under Policy TACE 8 and 10. [381]

(138) (i) Support welcomed.

(ii) Para 7.32 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71x and has been modified. Recycling has been added. Hours of use of public toilets can be controlled by City Council.

(iii) Para 7.33 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71w and has been modified. Reference is made to energy inefficiency, and effects on adjacent premises and residential properties.

(iv) Para 7.35 can now be found in policy TACE 10, para 8.71z but has not been modified. The Council has no control over the use of private forecourts.

(v) Para 7.38 can now be found in Policy TACE 8, para 8.65b and has been modified. Eating has been added to the first point.

(139) (i) Para 7.40 can now be found in Policy TACE 8, para 8.65c and has been modified. This can only be controlled through conditioning new planning permissions or extensions to, where it is considered reasonable to do so. [381]

(140) (i) Support welcomed. [121]

(141) (i) Support welcomed. [753]

(142) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Withdrawal of this support acknowledged.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

(143) (i) Support welcomed. Policy SS3 has been moved into Chapter 8, a revised Chapter now called Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment and combined with TCE 8 to create a new Policy TACE 8: Location of Entertainment Uses. Part of SS3 criteria has also be included in new Policy TACE 10: Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Amendments have been made to the First Deposit policy SS3 and are reflected in the new policies. [129]

(144) (i) Support welcomed. [555] [139] [138] [485] [700] [28] [20]

(145) (i) A uniform policy for midnight is not supported as it is considered too restrictive and does not allow for flexibility or distinction between the different areas. The policy now refers to the terminal hours as maximum hours and makes clear that not all premises will be granted permission for the maximum hour. This will be assessed based on location and potential impacts.

(ii) Reference has been made in the policy on assessing the cumulative impact of a development on the local environment. Reasons for the policies have been outlined. Reference to the ECHR and to the WHO report on noise have been inserted. A section on restricting open shopfronts is contained in TACE 10. The City Council does not have the power to amend existing planning consents. It is agreed that D2 uses add to the concentration of entertainment uses in the Stress Areas. This has been recognised in the new TACE Chapter Policies TACE 8,

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 812 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TACE 9 and TACE 10. Greater flexibility is built into the TACE policies to permit entertainment uses outside the Stress Areas. [555]

(146) (i) Support welcomed.

(ii) Not agreed that the ratio of food to alcohol should be regulated under planning policy, as this would be difficult to enforce.

(iii) The City Council has no control over tables and chairs on private forecourts. A policy that ‘people leaving restaurants where food has been served by waiters can be expected to be less drunk than those leaving premises where the consumption of food has not been compulsory' is not an appropriate statement for the development plan.

(iii) Comments noted. [131]

(147)(i) Support welcomed. The entertainment policy in the First Deposit UDP, mainly relating to D2 uses, (policy TCE 8 ) has been revised and combined with policies relating to the control of A3 uses from the Shopping chapter, Policies SS3 and SS13, to form three policies relating to the location of entertainment uses (Policy TACE 8) , the location of large entertainment uses (Policy TACE 9) and a policy setting out criteria to assess all entertainment uses (Policy TACE 10). The chapter has been renamed the Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment chapter. The combination of policies TACE 8 to TACE 10 give a similar level of control in relation to proposals for the activities referred to in the Edgware Road Stress Area as in the West End Stress Area. Indeed the terminal hour at midnight in the Edgware Road Stress Area is more stringent when compared with the West End Stress Area, where the terminal hour is 01.00 [131] [700]

(148)(i) The Policy has been clarified. Policy TCE 8 (E) has been subdivided and clarified to form Policy TACE 8 (D) and (E). Policy TACE 8 (D) applies in the Stress Areas outside the CAZ and has the stronger test of “only in exceptional circumstances” and an illustrative list of exceptional circumstances has been given in para 8.63d. Policy TACE 8 (E) applies outside the CAZ and outside the Stress Areas and has the less restrictive test of “only permitted subject to the considerations set out under policy TACE 10.” [381]

TA09: Location of Large Entertainment Uses

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association) 18 Scottish & Newcastle Retail 64 Shaftesbury PLC 68 Howard de Walden Estates 134 Residents' Association of Mayfair 264 Business in Sport & Leisure Ltd 299 JPA 340 British Beer and Pub Association 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 491 Mercers Company 532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion) 555 Glen Suarez

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 813 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

680 The Crown Estate 681 Bell Cornwell Partnership 693 Yates Group PLC 707 BT Plc 724 Grosvenor Limited 748 British Land Company PLC 757 Gascoyne Estate 768 Covent Garden Restaurant Association 769 Windmill Developments Ltd 777 J D Wetherspoon Plc 789 St George Plc 795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited) 821 SFI Group PLC 826 The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) 841 The Office Bar 842 Body Shop International Plc 843 Westminster Licensees Association 845 Ritterman Holdings 851 Atlantic Bar and Grill 853 Morley Property and Property Merchant Group 855 Marc Savini 860 Gala Leisure Ltd 35

Objections to Chapter 8, Shopping and Services

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 18 Scottish & Newcastle Retail 20 Covent Garden Area Trust 28 London Tourist Board 64 Shaftesbury PLC 66 Restaurant Property Advisors' Society 68 Howard de Walden Estates 73 London Underground Limited 90 Portman Estates 92 GVA Grimley 108 Society of London Theatre 140 Moving Image Restaurants Plc 141 Burford Group plc 209 Clyder Enterprises Limited 247 Rock Garden 253 Insignia Richard Ellis 264 Business in Sport & Leisure Ltd 298 AZ Restaurants 299 JPA 338 Save London Theatres Campaign 340 Brewers & Licensed Retailers Association 370 The Theatres Trust 371 Restaurant Association 376 London First 380 Whitbread Plc 491 Mercers Company 532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion) 680 The Crown Estate 681 Bell Cornwell Partnership 692 London & Regional Properties

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 814 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

693 Yates Group PLC 694 Dalton Warner Davis 698 Abou Zaki Holding Company 702 Warner Village Cinemas 707 BT Plc 709 Dover Street Wine Bar 724 Grosvenor Limited 729 Bass Hotels and Resorts 730 White Star Line Restaurants 731 The Equitable Life Assurance Society 748 British Land Company PLC 757 Gascoyne Estate 768 In and Around Covent Garden Restaurateurs 769 Windmill Developments Ltd 777 J D Wetherspoon Plc 780 Selfridges & Co. 785 Delancey Group plc 789 St George Plc 794 Six Continents Retail 795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited) 803 Standard Life Assurance Company 821 SFI Group PLC 825 The British Hospitality Association 826 The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) 55

TA09: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements made to Shopping policies which were moved into Chapter 8 at pre-inquiry.

(1) (i) It is not reasonable or necessary to propose a prohibition or presumption against the so-termed ‘large’ A3 uses. It is not accepted that the thresholds identified constitute a logical and defensible basis to determine ‘large’ A3 uses.

(ii) The policy is contrary to national advice (PPG6) concerning the logic of locating uses which attract a lot of people in Central Areas where there is good access to public transport and linkages with other Central Area uses.

(iii) There is no substantive reasoned justification to warrant the restrictions.

(iv) Policy SS13 (E) effectively precludes the provision of A3 bar activities anywhere in the West End, that are so called "mega-bars" or "super-pubs". This is simply not a tenable approach to be adopted for the heart of a World City where entertainment and visitor attractions play such a significant role in the overall central London and indeed, national economy. The policy should be amended to indicate that bars will be subject to close control via planning conditions over the emission of noise from within (sound systems and music) and from without (air conditioning and ventilation systems).

(v) Controls governing the number of patrons and hours of operation are available through the licensing system and should not be duplicated under the provisions of the Planning Acts. [794]

(2) (i) The recognition of the role that large scale entertainment activities can have in supporting the status of Central London as a leisure destination is acknowledged. However, it is naive to hope that restricting supply for catering

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 815 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

uses in the West End will have the effect of encouraging such facilities to gravitate towards the neighbouring boroughs. This is particularly the case when the great majority of the nationally significant public entertainment functions, such as Theatreland and West End cinema, together with the supporting public transport infrastructure, are all focused within such a small geographical area. To promote dispersal is not a sustainable approach to the issue. [64] [108] [141] [795] [803] [92] [777] [794]

(3) (i) The policy is too restrictive, especially when taken together with policies TACE 8, TACE 9 and TACE 10, and does not recognise the location and land use characteristics that support such development in appropriate instances, i.e. in the heart of Central London's established entertainment areas.

(ii) In addition, draft Policy SS13 is totally inflexible in that it applies to any proposals of a certain size rather than net additional increases of a certain size. It also fails to provide flexibility and the ability to recognise instances where modest extensions can deliver perceptible overall benefits to the nature of the operation and its coexistence with surrounding uses, e.g. a new shop front with improved access and circulation areas, improved arrangements for plant or refuse storage.

(iii) The policy should be deleted. [769] [108]

(4) (i) Policy SS13 is fundamental to Covent Garden. We must support it and ensure it is properly enforced. [20]

(5) (i) Now TACE 9 A, B, D, and E , and paragraph 8.71b. The policy maintains a presumption against large entertainment uses. Also object to paragraphs 8.71c and 8.71m.

(ii) Policy SS13 section A strongly presumes against large A3 uses, which is contrary to national guidance. We would maintain that each application should be assessed on its merit, regardless of its size. The definition of large A3 use is arbitrary and not reflected by government guidance.

(iii) The definition of large A3 uses is based upon the fire standards, which for public houses consist of accommodating 200 customers or 500 square metres gross floorspace. These figures are arbitrary and not comparable. For example a customer floorspace of approximately 100 square metres would generally be able to accommodate 200 customers whereas a gross floorspace of 500 square metres would result in a customer floorspace of between 250 and 300 square metres, with a considerably greater number of customers. The assumptions made regarding the definitions of large A3 uses, specific types of A3 uses and their potential impacts are substantially inaccurate and not based upon any sound justification. The definition takes no account of operating characteristics or the type of A3 use, which in practice can encompass several elements of restaurant, café, public house and/or wine bar. Policy SS13 is based upon no sound justification, runs contrary to Government guidance and should be deleted.

(iv) If retained, the Policy should set out the criteria against which such uses will be assessed. The wording of the policy stating that such uses are acceptable only in “exceptional circumstances” does not comply with Government guidance. The policy presumption against needs to be changed to reflect the appropriate balance between residential and commercial uses within the centre of a world city.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 816 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(v) The definition for large A3 uses is based upon incorrect assumptions that larger uses necessary create a greater degree of disturbance than smaller A3 uses. There is no justification for this stance which ignores important factors such as operating characteristics.

(vi) Policy SS13 (A) should be deleted. [777] [28] [64] [140] [141] [692] [769] [789] [803]

(6) (i) 1st Deposit Comments

The assessment of whether unacceptable harm would occur must be made in light of the CAZ location, with residential amenity being of secondary importance.

(ii) 2nd Deposit Comments

Withdrawn, if deleted. [777]

(7) (i) 1st Deposit Comments

This further restricts the location of Class A3 establishments. However, in our view this section clearly contradicts an important national and local objective of encouraging a mixture of uses. The diversity of uses which is considered desirable has to mean that those residing in nearby or adjoining properties within commercial locations cannot benefit from the same amenities as others might expect in less commercial locations.

In addition, there are many examples of Class A3 and C3 uses immediately next to one another, where the former has not had a detrimental impact upon the latter. Our clients have successfully converted a significant number of premises throughout the UK under or directly adjacent to residential properties with no significant detrimental impact upon residents and no significant complaints.

Notwithstanding this, however, the wording of the policy is vague in terms of whether or not the section refers to the ‘immediate’ proximity of a Class A3 use next to residential use. For example, it could technically prevent an A3 use at ground level with offices above and a residential use on the upper floors. Alternatively, an A3 use would be contrary to policy if the proposal was opposite a residential property on the other side of a busy main road, even though there would be no detrimental impact on residents amenity.

Detailed criteria should be set out within the policy or explanatory text to provide adequate protection to residents. Subject to meeting the relevant acoustic and other criteria there is no reason why A3 uses should not be situated under or adjacent to residential uses.

This inappropriately assumes all A3 uses have an adverse impact on residential amenity. The proposed wording will discourage urban diversity and mix of uses, contrary to Government guidance.

(ii) 2nd Deposit Comments

Policy SS 13 (D) has been deleted, although its intention is provided for by way of Policy TACE 10 (B). Given the proposed changes to the policy, the wording ‘above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation’ is, in our view, unnecessary and cumbersome, and for this reason should be deleted. See comments on TACE 10B. [777] Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 817 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(8) (i) The policy does not explain the term ‘where appropriate’ and it must be assumed therefore that this will be applied arbitrarily, as with other such unexplained phrases in the plan. On that basis we object to Policy SS13 (E), now TACE 10 (C).

(ii) Throughout the shopping policy, and indeed more generally throughout the plan, it is implied that bars and pubs have a greater detrimental impact upon residential amenity than do restaurant uses. Applications for Class A3 use should be looked at on their merits, and should not be subject to a generalisation because of its type of operation. The characteristics are more important than the use.

(iii) For the reasons set out above, we consider that Policy SS13 should be deleted and applications for A3 uses determined in light of the factors set out in Policy SS3, as amended.

(iv) If the Inspector does not agree that the policy should be deleted criteria should be set out against which large A3 uses can be assessed. [777]

(9) (i) At paragraph 7.145, the Council states that:

‘pubs and bars are considered to have a more detrimental effect on amenity than restaurants’, particularly ‘mega-bars’ and ‘super-pubs’.

In our view, this is an inaccurate assessment of the impact of pubs and bars on amenity, and does not have any regard for the operation or any reference to the merits of individual applications, and is based on incorrect assumptions regarding size and impact. [777]

(10) (i) We recommend that Policy SS13 is deleted. Proposals for large A3 uses should be determined in accordance with a 'criteria' based policy set out under Policy SS3, referred to above. Reason: In a world class, capital city which represents the focus of leisure and entertainment uses, it is inappropriate for the Council to place an embargo on the future provision of new large A3 uses in the Central Area. Large A3 uses provide an important outlet for the growing demand for leisure and entertainment uses by City residents, workers and tourists alike.

(ii) Possible impact of these uses could be more effectively controlled by the implementation and adoption of a strategy for managing the 'evening economy' as recommended in PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Development. (Paras 2.19 to 2.23). [92]

(11) (i) Suggestion as to change of wording:

Add to first sentence "unless other material considerations apply"

Change "will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances" for "granted in exceptional circumstances".

Reasons:

Policy is overly restrictive in that it does not allow any flexibility. How does one know before an application that the extension is not a useful extension? An extension may even be necessary to satisfy the requirements of policy SS13 (B)

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 818 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Delete "increase late night-activity"

Reason:

If no disturbance, noise, etc. is created than late hours themselves should not be a specific reason for refusal.

(D) Suggest change in wording:-

Add "unless it can be demonstrated that adequate safeguards can be put in place or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the immediate vicinity"

Reasons:

Is this policy referring to all applications for planning permission? If already own an A3 would, for instance, planning permission be denied for any changes or extensions? Policy needs to be clarified.

(E) Consider revising this policy so conditions only used if harm demonstrated. [825]

(12) (i) The approach of policy SS 13 is to introduce the presumption against the approval of planning permission for A3 uses exceeding 500 sq m. gross or which will accommodate 200 or more people. The basic premise of the policy is that any A3 use breaching these thresholds will automatically have a major impact on amenity. There is, however, no evidence of this offered in the plan other than bland statements.

(ii) On a general point, it is not considered that a large restaurant unit as so defined would have any greater impact than two adjacent smaller restaurant units with a similar floorspace.

(iii) It is also considered that the general stance of this policy, which is in effect a presumption against such development, is contrary to the general operation of the planning system and so is in conflict with PPG1. No justified reason for departing from that general approach has been put forward in the plan. Accordingly, it is concluded there is no justification for the prescriptive approach of Part (A), which should accordingly be deleted.

(iv) Part (D) reiterates the presumption against A3 uses above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation. Again, there is no opportunity for the merits of any particular proposal to be assessed. It is therefore concluded this part of the policy is overly restrictive and prescriptive and should be deleted. The second part of Part (D), which assesses impact on residential amenity, is already addressed in Part (C) of the policy and is therefore unnecessary and should be deleted.

(v) Part (E) indicates the Council will use conditions to restrict changes of use within a Use Classes Order.

(vi) Government guidance, in Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions, indicates the Government’s presumption against the use of such restrictions save in exceptional circumstances. The general broad application of Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 819 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

such restrictions is therefore directly contrary to this approach and should be deleted. [821]

(13) (i) It is not accepted that so termed “large A3 uses” should be automatically precluded in the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater areas and neither is it accepted that they should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances elsewhere.

(ii) It is not accepted that the threshold identified constitutes a logical and determinative basis to define “large A3 uses”.

(iii) PPG6 makes it plain that uses which attract a lot of people should be located in Central Areas. Whilst it is not accepted that A3 uses over the threshold are automatically comparable with key town centre uses, there are nevertheless obvious advantages in locating such uses in Central Areas with good access to public transport, and linkages with other Central Area uses

(iv) It is not accepted that the number of A3 uses intended to be covered by the policy has reached a ceiling which cannot be exceeded. There is no substantive reasoned justification to warrant such a prohibition.

(v) It is not reasonable to propose the use of conditions to restrict types of operation. For example, how will the City Council distinguish between a restaurant, café bar and public house, especially where the operation can change its emphasis throughout the day, early and late evening? [794]

(14) (i) 1st Deposit Comments

The intentions of this policy are similar to those under Policy SS 3. Neither national Planning Policy Guidance, nor Strategic Planning Guidance for London (RPG3), provides any basis for specifically targeting large A3 uses in "Stress Areas" or elsewhere.

For the reasons set out in our objections to Policy SS 3, Policy SS 13 should also be deleted, and both policies replaced by a single criteria based policy for A3 uses giving clear guidance as to how such proposals will be assessed.

Delete Policy SS 13 and supporting text (7.141 to 7.146)

Replace with a new policy and supporting text which contains no reference to "stress areas" and includes criteria against which proposals for A3 uses will be considered.

(ii) 2nd Deposit Comments

This policy has now been deleted but has now been incorporated into Polices TACE 9 and TACE 10. As such, new objections are submitted to Policies TACE 9 and TACE 10. [780] [794]

(15) (i) Large A3 uses can be essential in providing additional revenue to support theatres. This policy should be amended to recognise the importance of A3 uses to theatres, and should explicitly be identified as one of the exceptional circumstances in SS13(A). [108]

(16) (i) The prescriptive nature of policy SS 13 (A) should be amended to indicate that large A3 uses will be permitted within the West End Stress Area where they are Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 820 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

consistent with the strategic function of supporting the West End Shopping function or entertainment uses.

(ii) In accordance with representations made elsewhere the extent the West End Stress Area needs to be re-appraised to take account the fact that it presently encompasses significant areas where large A3 premises can be satisfactorily located without detriment to the established and prevailing level of residential amenity. The West End Stress Area also, however, embraces one of the World's premier tourism, culture and entertainment destinations, where it is not appropriate to impose such a rigid or negative degree of control.

(iii) The recognition of the role that large scale entertainment activities can have in supporting the status of Central London as a shopping and leisure destination is welcomed. However, it is naive to hope that restricting the supply of catering uses in the West End will have the effect of encouraging such facilities to gravitate towards the neighbouring boroughs. This is particularly the case when the great majority of the nationally significant public entertainment functions such as Theatreland and West End cinema together with the supporting public transport infrastructure are all focused within such a small geographical area. To promote dispersal is not a sustainable approach to the issue and it will do nothing to support the wider West End retailing and entertainment economies.

(iv) A less prescriptive approach to the formulation and application of planning policy needs to be achieved, building upon fostering effective management and enforcement of the entertainment industry. Planning control alone is too blunt a tool effectively to resolve the concerns that the Plan is seeking to alleviate. [795]

(17) (i) No case needs to be made to suggest that Policy SS3, if adopted, would have the effect of precluding all new large restaurants and extensions to restaurants in Westminster. This is because the draft policy is already having this effect. This cannot be consistent with the Council’s strategy set out on pages 14 and 15 of the deposit draft which seeks, inter alia, to enhance the West End as a World Class City centre and to foster economic vitality and diversity. It also conflicts with PPG6 which provides diversity of use in town centres (paras 2.11 to 2.12) and support for the economy of town centres (paras 2.19 to 2.23). [298]

(18) (i) Policy SS13 (D) effectively precludes the provision of A3 activities anywhere in the West End. The balance of public interest has arguably been tilted too far in the direction of minority resident groups and this policy is a clear manifestation of political expediency triumphing over the passive majority. This is simply not a tenable approach to be adopted for the heart of a World City where highly accessible entertainment and visitor attractions play such a significant role in the overall central London and indeed, national economy. The policy should be deleted, it's provisions are more than adequately covered elsewhere in the Plan. [108] [795]

(19) (i) Policy SS13 (C) makes the bold assumption that all large Class A3 uses will be harmful, the issues of smells, noise, vibration and increased late night activity being essentially management issues capable of control through appropriate conditions. The policy is again unduly restrictive and negative in its approach. Instead, the policy should be framed in a more positive manner. [795]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 821 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(20) (i) Policy SS13: Large A3 uses. Object to Policy SS13 on the following grounds:

We consider that the policy is overly restrictive in terms of placing a moratorium upon A3 uses over 500m2 or with capacity for over 200 people within the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater Stress Areas.

This fails to take into account material planning circumstances where such uses may be considered appropriate. This is considered to conflict with the strategic aim of the plan to promote London as a World City (Policy STRA1) within which, tourism and entertainment uses are considered to perform an essential part of London's continued success. The policy also conflicts with Policy CENT4 which seeks to ensure the provision of a range of appropriate services/uses in the Central Area. Delete draft policy SS13. [380]

(21) (i) Object to this policy on the basis that it represents an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on the A3 / leisure industry. The role of the A3 / leisure uses in the Stress Areas is fundamental to the overall character of these areas. The proposed blanket ban on such uses in the Stress Areas excludes those proposals that may have no discernible affect on residential amenity, nuisance or noise, especially in the context of the primary function of parts of these areas for leisure and entertainment uses. [785]

(22) (i) This Policy is to apply to proposals over 500 sq m in size with capacity for over 200 people. However, Appendix 7.3 states that it would apply to the following (gross floorspace): pub or bar 150 sq m; theme restaurants 400 sq m; brasserie or bar restaurant 700 sq m; high class restaurant 1000 sq m

(ii) The Edgware Road Stress Area is inappropriate, as stated in the Estate’s objections for Policy SS3. It is accepted that large A3 uses have greater potential for causing environmental nuisance. However, there should not be a blanket refusal of large units outside of the CAZ (the UDP paragraph 7.143). Each application should be determined on its merits. Elsewhere, we are suggesting the introduction of a Wider Central Area (see Plan 4). We consider that applications for large A3 units could be appropriate within the WCA. Policy 7.143 should be revised to reflect this approach.

(iii) Part (A) of the Policy is much harsher than Paragraph 7.142. The latter states that “Acceptability will depend on the existing balance of uses, the location of similar uses and suitable servicing arrangements. Wherever possible, concentrations of a particular type of A3 use will be resisted”. Paragraph 7.142 should be fed into Part (A) with the deletion of the sentence that large A3 uses “will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances”.

(iv) Part (D) is inappropriate since each application should be determined on its merits. The effect on residential amenity is adequately covered in Part (B). [90]

(23) (i) Delete the second sentence of Part (A) and replace with “Elsewhere, large A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 premises creating large units will be considered against the considerations contained in Paragraph 7.142”.

(ii) Paragraph 7.143 should be revised by adding the following text at the end of the first sentence “and the Wider Central Area”.

“with the exception of the Paddington SPA, large A3 uses will not be permitted outside the CAZ and the Wider Central Area”.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 822 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) If the Wider Central Area is not accepted, then we reserve the right to provide an alternative form of wording.

(iv) Part (D) should be deleted as these considerations can be addressed under (C).

(v) Modify the Edgware Road Stress Area as set out in Plan 3. [90]

(24) (i) This is a regressive policy which will run counter to the government's aims for a 24 hour city. It will have an adverse affect on tourism; it will distort the property market and serve only to funnel the increasing demand for eating out in Central London into proportionately fewer restaurants. In addition, the thresholds that applicants will be required to meet are overly subjective, too widely drawn and consequently open to interpretation and presume, falsely, that restaurants have a negative effect on residential amenity or the local environment. [140]

(25) (i) Section (A) relates to large A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 premises that would result in the same. “Large A3 uses” are defined in the supporting text as being “A3 uses or composites over 500sqm in size or with capacity of over 200 people”. Further clarification and calculations are included within Appendix 7.3 of the UDP. The imposition of additional restrictions on larger A3 premises, unrelated to the impact that they may have, is arbitrary. Insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the criteria that has been used to decide upon the appropriate floor area or capacity. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS13 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1047494 at 11-13 Market Place, W1, dated 17 November 2000 and APP/X5990/A/99/1027282 at 135-141 Wardour Street, W1, dated 25 January 2000), concluding that A3 uses with capacities far in excess of 200 people would not result in an adverse impact on the amenities of residents or the local environment. In instances where concerns about residential amenity cannot be mitigated by conditions planning permission, it is accepted, will not be granted. However, this possibility is clearly covered in the proposed Section (C) of this policy and it is therefore proposed that Section (A) be deleted from Policy SS13.

(ii) Section (D) of this policy relates to permission for “large A3 uses” above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation, or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the vicinity. This proposed policy is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on a residential property opposite or adjacent to the site. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS13 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1046757 at 3-4 Vere Street, W1, dated 13 November 2000), concluding that residential flats above the application site would not be adversely affected by the proposed use. In instances where concerns about residential amenity cannot be mitigated by conditions planning permission, it is accepted, will not be granted. However, this possibility is clearly covered in the proposed Section (C) of this policy and it is therefore proposed that Section (D) be deleted from Policy SS13.

(iii) Section (E) relates to the imposition of conditions to limit an A3 use to a particular type of operation. This section is contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order, 1987, which advises against the imposition of conditions imposing restrictions within a Use Class. In Part 3B – Rules and Orders it is stated that:

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 823 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

“…as a matter of law, the benefits of the Use Classes Order are capable of being excluded by a planning condition ….. But the Secretary of State has, as a matter of policy, established a presumption against such conditions, and will regard them as unreasonable …”

(iv) Given that there is a specific presumption against such conditions, it is considered that the Council is unreasonable in proposing a policy that would impose them as a matter of course. Where it may be necessary to impose such a condition it can be done without the support of a policy and it is therefore considered that references to conditions should be removed from the Council’s proposed policies. It is therefore proposed that Section (E) be deleted from Policy SS13. [18] [66]

(26) (i) Paragraph 7.141 should be deleted. [66]

(27) (i) The policy proposes large A3 uses only in exceptional circumstances. The City covers one of the most important centres of tourism, culture and entertainment in the world, at locations where such uses are appropriate and where planning permission should be granted. The concerns of the City Council, in respect of the public realm, need to be addressed by way of a wider management strategy and the use of planning and other powers, together with proper resourcing and enforcement by all relevant public agencies.

(ii) The policy and reasoned justification should be amended to enable each proposal to be considered in the light of the particular facts of the application.

(iii) Whilst the principle of spreading the benefits to other Boroughs is acknowledged, this should not be on the basis of preventing appropriate developments within the City (Paragraph 7.146. [1] [18] [68] [724] [729]

(28) (i) We endorse the principle in paragraph (A). However, while wishing to see theatres increase their general income and also the provision of ancillary services, we are concerned about theatre buildings being divided into more than one Use Class. We believe this could seriously undermine the long term future of theatres and encourage applications for changes of use. We therefore propose a separate paragraph in this section as follows:

The hiving off of parts of theatre premises into more than one Use Category shall not be allowed where this would lead to a weakening of control by theatre management and a reduction of the efficient functioning of theatres, thus jeopardising of long term security of theatre buildings and the undermining of the sui generis Class category for all theatres. [338]

(29) (i) Criterion (D) of Policy SS 13 is too onerous, and is tantamount to a moratorium upon large A3 uses in the City. [see also our objections to policy SS3 (C) and paragraph 7.29]. Suggest that Criterion (D) is revised by deleting the words "…above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation, or …" In our opinion, the revised criterion would exercise a sufficient and reasonable level of control, in the interest of residential amenity. [681]

(30) (i) Paragraph 7.143 states that, with the exception of the Paddington SPA, “large A3 uses” will not be permitted outside the CAZ. The imposition of additional restrictions on larger A3 premises, unrelated to the impact that they may have, is arbitrary. Insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the criteria that has been used to decide upon the appropriate floor area or capacity.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 824 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS13 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1047494 at 11 -13 Market Place, W1, dated 17 November 2000 and APP/X5990/A/99/1027282 at 135-141 Wardour Street, W1, dated 25 January 2000), concluding that A3 uses with capacities far in excess of 200 people would not result in an adverse impact on the amenities of residents or the local environment. It is therefore proposed that the first sentence of this paragraph be deleted. [18] [66]

(31) (i) SS3 and SS13 appear too constrictive and good planning assessments should always be having regard to any amenity impact on residents. There is however no need to specifically create a presumption against such uses. Our client does not object to all of the objectives of the policy but sets out in the attachment the suggested alterations to the draft policies.

(ii) Suggested re-wording:

(A) In assessing large A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 premises leading to the same in the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater Stress Areas particular regard will be given to whether the proposals adversely affect residential amenity. Elsewhere, large A3 uses or extensions to existing A3 premises leading to the same, will need to be examined by reference to residential amenity and the factors listed below. [768]

(32) (i) Policy far too restrictive should allow for flexible approach to account for needs of London's role as one of the world's most important capital cities.

(ii) Specifically, this policy and supporting text fails to recognise the importance to the local and national economy of A3 uses. Further, social changes and working patterns developing to longer working days necessitate sufficient leisure and entertainment activities. Policy as it stands is totally out on a limb compared with all other major, particularly capital, cities in the UK and the western world. [253]

(33) (i) Paragraph also states that: “concentrations of a particular type of A3 use will be resisted”. This statement is contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order 1987, which discourages the restriction of uses within a Use Class and no justification is given by the Council to support it. It is therefore proposed that this paragraph be deleted. [66]

(34) (i) SS13(A): Add to the first sentence "unless other material considerations apply"

(ii) Change "will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances" for "granted unexceptional circumstances".

(iii) The policy is over restrictive in that it does not allow any flexibility. How would anyone know before an application that the extension is not a useful extension? An extension may even be necessary to satisfy the requirements of Policy SS13(B). [371]

(35) (i) The appropriate test of acceptability of such uses in the CAZ should be “significant harm to residential amenity”, see SS13 (C)

(ii) This policy also introduces the concept of a “terminal hour” which 7.26 states will be 1am in the “Stress Areas”, unless there are exceptional circumstances”. This

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 825 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

is a retrograde policy which will tend to aggravate harm to amenity and is not justified.

(iii) The operation of this policy will increase the proportion of premises in the CAZ which close at 1am. Currently, a significant number of late-night premises in the CAZ close after this time, with many opening to 3am, 4am, 5am or 6am. Other Boroughs give entertainment licenses which permit 24 hour opening and as a result closing times of as late as 9am are found.

(iv) Our clients point out that the implementation of “terminal hours” itself brings about many of the problems which the Council complains of. In particular, “binge drinking” towards closing time, aggravated customers crowding the streets and unmanageable rushes for limited transport. Further, because many premises remain open after 1am, a proportion of those ejected at that time will simply move on to these locations, again causing potential harm to amenity.

(v) Our clients believe that they are the best judges of when their customers are ready to leave their premises. This should be at an hour appropriate to the dining or entertainment experience offered. In particular, they should leave in a relaxed and contented frame of mind and not be herded into the street all at once as if being evicted. This practice marks out London as a venue which is not customer friendly, contrasting with other World Cities.

(vi) Further, regulation of hours of opening for licensed premises (pubs, cafés and restaurants) is a matter controlled by other legislation. Policies introducing “terminal hours” for such premises in the UDP duplicate these controls and therefore are contrary to PPG12 para 3.5.

(vii) SS13 (D) is a blanket ban on large A3 uses above, below or adjoining residential accommodation and similar objections to those relating to SS3 (A) apply. [730]

(36) (i) Policy SS 13 is to apply to proposals over 500 sq m in size with capacity for over 200 people. However, Appendix 7.3 states that it would apply to the following (gross floorspace): pub or bar 150 sq m; theme restaurants 400 sq m; brasserie/bar restaurant 700 sq m; high class restaurant 1000 sq m.

(ii) The West End Stress Area is inappropriate for its inclusion of Leicester Square, as stated in the Estate’s objections for Policy SS3. It is accepted that large A3 uses have greater potential for causing environmental nuisance. However, each case should be determined on its merits.

(iii) If the City wishes to continue with the concept of a Stress Area, then Leicester Square should be excluded as it is a location where restaurant uses should be directed.

(iv) Our Map illustrates the type of uses above ground level within Leicester Square and very little residential use exists.

(v) Our Map 2 shows a proposed “Entertainment Route”. This is fully justified by RPG3 (see objection to STRA8). It is considered that this could exist whether or not a Stress Areas is maintained.

(vi) The reasons for resisting restaurant uses are set out in Paragraph 8.64 to 8.71 in the deposit Replacement UDP. On the whole, the main concerns are the protection of the residential areas of Covent Garden and Soho in terms of

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 826 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

amenity and nuisance. A new Entertainment Route at Leicester Square would not damage this objective, given that it is to the south and west of these two areas.

(vii) Suggestions

1. The Policy Should contain the following at (F):

‘(F) The Entertainment Route

Within the Leicester Square Entertainment Route new large restaurants will be supported provided there is no conflict with environmental policies.’

2. The West End Stress Area should be revised to exclude Leicester Square and incorporate an Entertainment Frontage for Leicester Square (see Maps 2 and 3 attached).

3. Insert a new second sentence in Part (A) to read: “However, these will be supported in the Leicester Square Entertainment Route”.

4. Part (D) should be deleted as these consideration can be addressed under (C). [757]

(37) (i) Appendix 7.3 deals with criteria for defining “large A3 premises”. Premises holding 200 or more people are defined as “the level at which there would always be a major impact on amenity”. Our clients disagree fundamentally with this assessment.

(ii) Impact on amenity is a function of more than this one criterion. In particular, 200 people can leave premises in such different ways over different timescales that the threshold is irrelevant.

(iii) Size thresholds corresponding to this arbitrary limit are set at 150 m2 (pubs), 400 m2 (theme restaurant-brasserie-bar), 700 m2 (restaurant), and 1000 m2 (high class restaurant). This approach contradicts the Council’s own assessment in Para 7.40 which distinguishes the effects of different types of A3 use and notes that those which have a steady stream of people leaving, rather than a mass exodus at closing time, have “less impact on residential amenity and the local environment”. It is therefore unreasonable to impose a size threshold in terms of number of people accommodated, such that a straightforward pub holding 200 people is treated the same as a high-class restaurant of the same capacity.

(iv) Policy should seek to secure more widely the pattern of departure which reduces impact on amenity, and the approach adopted in SS3, SS13 and Appendix 2 fail to achieve this. [730]

(38) (i) Do not consider that large A3 uses as defined by the Council merit the attention of a separate policy to control their impact. Policy SS3 and SS6 provide ample provision for such uses to be considered with due regard being had to the size and capacity of the proposed establishment.

(ii) Part (A) of the policy states that large A3 uses will not be permitted in the Stress Areas. This is overly prescriptive and unreasonable in presuming that large A3 uses will automatically have an unacceptable adverse impact

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 827 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) This policy should, therefore, be deleted and reference made elsewhere on the basis of a more flexible approach which allows the merits of an application to be considered. [731]

(39) (i) Believe that the same changes in wording suggested for SS 3 should apply. The protection of residential amenity is commendable, but this should not be allowed to stifle the development of 24-hour opening, which probably leads to a reduction in loss of amenity. In addition, the Policies SS3 and SS13 effectively stifle the creation of new residences within 24-hour or concentrated entertainment areas, where residents are not necessarily looking for an environment of tranquillity that might be more appropriate in a rural area. [698]

(40) (i) These policies set out to control A3 uses by the use of appropriate “terminal hours”. Concern is expressed over blanket closing hours particularly of large establishments that may cause surges of these people requiring access to rail services late at night. [73]

(41) (i) First Deposit Comments

We recommend deleting ‘West End’ from Para (A).

Large A3 uses can provide essential revenue support for theatre (e.g.. The Soho Theatre)

(ii) Second Deposit Comments

In order to be financially viable, a theatre or arts use may have to incorporate a bar or catering facility that would in other circumstances be the subject of an application for A3 use and therefore contravene the UDP policies which seek to restrict the growth of such facilities. Normally we would expect such a facility to be ancillary to the main (sui generis) theatre use, but the restaurant below the new Soho Theatre demonstrated the need to take a flexible approach. The Trust has not suggested that there are insufficient large A3 uses in the West End for theatregoers. [370]

(42) (i) Object to this policy on the grounds that the term "large A3 use" is unjustified and the policy application does not provide sufficient justification for the criteria by which large A3 uses have been classified. Part A of this policy is unnecessarily negative and therefore contrary to national planning guidance contained in PPG1, PPG6 and PPG12.

(ii) The impact of this policy, which resists the extension of existing "large A3 premises", either in terms of their physical capacity or hours of operation, will impose increasing inflexibility on operators.

(iii) Part D of this policy resists large A3 uses, above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation and is unduly restrictive. [748]

(43) (i) It is contended that the Policy is unnecessary, over detailed and unreasonable, serving solely as an instrument for development control which places over zealous restrictions on Class A3 development. Many of the points raised by the policy and its supporting statement can be covered by the use of planning conditions. A policy such as this, which restricts the freedom of movement within the Uses Classes Order (1987), is unethical. Moreover, the definition of a large

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 828 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

A3 use is not, by any means an excessive size and therefore the policy is unreasonable in its application. [693]

(44) (i) Suggestion as to change of wording of SS13(A):

Add to first sentence "unless other material considerations apply"

(ii) Change "will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances" for "granted in exceptional circumstances".

(iii) The policy is overly restrictive in that it does not allow any flexibility. How know before an application that the extension is not a useful extension? Extension may even be necessary to satisfy the requirements of policy SS13 (B)?

(iv) SS13(C)

Suggestion as to change in wording:-

Delete "increase late night-activity"

Reason:-

If no disturbance, noise, etc. is created than late hours themselves should not be a specific reason for refusal

(v) SS13(D)

Suggestion as to change in wording:-

Add "unless it can be demonstrated that adequate safeguards can be put in place or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the immediate vicinity"

Suggestion to change in wording of policy SS13(E):-

Consider revising this policy so conditions only used if harm demonstrated

Reasons: Unfair restrictions - flexibility should be allowed. [264]

(45) (i) The prescriptive nature of policy SS 13 (A) should be amended to indicate that large A3 uses will be permitted within the West End etc Stress Areas where they are consistent with the strategic function of supporting the West End Shopping function or entertainment uses.

(ii) In accordance with representations made elsewhere the extent the West End Stress Area needs to be re-appraised to take account the fact that it presently encompasses significant areas where large A3 premises can be satisfactorily located without detriment to the established and prevailing level of residential amenity. The West End Stress Area also, however, embraces one of the World's premier Tourism, Culture and Entertainment destinations where it is not appropriate to impose such a rigid or negative degree of control.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 829 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) The recognition of the role that large scale entertainment activities can have in supporting the status of Central London as a shopping and leisure destination is welcomed. However, it is folly to hope that restricting the supply of catering uses in the West End will have the effect of encouraging such facilities to gravitate towards the neighbouring boroughs. This is particularly the case when the great majority of the nationally significant public entertainment functions such as Theatre Land and West End Cinema together with the supporting public transport infrastructure are all focused within such a small geographical area. To promote dispersal is not a sustainable approach to the issue and it will do nothing to support the wider West End retailing and entertainment economies. Restaurants and bars on the South Bank will do nothing to support the West End shopping, entertainment and leisure industry.

(iv) A less prescriptive appropriate to the formulation and application of planning policy needs to be achieved, building upon fostering effective management and enforcement of the entertainment industry. Planning control alone is too blunt a tool to effectively resolve the concerns that the Plan is seeking to alleviate. [64]

(46) (i) Policy SS13 (C) makes the bold assumption that all large Class A3 uses will be harmful, the issues of smells, noise, vibration and increased late night activity being essentially management issues capable of control through appropriate conditions. The policy is again unduly restrictive and negative in its approach. Instead, the policy should be framed in a more positive manner to the effect that only where it can be demonstrated that measures have been taken to control environmental impacts will permission for large new A3 premises be permitted. [64] [141]

(47) (i) Policy SS13 (D) effectively precludes the provision of A3 activities anywhere in the West End. The balance of public interest has arguably been tilted too far in the direction of minority resident groups and this policy is a clear manifestation of political expediency triumphing over the passive majority. This is simply not a tenable approach to be adopted for the heart of a World City where highly accessible entertainment and visitor attractions play such a significant role in the overall central London and indeed, national economy. The policy should be deleted, its provisions are more than adequately covered elsewhere in the Plan. [64] [141]

(48) (i) The assumption that large A3 uses will be harmful to residential amenity and the character of an area is misguided. Furthermore even if large A3 uses are restricted within stress areas, they should not have to meet the test of exceptional circumstances to be acceptable. The distinction as to size, I.e. 500 sq m or over 200 person capacity is too simplistic. Successive Planning Inspectors have judged that residents living in certain areas where they are already a number of A3 uses will not expect the same amenity standards as certain other areas within the City. Similarly some premises which are not defined as "large" may create more disturbance than a "large A3 use". The objector therefore firmly believes that it is more a matter of licensing than planning and this will have more effect.

(ii) There is an acknowledged shift in the market towards more composite A3 use premises which provide different experiences of drink, food and entertainment under one roof, where customers can remain for a whole night without moving premises. This is a very sustainable and, in the objector's view, less harmful operation than say three or four separate premises where customers need to

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 830 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

travel several times to different venues or to different premises for the same level of experience.

(iii) The increase in leisure time, tourist and demand for eating (and drinking) out is acknowledged to continue to grow as the expectations of Londoners and visitors become even more diverse. The objector is most concerned that the policy as currently drafted would bring about a dispersal of smaller restaurants and bars away from established entertainment areas and this could affect more residents.

(iv) In the light of the above and in order that each proposal could be considered on its merits the objector proposes that the Plan would be improved by the reversion to the adopted Policy SS13 on restaurants, pubs and other A3 uses. Within the adopted policy there are sufficient safeguards regarding residential amenity and the character of areas. [209]

(49) (i) See objections to TACE 9 and 10

(ii) Policy SS13 should be deleted. Proposals for 'Large A3 Uses' should fall to be determined in accordance with a 'criteria' based policy set out under Policy SS3, referred to above.

(iii) Reason: In a world class, capital city which represents the focus of leisure and entertainment uses, it is inappropriate for the Council to place an embargo on the future provision of new large A3 uses in the Central Area. Large A3 uses provide an important out-let for the growing demand for leisure and entertainment uses by City residents, workers and tourists alike.

(iv) It would be more appropriate for the Council to use its development control powers to make sure that new large A3 uses are not permitted in environmentally sensitive locations. Further, possible impact of these uses could be more effectively controlled by the implementation and adoption of a strategy for managing the 'evening economy' as recommended in PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Development. (Paras 2.19 to 2.23). [789]

(50) (i) The prescriptive nature of policy SS 13 (A) should be amended to indicate that large A3 uses will be permitted within the West End etc Stress Areas where they are consistent with the strategic function of supporting the West End Shopping function or entertainment uses.

(ii) In accordance with representations made elsewhere the extent the West End Stress Area needs to be re-appraised to take account the fact that it presently encompasses significant areas where large A3 premises can be satisfactorily located without detriment to the established and prevailing level of residential amenity. The West End Stress Area also, however, embraces one of the World's premier Tourism, Culture and Entertainment destinations where it is not appropriate to impose such a rigid or negative degree of control.

(i) The prescriptive nature of policy SS 13 (A) should be amended to indicate that large A3 uses will be permitted within the Stress Areas (assuming the designation is to remain) where they are consistent with the strategic function of supporting the given locality's function as a shopping or entertainment area.

(ii) In accordance with representations made elsewhere the extent and justification for the Queensway Stress Area needs to be re-appraised to take account the fact that it presently encompasses significant areas where large A3 premises can be

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 831 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

satisfactorily located (e.g. within Whiteleys) without detriment to the established and prevailing level of residential amenity.

(iii) The recognition of the role that large scale entertainment actives can have in supporting the status of primary shopping centres and streets needs to be more fully articulated.

(iv) A less prescriptive approach to the formulation and application of planning policy needs to be achieved, building upon fostering effective management and enforcement of the entertainment industry. Planning control alone is too blunt a tool to effectively resolve the concerns that the Plan is seeking to alleviate. [803]

(51) (i) General objection to policy SS13

(ii) Second Deposit Comments

See comments on policies TACE8, 9 + 10 + Appendix 8.1 [777]

(52) (i) The definition of Large A3 Premises is to be welcomed for the sake of clarity. However, the threshold is too small and will give rise to practical difficulties, particularly where premises with existing unconstrained Lawful A3 use as restaurants change to Bars A potential effect of the policies and this definition will be to create a new market with potentially undesirable consequences, older A3 restaurants being acquired and converted into the types of pub and bars that the Council is so concerned about. More research into the consequential impacts on the property market is required to establish the potential consequences and effects that imposing such thresholds in combination with policies SS3 and SS13 will have.

(ii) Conditions relating to maintaining these thresholds are likely to be completely unenforceable and as such contrary to Government Advice on such matters. [64] [18] [209]

(53) (i) Policy SS13 - although the concerns about large bars may have some justification, we would ask that a less restrictive approach is taken to restaurant uses which are a valuable contributor to the range of services available in the West End and complementary to theatre and cinema-going. [702]

(54) (i) SS13(C)

Delete "increase late night-activity".

Reasons

If no disturbance, noise etc. is created then late hours themselves should not be a specific reason for refusal. [371]

(55) (i) SS13(D)

Add "unless the city council can demonstrate that adequate safeguards are in place or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the immediate vicinity".

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 832 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Reason

Is this policy referring to all applications for all planning permissions? If an A3 consent is already held, would, for instance, planning permission be denied for any changes or extensions? The policy needs to be clarified.

SS13(E)

Consider revising this policy so that conditions will only be used if harm can be demonstrated.

Reasons

unfair restrictions - flexibility should be allowed. [371]

(56) (i) It is not reasonable or necessary to propose a prohibition and/or presumption against the so termed "large A3 uses". It is not accepted that the thresholds identified constitutes a logical and defensible basis to determine "large A3 uses". The policy is contrary to national (PPG6) concerning the logic of locating uses which attract a lot of people in Central Areas where there is good access to public transport and linkages with other Central Area uses. There is no substantive reasoned justification to warrant the restrictions. [692]

(57) (i) SS3 and SS13 appear too constrictive and good planning assessments should always be having regard to any amenity impact on residents. There is however no need to specially create a presumption against such uses. Our client does not seek to object to all of the objectives of the policy but it sets out suggested alterations to the draft policies.

(ii) Part (A) should read

(A) In assessing large A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 premises leading to the same, in the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area, particular regard will be given to whether the proposals adversely affect residential amenity. Elsewhere, large A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 premises leading to the same, will need to be examined by reference to residential amenity and the factors listed below. [247]

(58) (i) see comments on TACE 9 and 10 and appendix 8.1

(ii) Para 7.141 states The policy will apply to proposals for A3 uses or A3 composite uses over 500 sq m or with a capacity for over 200 people (based on 1991 Building Regs – fire safety). This does not comply with POLICY TCE 8 Para 8.59 which states that large entertainment uses are those of over 800 sq m or with a capacity for over 550 people.

(iii) The figures selected are purely arbitrary and make an assumption, not substantiated anywhere within the draft UDP, that larger businesses will always cause more concerns than two smaller businesses. This is simply not the case.

(iv) The definition of ‘large’ is draconian and also illogical. There is no reason why a ‘large’ entertainment premises is any different from a ‘large’ A3 unit.

(v) Para 7.146 states that the City Council feels that other boroughs should help to alleviate the pressure for such uses in the future. Cross-borough strategies that

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 833 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

encourage the dispersal of bars, restaurants and entertainment uses to areas outside Westminster will be supported.

(vi) The UDP should provide areas for various types of development – residential, office, industry, tourism, shopping and leisure and entertainment. This NIMBY attitude is inappropriate within a Capital and World City. The UDP does not provide details of any discussions held with other local authorities to identify suitable locations for uses which the UDP recognises ‘have an important role to play in maintaining the attraction and status of central London as a World City’. [532]

(59) (i) Objection is made to Policy SS13 in principal relating to large A3 premises and the objector has suggested that for various reasons the adopted Policy SS13 is more appropriate and considers that the Plan would be improved accordingly.

(ii) Notwithstanding this objection, the definition of "large" is unduly restrictive and vague and is thus contrary to PPG12 on the formulation of policy wording and criteria of this kind.

(iii) Although the objector agrees that the capacity of premises depends on the type of operation, the threshold levels are considered to be too low bearing in mind current and predicted customer requirements for integrated multi-functional premises. Categories are difficult to define and uncertain which leads to misinterpretation and argument. PPG12 urges plan makers to avoid such uncertainty. Furthermore the categories cannot anticipate the unusual type of premises that the market demands.

(iv) The objector therefore wishes that the criteria is abandoned along with the policy relating to large A3 premises. In the objector's opinion the adopted Policy SS13 has sufficient safeguards with regard to residential amenity and of course there are the licensing laws and powers available to the Council which together will do are more in safeguarding residential amenity and the character of an area. [209]

(60) (i) Now refers to TACE 9 & 10 & App, 8.1

(A) This policy should be amended so as to assess merit and take into account the nature of the operation and the character of the area.

(D) Delete words "above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation, or".

(E) The policy should be deleted after the words "particular type of operation,(second line)" [694]

(61) (i) The policy banning large A3 uses within the "stress areas" with exceptional permission elsewhere is detrimental to the UKs most important centre of tourism and to maintaining a lively heart to the city. Whilst we agree that it is desirable to spread the entertainment functions to other boroughs, this should be in addition to Westminster and not replacing it. There is clearly a pressing management issue which cannot be dealt with through the planning system but in partnership with other key agencies. [376]

(62) (i) Policy SS13 is too prescriptive and discourages determination of planning applications on their individual merits and circumstances.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 834 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) The policy and supporting paragraphs apply general, broad-brush criteria, against which all planning applications for changes of use from A3 (food and drink) uses will be assessed, which do not take into account the specific locational characteristics of individual sites.

(iii) The policy and supporting paragraphs do not accord with Central Government advice in national planning policy guidance notes (PPG's), in particular PPG1 (preliminary introduction and paras. 26 and 42), PPG4 (para. 15), PPG6 (paras. 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.21. 2.24 and Annex B [4]), PPG12 (paras. 3.12 and 4.9) PPG15 (para. 2.18), PPG21 (paras. 1.1, 2.5 and 5.7) and PPG24 (paras 5 and 12).

(iv) The policy and explanatory paragraphs are unnecessary and should be deleted from the Plan. [299]

(63) (i) It is not accepted that so termed “large A3 uses” should be automatically precluded in the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater areas and neither is it accepted that they should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances elsewhere.

(ii) It is not accepted that the threshold identified constitutes a logical and determinative basis to define “large A3 uses”.

(v) It is not reasonable to propose the use of conditions to restrict types of operation, for example how will the City Council distinguish between a restaurant, café bar and public house, especially where the operation can change its emphasis throughout the day, early and late evening? [707]

(64) (i) 1st Deposit Comments

The intentions of this policy are similar to those under Policy SS3. Neither national planning policy guidance nor Strategic Planning Guidance for London (RPG3) provides any basis for specifically targeting large A3 uses in “stress areas” or elsewhere.

For the reasons set out in our objections to Policy SS3, Policy SS13 should also be deleted, and both policies replaced by a single criteria based policy for A3 uses giving clear guidance as to how such proposals will be assessed.

Proposed Amendments

Delete Policy SS13 and supporting text (7.141 to 7.146)

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 835 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Replace with a new policy and supporting text which contains no reference to “stress areas” and includes criteria against which proposals for A3 uses will be considered.

See also objection to Policy SS3.

(i) 2nd Deposit Comments

This policy has been deleted but has now been incorporated into Policies TACE9 and TACE10. As such new objections are submitted to Policies TACE 9 and TACE 10. [18] [491]

(65) (i) Under Part (A) of policy SS13 we are concerned about the proposed blanket ban against all large A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 premises leading to the same, in the three stress areas given. We believe that the Plan should have sufficient flexibility to allow for such developments, subject to amenity considerations. [28]

(ii) Paragraph 7.141 to be deleted. [18]

(iii) This paragraph relates to 'large A3 uses' that are likely to attract large numbers of people and states that they are only likely to be considered acceptable in exceptional circumstances. The imposition of additional restrictions on larger A3 premises, unrelated to the impact that they may have, is arbitrary. Insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the criteria that has been used to decide upon the appropriate floor area or capacity. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council's use of this section of proposed Policy SS13 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1047494 at 11-13 Market Place, W1, dated 17 November 2000 and APP/X5990/A/99/1027282 at 135-141 Wardour Street, W1, dated 25 January 2000), concluding that A3 uses with capacities far in excess of 200 people would not result in an adverse impact on the amenities of residents or the local environment.

(iv) The paragraph also states that: "concentrations of a particular type of A3 use will be resisted". This statement is contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order, 1987, which discourages the restriction of uses within the Use Class and no justification is given by the Council to support it. [18]

(66) (i) We entirely support the rationale given in 7.145. Queensway / Westbourne Grove has a number of large A3 premises including public houses and restaurants and problems are already experienced due to congregating outside and drinking on the pavement. The A3 premises are the ones which have the most impact on residential amenity with increased traffic and deliveries, tables and chairs outside, and related noise and heavily increased litter.

(ii) We support policy SS13 particularly as it affects us in Queensway/Westbourne Grove. Large units particularly with "vertical drinking" can cause serious harm to a local community particularly with the knock on effects of deliveries, waiting minicabs and taxis, parking/traffic, tables and chairs and drinking outside on private (and public) forecourts with associated noise, litter problems etc. [381] [104] [753]

The following objections were made specifically to Policy TACE 9

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 836 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(67) (i) The policy approach is too restrictive for application in the heart of a world city. There may well be opportunities to introduce large entertainment uses without adverse impact. The creation of an absolute prohibition within the West End Stress Area is not appropriate. Elsewhere within the Central Activities Zone the exceptional circumstances identified are too narrow and the principle of exceptional circumstances too restrictive.

(ii) The controls in respect of large D2 and A3 uses needs to be reconsidered together with the designation of Stress Areas, the application of terminal hours and the criteria applied through policy and the reasoned justification. With the use of planning conditions and legal agreements, it is likely to be possible to introduce new large entertainment uses over the life of the Plan.

(iii) The land use planning policy framework arises out of concerns in respect of crime, disorder and the drinking culture, which need to be resolved other than through the planning system.

(iv) The recognition of the different effects of casinos is welcomed. Accordingly, a more flexible approach should be adopted in respect of casinos rather than the equally stringent policy approach adopted in TACE 9. [1] [68] [724] [757]

(68) (i) The criteria for topless club numbers was decided by the City Council for Mayfair etc. There should be no further applications considered. [134]

(69) (i) The exceptional circumstances are far too exceptional and some are unnecessary. [768] [843]

(70) (i) The terminal hours suggested are objected to as being unnecessary. [768] [843]

(71) (i) The boundaries and size of the Stress Areas are arbitrarily defined with insufficient reference to land uses. [768] [843]

(72) (i) The effect of the words underlined creates an unreasonable hurdle to surmount. There is an unjustified assumption that such uses will cause environmental harm and again reference is made to unnecessarily exceptional circumstances. [768] [843]

(73) (i) Whilst it is acknowledged that the thresholds cited, take their justification from the Building Regulations, this is no justification for this threshold being used in a planning context to determine when the restrictive objectives of the Council’s policies should apply. These thresholds are arbitrary and without justification. [768] [843]

(74) (i) There is no justification for this policy. [768] [843]

(75) (i) In view of the likely revision of the Use Classes Order, the term entertainment uses does needs to be defined if it is to be used within the UDP. [768] [843]

(76) (i) Policy TACE 9 is too prescriptive and contrary to the fact that large A3 uses can be consistent with the strategic function of supporting the West End shopping and entertainment uses. The WESA needs to be re-appraised, taking into account the fact that it encompasses significant areas where large A3 uses can be satisfactorily located within detriment to the established or prevailing level of residential amenity. It is not appropriate to impose such a negative degree of

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 837 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

control without it being detrimental to the status of the West End as part of a world city.

(ii) The criteria set out in Appendix 8.1 for defining “large entertainment premises” are ill-conceived. The Building Regulation Standards concern safety and means of escape from a building, not the merits of a particular use. The application of this criteria to policy matters will result in an inflexible approach to decisions, particularly when so many new A3 uses will be proposed in existing buildings where the ability or practicality of complying with set floor areas is unrealistic or would simply result in elements of buildings being under-used.

(iii) These comments in relation to Policy TACE 9 are submitted in the light of the Council’s decision to extend the boundaries of the West End Stress Area to include Rathbone Place. [841] [842]

(77) (i) It is not accepted that so termed “large entertainment uses” should be automatically precluded in the West End, Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater areas and neither is it accepted that they should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances elsewhere.

(ii) It is not accepted that the threshold identified constitutes a logical and determinative basis to define “large A3 uses”.

(iii) PPG6 makes it plain that uses which attract a lot of people, should be located in Central Areas. Whilst it is not accepted that entertainment uses over the threshold are automatically comparable with key town centre uses, there are nevertheless obvious advantages in locating such uses in Central Areas with good access to public transport and linkages with other Central Area uses. The draft policy is contrary to this logical land use guidance.

(iv) It is not accepted that the number of entertainment uses that are intended to be covered by the policy (with particular reference to bars and restaurants) has reached a ceiling, which cannot be exceeded. There is no substantive reasoned justification to warrant such a prohibition.

(78) (i) There is no basis in the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 for making this distinction within Classes A3 and D2 between "large" and other premises. The UDP should not be used to introduce unilateral changes to primary legislation. [681]

(79) (i) Object to the assumption that there is an over-concentration of such uses. There is no evidence that they have eroded the local character and function of the areas and thus it is unnecessary to speculate that this “may” occur. Similarly it is unnecessary to speculate that the activities “could” undermine the attractiveness of Westminster. There is no evidence either of an over-concentration or any environmental stress caused by A3 uses, particularly when balancing this against the vital and vibrant town centres to which the A3 contribute. [768]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 838 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(80) (i) This policy should be deleted. Proposals for large entertainment uses should be considered against a ‘criteria’ based policy as set out at paragraph (B) of the now deleted First Deposit Policy SS 3.

(ii) It would be more appropriate for the Council to use its development control powers to make sure that new large entertainment uses are not permitted in environmentally sensitive locations. [789]

(81) (i) The intentions of this policy are similar to those under Policy TACE 8. Neither national planning policy guidance nor Strategic Planning Guidance for London (RPG3) provides any basis for specifically targeting large A3/entertainment uses in “stress areas” or elsewhere.

(ii) Policy TACE 9 should also be deleted, and replaced by a single criteria based policy for A3/entertainment uses giving clear guidance as to how such proposals will be assessed.

Delete Policy TACE 9 and supporting text. Replace with a new policy and supporting text which contains no reference to “stress areas” and includes criteria against which proposals for A3/entertainment uses will be considered. [491] [780]

(82) (i) Notwithstanding the continuing fundamental objection to the concept of “Stress Areas”, the Council’s expansion of the Stress Areas, and especially the West End Stress Area is considered wholly inappropriate. The geographic spread of the areas should have been reduced rather than expanded. [64] [795]

(83) (i) The Council imply in paragraph 8.71that bars and pubs, particularly large bars and pubs, have a greater detrimental impact upon residential amenity than do restaurant uses. It is wholly inaccurate to assume that such uses have a greater impact upon residential amenity. Applications for Class A3 use should be looked at on their merits, and should not be subject to a generalisation because of the type of operation. The characteristics are as important than the use. [777]

(84) (i) Although paragraphs 8.63d and 8.71h include the second floor and above in Oxford Street, Regent’s Street, and Piccadilly as constituting an exceptional circumstance, the changes do not meet the thrust of our objections.

(ii) The supporting text contained within paragraph 8.63d provides some examples of what might constitute 'exceptional circumstance’. However, these do not reflect the conclusions drawn by the Inspector at a recent appeal at 40-44 Windmill Street (4th December 2000) concerning considering the existing high background noise levels as an exceptional circumstance. Relating to this, at paragraph 8.66a it is clear that the Council's intention runs contrary to this appeal decision. We consider that this is an important aspect which should be reflected within the examples of 'exceptional circumstance', particularly given that it is an issue which has been tested at an appeal. [777]

(85) (i) Maintain an objection against the weight attached to safeguarding residential amenity within the CAZ afforded by virtue of paragraph 8.71a. The Council’s bias towards residential amenity has resulted in a wholly inappropriate presumption against extensions or new large Class A3/ entertainment uses and in particular, against proposals for large bars or pubs. [777]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 839 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(86) (i) Object to the inclusion of this paragraph on the grounds that reference to "large entertainment uses" is unjustified and that the Policy Application does not provide sufficient justification for criteria by which large A3 uses have been classified. The Policy Application states that large entertainment uses will only be considered acceptable in the CAZ outside the West End stress area in exceptional circumstances providing that proposals fully meet considerations under the Policy TACE10, is unduly restrictive, and it does not take account of proposals on their individual merits. [748]

(87) (i) The policy of granting large entertainment uses outside the Stress Area but within the CAZ, in exceptional circumstances is inappropriate, especially given the list of exceptional circumstances indicated in paragraph 8.71h.

(ii) Paragraph 8.71h is unacceptable as it would provide few opportunities for success. The test of "a reduction in adverse impacts" is a strange one. Paragraph 8.71i has more appropriate tests and these should replace Paragraph 8.71h. [680]

(88) (i) The general policy approach in TACE9 restricts new investment in the stress areas and could only worsen the difficulties which currently arise from entertainment uses. The policy approach should encourage inward investment into the stress areas and not stifle new investment and new development which can be controlled through conditions and planning agreements. However, the criteria approach is encouraged.

(ii) Paragraph 8.71(g): It is unreasonable to restrict terminal hours for new large A3 entertainment uses where the capacity is over 200 people or 500 sqm. in size. There should be a greater degree of flexibility to enable new investment. There should also be a criterion where there is a neutral effect on the environment compared to the current situation or use. Some developments, although maybe seeking later opening hours, may not adversely effect the environment.

(iii) The policy approach is overly restrictive and the policy should be amended. [821]

(89) (i) Object to parts (B) and (E) of TACE 9 being identical. If the same wording is used, inappropriate entertainment uses may appear outside the CAZ with detrimental effect to the community and the environment. [10]

(90) (i) There may be instances where large D2 uses could be situated outside the CAZ, but it is not accepted that the circumstances should be exceptional as suggested in this policy. It should be borne in mind that D2 uses contribute towards vital and vibrant town centres. [843]

(91) (i) The policy is still too restrictive, especially when taken together with policies TACE 8 and 10 and is arbitrary. [769]

(92) (i) (C) & (D) Statements ‘creation of such uses’ – agreed. (E) Do not agree with full range of ‘exceptional circumstances, see 8.71h below.

(ii) 8.71h Do not agree with first bullet point. As for comments on section 8.63a above.

(iii) 8.71m Agree with new wordings.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 840 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) 8.71n Do not agree with the insertion of the qualifiers ‘generally’, ‘potential’ and ‘can’ which would weaken the intent of this paragraph which is to recognise the very adverse effect that large premises (probably without exception) have on residential amenity.

(v) 8.71o Casinos. Fully support the wording and intent of this new paragraph which is to treat casinos as large entertainment uses and be subject to the same controls. This is even more important in view of the possible relaxation in the gaming controls which currently ensure that casinos are well managed and create fewer problems for residents – which could all change if the gaming board proposed changes do take effect.

(vii) 8.71p New paragraph supported with the proviso that such new developments are only considered for areas which need to be ‘re-generated’ and would therefore not apply to stress areas such as Queensway/Bayswater. [381]

(93) (i) Object to the above paragraphs of the Second Deposit Plan on the basis of an apparent inconsistency between these paragraphs in relation to policy TACE9. These paragraphs have apparently been inserted as a response to the objections to the First Deposit Plan made by the British Casino Association. Gala Casinos Limited support those objections of the British Casino Association, as one of largest national casino companies and the operator of the Golden Horseshoe Casino on Queensway, Bayswater.

(ii) Paragraph 8.71o refers to casinos falling under policy TACE9 which relates to the location of large entertainment uses. Paragraph 8.71o rightly recognises that most casino in Westminster exceed 800 sq. metres (in terms of gross floor space at least) and consequently, new proposals for casinos or extensions to existing casinos would fall for consideration under proposed policy TACE9.

(iii) Paragraph 8.71o also recognises that “casinos are not associated with crime, disorder or the drinking culture”. These being the main justifications for the restrictive approach taken in relation to Entertainment Uses in the Second Deposit plan and particularly policies TACE8 and 9. However, policy TACE9 effectively proposes a moratorium on new casinos or extensions to existing premises outside of the Central Activities Zone. However, paragraph 8.71o advises that the Council will take into account the special circumstances relating to casino in applying policy TACE9 although it does not explain how this consideration will affect application of the policy to casinos.

(iv) The Council’s willingness to recognise the special characteristics of casinos as D2 USE and apparent willingness to take into account the special circumstances relating to casinos in applying policy TACE9, are not reflected in the wording of the policy itself. Consequently, whilst the Council’s revised approach to the application of this policy in respect of casinos is welcomed and goes some way to meeting the objections put forward by the British Casino Association, the approach is not being carried through into the upper case policy as it should have been.

(v) Policy TACE8 does however make reference to the possibility of new entertainment uses or extensions to existing entertainment uses being granted permission in exceptional circumstances (policy TACE8(D) and makes reference to the relevant paragraph applicable. This is presumably in relation to smaller premises i.e. under 800 m2 and thus not relevant to most casinos as recognised in paragraph 8.71o. it is clear why a more restrictive approach is taken to larger

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 841 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

entertainment Class D2 in policy TACE9 i.e. why the exemption in policy TACE8(D) is not also included in policy TACE9.

(vi) Concern is also expressed in relation to paragraph 8.71o itself that the “special circumstances relating to casino” referred to in the paragraph and that will be taken into account by the council in applying policy TACE9 are not specified or identified in the plan. This will leave considerable uncertainty in respect of what special circumstances the City Council will attribute to casinos and to what extent such circumstances would led to a granting of planning permission for new casinos or more pertinently from our client’s point of view extensions to existing premises.

(vii) It is not clear whether the “special circumstances” relating to casinos is a term intended to mean the same as “exceptional circumstances” referred to in paragraph 8.63d in relation to policy TACE8. It would appear that by the use of different terminology, a different approach is intended and certainly the text of paragraph 8.71o relates more specifically to the nature of casino use itself, recognising this to be different from the majority of entertainment uses to which the policy is intended to apply or the impacts of the use and the potential justification for it even as a potentially detriment use to amenity.

(viii) Clearly, the case for exempting casinos from the requirement of policy TACE8 and 9 is that the nature of the use and a number of other associated unique characteristics of the use are such that the application of the restriction in these policies is unlikely to be necessary and respective to casinos to achieve the aims and objectives of those polices. It would seem therefore that the correct and simple approach would be to exclude casinos specifically from the definition of entertainment uses.

(ix) Whilst recognising that paragraph 8.71o identifies a concern in relation to casinos and the longer term future in respect of changes to the regulation of casinos by the Gaming Board and the Gaming Licensing Committee. There is however, no evidence to suggest that these changes would lead to a change in the nature of the operation of casinos although effect on the surrounding locality. The pattern of casino use and profile of customers is unlikely to change and control will still be exercised over the issuing of Licences in the interest of showing Licence are only issued to suitable premises and suitable location. It is both unnecessary and inappropriate for the planning system to attempt to duplicate this consideration.

(x) The reference in paragraph 8.71o to the City Council taking into account special circumstances relating to casinos should be incorporated as an exceptional circumstance into paragraph 8.63d and recognised in the upper case text of policies TACE8 and 9. The following working is suggested as an amendment by way of addition to policy TACE8(D) and policy TACE9 (C). This policy will generally not be applicable to proposals relating to casino use.

(xi) Alternatively, the term entertainment uses should be defined so as to specifically exclude casinos from the specified D2 uses it is intended to encompass. [860]

(94) (i) There is an inherent presumption in this policy that large A3 uses are not acceptable in the West End Stress Area. The exceptional circumstances used to assess such planning applications, which is similar to Policy TACE 8, are over detailed and unreasonable and lead to a blanket exclusion of such uses without allowing for each application to be treated on its merits. Moreover, the definition

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 842 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

of a large A3 use, although slightly modified in Appendix 8.1, is still not set at a size which is excessive and therefore the policy would be unreasonable in its application. [693]

(95) (i) Paragraph 8.71h second bullet should be reworded as follows: "the retention or replacement of a use which has an existing association with and/or makes a contribution to the character or function of the area". [853]

(96) (i) Policy TACE 9 is too prescriptive and inflexible. The Policy discourages determination of planning applications on their individual merits and circumstances. The Policy applies general, broad-brush criteria against which all planning applications for entertainment uses will be assessed. The criteria do not allow the locational characteristics of individual sites to be taken into account. The inflexible nature of the Policy will hinder economic growth and is contrary to Central Government advice in national Planning Policy Guidance. The Policy also requires clarification in order to increase emphasis on the introduction of new uses.

(ii) Policy TACE 9(A) should be amended to read “New large entertainment uses, or extensions to existing premises leading to the creation of such uses, will be assessed against the criteria set out in Paragraph 8.71h”

(iii) Policy TACE 9(B) should be amended to read “Elsewhere within the CAZ, new large entertainment uses, or extensions to existing premises leading to the creation of such uses, will be assessed against the criteria set out in Paragraph 8.71h”.

(iv) Policy TACE 9(C) should be amended to read “Outside the CAZ, new large D2 entertainment uses, or extensions to existing premises leading to the creations of such uses, will be assessed against the criteria set out in Paragraph 8.71h.

(v) Policy TACE 9(D) should be amended to read “Within the Edgware Road and Queensway/Bayswater Stress Areas, new large A3 entertainment uses, or extensions to existing premises leading to the creation of such uses, will be assessed against the criteria set out in Paragraph 8.71h.

(vi) Policy TACE 9(E) should be amended to read “Elsewhere, new large A3 entertainment uses, or extensions to existing premises leading to the creation of such uses, will be assessed against the criteria set out in Paragraph 8.71h”. [299]

(97) (i) In accordance with the associated objection to Policy TACE9, paragraph 8.71h should be amended as follows in order to set the issues out as itemised criteria “In applying Policy TACE 9, applications for new large entertainment uses and extensions to existing premises leading to the same will be assessed against the following criteria:

- The effect of the proposed use or operation on amenity, local residents and the environment compared to the existing activity on site. - The desire to retain a use which has a long-standing association with and/or makes a major contribution to the character and function of the area. - The desire to retain a valued Central London activity which is of international or national importance. - The need to improve health and safety standards or access for disabled people. [299]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 843 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(98) (i) The Policy is unnecessary. The amount of entertainment uses has not reached a level of saturation justifying any restriction on such uses. It is not accepted that planning harm arises necessarily from such uses. It is important that this part of London which has traditionally been used for entertainment purposes flourishes in the context of London as a world city. There is no need for the terminal hours restriction of 1am. The definition of a large entertainment use is too wide. [851]

(99) (i) The criteria set out at paragraph 8.71h are wholly inappropriate and no justification has been provided. The principle of the Stress Area is considered unacceptable in the context of Westminster's role at the heart of London as a World City. Issues of the impact of large A3 uses on residential amenities should be considered by way of a criteria based policy which would allow such uses within the CAZ where there is no conflict with residential amenity or other planning policy. The policy does not allow for any flexibility in its current form. In addition to the above, it is considered that the issues raised concerning crime, drinking culture and disorder need to be resolved by a means other than the planning system [680]

(100) (i) Recommended new TACE9(B).

(ii) Para (B): Reference to new/extensions to existing facilities only being granted in exceptional circumstances is inconsistent with the guidance in para 8.71p which states that large D2 entertainment uses should be located within the CAZ

(iii) Para 8.17 should acknowledge that proposals for new facilities/extensions should be acceptable in the event that the existing facility has no adverse impact on amenity. [845]

(101) (i) The imposition of additional restrictions on larger A3 premises, unrelated to the impact that they may have, is arbitrary. Insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the criteria that has been used to decide upon the appropriate floor area or capacity. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS13 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1047494 at 11 – 13 Market Place, W1, dated 17 November 2000 and APP/X5990/A/99/1027282 at 135 – 141 Wardour Street, W1, dated 25 January 2000), concluding that A3 uses with capacities far in excess of 200 people would not result in an adverse impact on the amenities of residents or the local environment.

(ii) A separate and specific policy relating to entertainment uses with larger floor areas is unnecessary as the impact of any proposed use will already be assessed in line with the criteria laid out in policy TACE 10. It is therefore proposed that the concept of Large A3 Uses and all references to them be deleted. [18] [66]

(102) (i) The wording “unless other material considerations apply” should be added to TACE 9 (A) – (E) inclusive. The overall effect of this policy is otherwise too restrictive and inflexible. [264] [340] [826]

(103) (i) A large A3 use has been unreasonably defined. [768] [843]

(104) (i) The pre-inquiry version of the UDP introduces additional text at para 8.63d which specifies that in addition to the four exceptional circumstances identified by the second deposit plan, a further exceptional circumstance would be "the second

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 844 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

floor and above in Oxford Street, Regent Street and Piccadilly to serve the needs of shoppers". Whilst this particular reference to Regent Street is to be welcomed, it is not considered sufficient amendment to overcome the objections previously raised and the UDP needs to take account of other suitable locations at ground floor level, for example, in side streets off the primary shopping frontages. This policy also still conflicts with the stress area policies identified and the previous objections lodged in relation to this particular policy. [680]

(105) (i) Object to the assumption that there is an over-concentration of large entertainment uses. There is no evidence that they have eroded the local character and function of the areas and thus it is unnecessary to speculate that this “may” occur. Similarly it is unnecessary to speculate that the activities “could” undermine the attractiveness of Westminster. There is no evidence either of an over-concentration or any environmental stress caused by A3 uses, particularly when balancing this against the vital and vibrant town centres to which the A3 contribute. There is no need for the criteria established in TACE10. [843]

(106) (i) There may be instances where large D2 uses could be situated outside the CAZ, but it is not accepted that the circumstances should be exceptional as suggested in this policy. It should be borne in mind that D2 uses contribute towards vital and vibrant town centres. [768]

(107) (i) These words are unwise since the Use Classes Order is being revised. [768] [843]

(108) (i) Although there are some very residential areas of the West End where large- scale entertainment uses are not suitable, the proposed blanket ban is not appropriate for the UK’s premier entertainment district.

(ii) Many of the large entertainment venues in the West End are well run establishments which provide the consumer with a great deal of variety under one roof. People tend to spend the entire night in the venue rather than moving between several smaller venues. So in this way, they actually help to reduce disturbance by keeping people in the same place for the evening. They are also a great attraction for tourists and help to give London the innovation, which it needs to compete with the world’s best.

(iii) Many companies in the leisure industry like to have their flag ship premises in London’s West End. The proposed draconian restrictions will cause London to loose out to other cities.

(iv) There are many parts of the West End, such as the major thoroughfares, which are not very residential and which are suited to large-scale entertainment uses. Rather than introducing a blanket ban on such premises, it would be better to put more emphasis on the location of the proposed development and judge each application separately on it’s own merits. [855]

(109) (i) The addition of the words underlined within policy TACE 9 (C ), (D), (E) is too uncertain and restrictive of what might happen within the market. It is also contrary to the aims of PPG6, which aims to encourage competition. [843] [768]

(110) (i) Policy TACE 9(A) strongly presumes against such development within the West End Stress Area and TACE 9 D against such development in the Stress Areas beyond the CAZ. This is contrary to national guidance. We would maintain that

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 845 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

each application should be assessed on its merit, regardless of its size. The definition of ‘large A3 uses’ is arbitrary, the policy is unnecessarily restrictive, and does not reflect government guidance. [777]

(111) (i) Appendix 8.1 defines large entertainment premises. The figures selected are purely arbitrary and make an assumption, not substantiated anywhere within the Second Deposit, that larger businesses will always cause more concerns than smaller businesses. This is simply not the case.

(ii) The definition of "larger" is draconian and also illogical. There is no reason why "large" entertainment premises are any different from "large" A3 units.

(iii) Map 8.2 includes a revised West End Stress Area. This has been increased from the area shown in the First Deposit. It also encompasses the majority of the area of the West End. A Stress Area within the CAZ is inappropriate as within other policies contained in the revised UDP, the CAZ is the only location where businesses can be permitted to trade after 11pm.

(iv) The TACE section states that the City Council observes that other boroughs should help to alleviate the pressures for large entertainment uses in the future.

(v) The UDP is purely restrictive in terms of the development of entertainment uses. Despite referring to the fact that Westminster has an unrivalled range of entertainment facilities and stating that many visitors come to enjoy the range of arts, cultural and entertainment attractions, the UDP actively discourages amendments to existing facilities or the development of new entertainment premises within the borough. The UDP should provide areas for various types of development: residential, office, industry, tourism, shopping and leisure and entertainment. Preventing change in any one area is inappropriate, particularly within a Capital and World City. [532]

(112) (i) Supportive of proposals here. [555] [381]

NB: Policy SS13 has been moved into Chapter 8, a revised Chapter now called Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment and combined with TCE 8 to create a new Policy TACE 9: Location of Large Entertainment Uses. Part of SS13 criteria has also be included in new Policy TACE 10: Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Amendments have been made to the 1st deposit policy SS13 and are reflected in the new policies.Reference should also be made to TACE policies responses.

TA09: Summary of Council’s Response

(1) (i) Thresholds for large A3 uses have been determined based on a number of considerations including: size of premises where complaints have been recorded, consideration of the size of groups of people which are most likely to cause nuisance, e.g. noise; appeal decisions, and Building Regulations 1992. The policy allows for A3 uses outside the Stress Areas, in the CAZ and outside the CAZ in exceptional circumstances. Therefore there may be some circumstances where large A3 uses may be permitted. In general however, there is concern that there is currently a saturation of A3 premises and therefore the growth of further venues, particularly the large venues where in most cases the impacts are greater, would cause further conflict and loss of character and amenity of areas throughout the City. The Policy is not considered contrary to PPG 6. The entertainment policies allow for the growth of the leisure and evening

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 846 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

economy: however they support growth in areas other than in areas of current stress and saturation. The approach taken is to safeguard residential amenity, environmental quality and character and function of areas. [692] [709] [794]

(2) (i) The TACE policies are now more focussed on recognising the importance of the Entertainment Industry and the part it plays in the' World City'. The policies are worded more positively.

(3) (i) Opportunities will still be available to establish entertainment uses across the city in appropriate locations where harm to residential amenity and the environment will be minimised. In areas of current 'stress', those uses are being controlled to enable a balance to be struck between the various uses and sustainable communities. [92] [108] [141] [777] [795] [803] [769]

(iii) It is considered that the matters raised in the policies are relevant matters for planning consideration.

(iv) Refer also to First Deposit comments and responses to Appendix 8.1 in TACE chapter. [108] [769] [794]

(4) (i) See general comment before (a). [20]

(ii) The definition of large A3 uses in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city. [18] [66] [209] [532] [757] [777]

(iiv) Reasoned justification for the introduction of (A), which is now in TACE 9 is contained under Reasons in TACE 9. [66] [777]

(iv) Exceptional circumstances have been outlined to clarify the policy's interpretation.

8.71c The definition of a large A3 entertainment use has been developed having regard to existing large premises located in the City and the impacts associated with large premises along with the use of the Building Regulations. This method of defining large A3 uses is considered sound and justified.

8.71m This para was amended at Second Deposit and clarifies the reasons why the policy TACE 9 was included in the plan. [777]

(5) (i) The TACE policies are now more focused on recognising the importance of the Entertainment Industry and the part it plays in the' World City'. It is more consistent with the approach in STRA 1. Opportunities will still be available to establish entertainment uses across the city, in appropriate locations where harm to residential amenity and the environment will be minimised. In areas of current 'stress' those uses are being controlled to enable a balance to be struck between the various uses and sustainable communities. [28] [64] [140] [141] [692] [769] [777] [789] [803]

(6) (i) Withdrawal of objection acknowledged. [777]

(7) (i) On the contrary, it is believed that control on entertainment uses will enable mixed use communities to develop in a sustainable manner, where a balance of uses can be maintained and the residential amenity, local environment, and character can be protected. Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 847 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) The new policies TACE 9 and 10 provides a clear outline of what would constitute exceptional circumstances and criteria used for assessing planning applications.

(iii) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility regarding proximity to residential uses.

(iv) Refer to TACE 10 (B) responses. [777]

(8) (i) The use of "where appropriate" is satisfactory for use in planning policies. This allows flexibility for imposing conditions where it is reasonable to do so and relevant to the proposed use.

(ii) Consideration will be made of uses having regard to the criteria in new policy TACE 10. In terms of use and capacity including standing customers etc. Justification for this is contained in the Policy. [777]

(9) (i) In general it is considered that pubs and bars have more of a detrimental effect on amenity and the local environment than restaurants. For example they differ as large numbers of customers tend to leave in a relatively short period of time when a bar closes. This causes noise problems and loss of residential amenity in these areas. This has been supported by the Planning Inspectorate where it was stated by the Inspector to 135-141 Wardour Street in May 1999, " However characteristic of bars is not necessarily shared by restaurants is the propensity of a large number of customers to leave in a relatively short time when they close." However regardless of this applications are considered by Council on their merits having regard to the relevant policies. [777]

(10) (i) Disagree. See response (a). [92]

(11) (i) Not agreed to change (A) which is now contained in TACE 9. Exceptional circumstances have now been outlined in TACE 9, para 8.71h.

(ii) (C) can now be found in TACE 10. Late night activity is often the cause of disturbance and noise and therefore is considered to be a relevant planning consideration.

(iii) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility. Agreed that it was to inflexible. Consideration of this would be made for any new application for a new entertainment use, extension to, of change in hours of operation.

(iv) (E) can now be found in TACE 10. It is implicit that if harm is likely to be caused the application may be subject to conditions to mitigate such harm. [825]

(13) (i) The definition of large A3 uses in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city.

(ii) Reasoned justification for the introduction of (A), which is now in TACE 9 is contained under reasons in TACE 9.

(iii) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility. Agreed that it was to inflexible.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 848 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) (E) can now be found in TACE 10. Not agreed that it should be modified. This approach of conditioning approvals is currently used by the Planning Inspectorate and is not inconsistent with the Use Classes Order. [794] [821]

(14) (i) It is considered justified, based on explanation set out in the plan, that Large A3 uses not be permitted in the designated Stress Areas due to their likely impacts.

(ii) The definition of large A3 uses, in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city.

(iii) PPG 6 acknowledges that some leisure uses can cause disturbance to nearby residences. It is considered that City Council is still providing some flexibility however are aiming to find a balance.

(iv) Justification for the policies is provided in the new TACE 8-10 policies and in the West End Entertainment Impact Study. There will be exceptional circumstances. Criteria outlining what may be an exceptional circumstance is outlined in Policies TACE 8 and 9.

(v) The use of conditions is considered acceptable to control the use to ensure that impacts of that use are minimised. This is often a tool used by the Planning Inspectorate. [794] [780]

(15) (i) There is considered to be sufficient large A3 uses in the West End to support Theatre. Applications for further A3 uses will be considered having regard to new policies TACE 8, 9 and 10. Some examples of exceptional circumstances are outlined in new policy TACE 9. Establishing whether an A3 use is essential to support theatre in a particular location may be difficult to establish. Theatres are an attraction in their own right, whereby A3 uses provide a supporting role. [108]

(16) (i) The impact of A3 and entertainment uses in the Stress Areas within the City is a unique situation, based on research carried out of other world cities. For this reason a unique and new approach is required to enable a balance to be struck between the various uses and sustainable communities to be encouraged. New criteria outlining examples of exceptional circumstances has been included in TACE 9. [491] [780] [108] [795]

(17) (i) Greater reference has been included in Part 1 and in TACE 8 to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution to London's World City status. [298]

(18) (i) The TACE policies are now more focussed on recognising the importance of the entertainment industry and the part it plays in the' World City'. The policies are worded more positively. [108] [795]

(19) (i) (C) can now be found in TACE 10. Late night activity is often the cause of disturbance and noise and therefore is considered to be a relevant planning consideration. This approach is justified in Policy TACE 9 & 10. [795]

(20) (i) See responses (e) and (o). [380]

(21) (i) The policy is not considered to be a blanket ban across the City. Due to the current saturation level and the impacts on the residential amenity and local

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 849 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

environment it is considered that this type of control is necessary in the Stress Areas. [785]

(22-3) (i) Not agreed to change (A) which is now contained in TACE 9. Exceptional circumstances have now been outlined in TACE 9, para 8.71h

(ii) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility regarding proximity to residential uses.

(iii) Consideration has been made of the Edgware Road Stress area and the boundaries. It is considered that the majority of the area defined under First Deposit contains a high level of A3 uses and night cafés. The area is considered to be under environmental stress and the impact on the residential amenity is currently considered unsatisfactory. There is no justifiable reason why the Stress Area should be removed from Edgware Road. The boundaries have however been amended to exclude the area contained in the Paddington Special Policy Area, to encourage regeneration, Caddell Street due to its predominant residential nature, and Connaught Place which contains no entertainment uses and is residential and office development. Seymour Place has been included in the Stress Area due to the growth and existence of A3 uses concentrated in the street. [90]

(24) (i) See response (a), (g) and (p). [140]

(25) (i) The definition of large A3 uses, in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city.

(ii) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility. Agreed that it was too inflexible.

(iii) (E) can now be found in TACE 10. Not agreed that it should be modified. This approach of conditioning approvals is currently used by the Planning Inspectorate and is not inconsistent with the Use Classes Order. [66] [18]

(26) (i) Disagree. [66]

(27) (i) Other than new planning policies, there are other initiatives being undertaken by City Council to address some of the current concerns in the public realm. These initiatives compliment the planning policies. I.e.: provision of pissoirs on the streets in the West End. Each case is considered on its merits. [724] [1] [18] [68] [729]

(28) (i) Refer to policy TACE 5(A) which outlines controls on changes of use relating to Theatres. If an ancillary use is operating City Council has no control over this use. Where a change of use occurs and planning permission is required the proposal would be considered having regard to the policies. [338]

(29) (i) Part (D) of this policy is now found in TACE 10. This clause has been modified to provide greater flexibility. [681]

(30) (i) The has been a growth in recent years in large A3 uses. These uses attract large numbers of people and can cause relatively greater environmental nuisance and amenity problems, including late night noise and general disturbance to

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 850 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

residents. Due to the fact that the Stress Areas already contain a large number of A3 and entertainment uses, the introduction of additional A3 uses, particularly those that are large and attract high numbers of people will exacerbate the problems currently being experienced. [66] [18]

(31) (i) See general para. [768]

(32) (i) The TACE policies are now more focussed on recognising the importance of the entertainment industry and the part it plays in the' World City'. It is more consistent with the approach in STRA 1. [253]

(33) (i) This paragraph can now be found in TACE 9, para 8.71i. It states: 'Wherever possible, concentrations of a particular type of A3 use will be resisted. The use of wherever possible acknowledges that it may not be able to control types of A3 uses based on the provisions of the Use Classes Order. [66]

(34) (i) Not agreed to change (A) which is now contained in TACE 9. Exceptional circumstances have now been outlined in TACE 9, para 8.71h. Justification is provided in the policy. [371]

(35) (i) The terminal hours have been reviewed. Further clarification has been made in the new policy TACE 8 regarding interpretation of the terminal hours. It has been made clear that these are guideline terminal hours only and that in some circumstances it may be considered that an earlier closing time is appropriate in certain locations, depending on the proposed use, and likely impact on the immediate residential amenity. It was not intended that the terminal hours be a blanket ban, but a guideline. Research carried out reveals that there are a number of venues which currently open throughout the night offering some choice to remain in the city.

(ii) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility. Agreed that it was to inflexible. Consideration of this would be made for any new application for a new entertainment use, extension to, of change in hours of operation. [730]

(36) (i) Reasoned justification for the introduction of (A), which is now in TACE 9 is contained under reasons in TACE 9.

(iii) It is not agreed that Leicester Square should be excluded from the Stress Area. Leicester Square contains a number of A3 uses and residents are located within the vicinity. Stress is being experienced in this area which needs addressing. It is not justified that the square be excluded. The Entertainment Route approach is now no longer appropriate having regard to the saturation and concentration of entertainment uses across the West End.

(iv) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility regarding proximity to residential uses. [757]

(37) (i) Thresholds for large A3 uses have been determined based on a number of considerations including size of premises where complaints have been recorded; consideration of the size of groups of people which are most likely to cause nuisance e.g. noise; appeal decisions, and Building Regulations 1992. The policy allows for A3 uses outside the Stress Areas, in the CAZ and outside the CAZ, in exceptional circumstances. Therefore there may be some circumstances where large A3 uses may be permitted. In general however, there is concern that there

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 851 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

is currently a saturation of A3 premises and therefore the growth of further venues, particularly the large venues where in most cases the impacts are greater, would cause further conflict and loss of character and amenity of areas throughout the City.

(ii) Refer to first deposit comments and responses to Appendix 8.1 in TACE chapter. [730]

(38) (i) Not agreed to change (A) which is now contained in TACE 9. Exceptional circumstances have now been outlined in TACE 9, para 8.71h. Justification of these controls are contained in Policy TACE 9. [731]

(39) (i) The aim of the new Policies TACE 8-10 are to recognise that the entertainment Industry plays an important role in London as a World City however they aim to strike a balance to ensure that sustainable communities can be achieved. [698]

(40) (i) The terminal hours have been reviewed. Further clarification has been made in the new policy TACE 8 regarding interpretation of the terminal hours. It has been made clear that these are guideline terminal hours only and that in some circumstances it may be considered that an earlier closing time is appropriate in certain locations, depending on the proposed use, and likely impact on the immediate residential amenity. It was not intended that the terminal hours be a blanket ban, but a guideline. Research carried out reveals that there are a number of venues which currently open throughout the night offering some choice to remain in the city after the Underground closes. There is concern that if the guideline hours are extended there would be a lack of sufficient public transport to provide an adequate service to customers wanting to return home. [73]

(41) (i) Not agreed that the West End should be deleted from these controls for the reasons set out in the new TACE 9 policy. There is considered to be sufficient large A3 uses in the West End to support theatres. [370]

(ii) There is provision for exceptional circumstances and other material considerations under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act apply. It is considered however that there is currently an over-concentration of some 2,600 A3 uses in Westminster,with 2,000 of these in the CAZ. and therefore the onus would be on the applicant to prove need and consider issues of character, function and amenity of the area.

(42) (i) Justification for the policies is provided in the new TACE 8-10 policies and in the West End Entertainment Impact Study. There will be exceptional circumstances. Criteria outlining what may be an exceptional circumstance is outlined in Policies TACE 8 & 9.

(ii) Part (D) of this policy is now found in TACE 10. This clause has been modified to provide greater flexibility. [748]

(43) (i) The definition of large A3 uses in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city.

(ii) Reasoned justification for the introduction of (A), which is now in TACE 9 is contained under reasons in TACE 9.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 852 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(44) (i) The existence of the Stress Area is justified in the new policies TACE 8 & 9. The TACE policies are now more focussed on recognising the importance of the Entertainment Industry and the part it plays in the' World City'. The policies are worded more positively. [1] [729]

(45) (i) The existence of the Stress Area is justified in the new policies TACE 8 and 9. The TACE policies are now more focussed on recognising the importance of the Entertainment Industry and the part it plays in the' World City'. The policies are worded more positively. [68] [64] [141]

(46) (i) Not agreed to change (A) which is now contained in TACE 9. Exceptional circumstances have now been outlined in TACE 9, para 8.71h

(ii) (C) can now be found in TACE 10. Late night activity is often the cause of disturbance and noise and therefore is considered to be a relevant planning consideration.

(iv) (E) can now be found in TACE 10. It is implicit that if harm is likely to be caused the application may be subject to conditions to mitigate such harm. [264] [340] [826]

(47-49)(i) See responses to TACE 8 and TACE 10. [64] [141] [209] [789]

(50) (i) Refer to policy TACE 10 and Appendix 8.1 responses.

(ii) Refer also to TACE 10 and appendix 8.1 responses.

(ii) The TACE policies are now more focussed on recognising the importance of the Entertainment Industry and the part it plays in the' World City'. The policies are worded more positively.

(iii) (C) can now be found in TACE 10. Late night activity is often the cause of disturbance and noise and therefore is considered to be a relevant planning consideration. This approach is justified in policy TACE 9 and 10. [64] [803]

(51) (i) Noted. [777]

(52) (i) The definition of large A3 uses in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city. [18] [64] [209]

(53) (i) There has been a growth in recent years in large A3 uses. These uses attract large numbers of people and can cause relatively greater environmental nuisance and amenity problems, including late night noise and general disturbance to residents. Due to the fact that the Stress Areas already contain a large number of A3 and entertainment uses, the introduction of additional A3 Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 853 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

uses, particularly those that are large and attract high numbers of people will exacerbate the problems currently being experienced. [18] [702]

(54) (i) Reference to 'increased late night activity and disturbance' is now contained in TACE 10 and is considered justified due to the impact that late night activity has on residential amenity, and the local environment. Applications will be considered having regard to the use and likely disturbance that may be caused late at night. This is considered a reasonable planning consideration. [371]

(55) (i) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility regarding proximity to residential uses. This part of the policy would be considered where a planning application is received for a new entertainment use, extension to and existing entertainment use, or modification to an existing planning consent. [371]

(56) (i) See response (ba). [692]

(57) (i) See general paragraph and earlier responses. [247]

(58) (i) The definition of large D2 uses differs based on a different set of criteria used to consider what constitutes a large D2 premises. Explanation has been expanded in Appendix 8.1.

(iii) Para 7.146 is now found in policy TACE 9, para 8.71q. It is not the role of the UDP to identify appropriate areas and sites for entertainment uses outside the City boundary. Discussions have commenced with other authorities and the Mayor is currently preparing a report on managing and locating the 24 hour city of which Council expects to have input into.

(iv) Refer to first deposit comments and TACE Chapter and Appendix 8.1 comments. [532]

(59) (i) It is considered justified, based on explanation set out in the plan, that large A3 uses not be permitted in the designated Stress Areas due to their likely impacts.

(v) The use of conditions is considered acceptable to control the use to ensure that impacts of that use are minimised. This is often a tool used by the Planning Inspectorate. [707] [209]

(60) (i) Refer to comments on Policy TACE 9 and 10 and Appendix 8.1. [694]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 854 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(61) (i) The TACE policies are now more focussed on recognising the importance of the Entertainment Industry and the part it plays in the' World City'. The policies are worded more positively.

(ii) Other than new planning policies, there are other initiatives being undertaken by City Council to address some of the current concerns in the public realm. These initiatives compliment the planning policies. i.e.: provision of 'pissoirs' on the streets in the West End. Partnerships with key agencies is being encouraged through the UDP. It is considered, however that land use planning controls are needed to deal with the issue of saturation and protection of the residential amenity, local environment and established character of parts of the city. [376]

(62) (i) The policies have been refined to be more specific and provides examples of exceptional circumstances, and criteria for assessing planning applications.

(ii) The policies are considered to be consistent with Central Government advice on national planning policy. [299]

(63) (i) (A) & (B) now found in TACE 9 and 10 and have been modified.

(ii) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility. [707]

(64) (i) The definition of large A3 uses in Appendix 8.1 has been slightly modified to take into account the updated Building Regulations. This definition has been designed based on the Building Regulations and consideration of existing venues located across the city.

(ii) (D) can now be found in TACE 10 and has been modified to provide greater flexibility. Agreed that it was to inflexible.

(65) (i) Reasoned justification for the introduction of (A), which is now in TACE 9 is contained under reasons in TACE 9.

(iii) This paragraph can now be found in TACE 9, Para 8.71i. It states: 'Wherever possible, concentrations of a particular type of A3 use will be resisted. The use of wherever possible acknowledges that it may not be able to control types of A3 uses based on the provisions of the Use Classes Order. [18] [491]

(66) (i) Support welcomed. Policy SS13 has been moved into Chapter 8, a revised chapter now called Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment and combined with TCE 8 to create a new Policy TACE 9: Location of Large Entertainment Uses. Part of SS13 criteria has also be included in new Policy TACE 10:Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Amendments have been made to the Fist deposit policy SS13 and are reflected in the new policies. [104] [381] [753]

Responses to objections made specifically to Policy TACE 9 at pre-Inquiry

(67) (i) Introduction

It is the City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 855 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

Our Towns and Cities: The Future, Delivering an Urban Renaissance (White Paper: November 2000) outlines the Government’s vision for revitalising urban areas and sets out its policies and proposals for achieving this. London is recognised as competing as a global city with diverse communities and differences between the suburbs and the centre of the Cities highlighted. It is considered that the entertainment policies will assist in achieving these aims.

(iii) Exceptional Circumstances

Exceptional circumstances were clarified in paragraphs 8.63d and 8.71h where examples of what may constitute exceptional circumstances were provided at 2nd Deposit stage. This is in not intended to be an exhaustive list of all the possible exceptional circumstances in which the City Council may grant permission for an entertainment use, extension to an entertainment use, etc. It is not possible or intended that the City Council should identify all possible scenarios.

It is recognised that there may be other exceptional circumstances that arise. The onus will be on the applicant to present a case when lodging a planning application.

Exceptional circumstances and other material considerations will need to be taken into account when considering each application. Due to the current level of activity and stress in some areas there is concern that this matter needs to be dealt with in a strategic way considering the cumulative impact of growth in large entertainment uses.

(iv) Planning, licensing and management approaches to tackling the problems

The City Council has introduced a number of initiatives to tackle the problems arisen particularly in the Stress Areas, i.e. anti-social behaviour, noise, degradation of the street environment. The City Council recognises that it is a combination of planning and licensing policy and management of the street environment which is required. Planning is the land use tool which allows for the management of current and future land uses. This is a crucial tool for ensuring a balance of mixed uses is provided for residents, visitors and workers. This policy approach works alongside various other Council initiatives e.g. provision of adequate servicing, provision of mobile street urinals, warden schemes and enforcement activity.

As it is the entertainment uses which contribute substantially to the late night economy and play a major role in attracting visitors/customers to the West End, there is clearly a link between land use and the impact of uses on residential amenity and character and function of areas. This is clearly a planning matter

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 856 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

which should be addressed in part through planning policy. The Mayor of London recognises in the draft London Plan that ‘boroughs should ensure that planning, licensing, policing, transport and street management issues are managed….’

Further revisions have been made to the pre-Inquiry version of the Plan regarding casinos. These changes recognise the special circumstances of casinos but also recognises that the regulations affecting casinos is under review. [1] [68] [724] [757]

(68) (i) Comments noted. Paragraph 8.74 has been expanded to refer to the guideline figure of three Rule 4(a) waivers within Mayfair, which are controlled through licensing procedures. [134]

(69) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above. The exceptional circumstances are not considered too exceptional, these have been based on past examples. [768] [843]

(70) (i) Terminal Hours Terminal hours have been clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. There also may be exceptional circumstances which arise where the terminal hours may be varied. Terminal hours currently vary across the City. Closing times for Music and Dance Licensed premises in the West End vary more than any other area, with a range of 14 different terminal hours. The majority of licensed venues in the West End close between 03.00 and 04.00. The numbers of licensed venues closing between this time rose dramatically from 45 in 1992 to 144 in 2000. As these variations already occur in closing times of premises, staggered operating hours are considered to already exist in the City. All residents have a right to a good night’s sleep. There needs to be a ‘window of opportunity’ which allows for this, where noise levels and disturbance are kept to a minimum.

(ii) There is need for time to service the streets i.e.: street/pavement cleansing and litter collection. This is best carried out when there are minimum people on the streets. In some parts of the City this window of opportunity is minimal, placing pressure on services to deliver.

In consideration of 27 recent A3 appeal cases the inspectors have imposed conditions relating to hours of operation and in 78% of cases imposed terminal hours of earlier or similar to that contained in the RUDP. [768] [843]

(71) (i) Stress Areas

Stress Areas are defined areas which have been designated within Westminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function of the areas. The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the West End Entertainment Impact Study (1991) which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associated impacts. The Mayor’s draft London Plan and SDS Technical Report Six: ‘Late Night London: Planning and Managing the Late Night Economy’ both recognise that the demands and pressures of the night time economy are concentrated in small

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 857 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

areas, including key parts of central London, especially the West End. The technical report acknowledges that entertainment uses are over-concentrated in the West End. (Page 34).

(ii) The Stress Area concept originated in Westminster City Council in the early 1990s when Stress Areas were designated (Soho and Paddington) for enforcement purposes, due to the problems associated with the degradation of the street environment. These locations were selected both because of the concerns expressed by the public and by Members and because they represented a range of difficulties facing the City Council in maintaining the quality and character of the street environment City-wide.

Following consultation during 1999 and serious concerns raised by members of the public on the deterioration of the street environment and impact on residential amenity, the City Council introduced interim policies during 2000 which re- introduced the Stress Area concept for planning and licensing purposes with policies aimed to manage the growth of A3 /entertainment uses in particular parts of the City. The boundaries of these Stress Areas were incorporated into the First Deposit draft replacement UDP.

(iii) Stress Area review following first deposit

Following the First Deposit draft replacement UDP consultation process the stress area boundaries were reviewed. The City Council took into account the views expressed by the Licensing Policy and Procedures Working Group at its meeting on 24th August. The Working Group asked that consideration be given to extending the West End Stress Area boundary north of Oxford Street and west of Regent Street, the Edgware Road Stress Area to include Seymour Place and review the Westbourne Terrace area in the Queensway/Bayswater Stress Area. The City Council also considered the objections received at First Deposit, mapped the areas (identifying ‘entertainment uses’ in terms of both planning and licensing) and carried out site inspections of the stress areas and environs. General amendments were also made to the areas to clarify boundaries e.g. boundaries now run along the middle of the road, where appropriate, to clearly indicate which side of the road is in the stress area.

(iv) The Stress Area boundaries have been reviewed again having regard to the representations received at Second Deposit. Minor changes have been made to the boundaries having regard to these objections [768] [843].

(72) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above and (g) below. [768] [843].

(73) (i) Defining Large Entertainment Uses

There has been a recent trend towards the establishment of larger bars, restaurants, night clubs and other entertainment uses. These large uses can be particularly harmful to residential amenity and can alter the character and function of an area. Large entertainment uses attract large numbers of people and therefore the locations of these types of uses should be adequately managed.

(ii) In defining large entertainment uses the City Council considered a number of current examples of what were considered to be large premises with large capacities of people and where there were in some cases, issues regarding residential amenity, and impacts on the local environment. Various methods of

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 858 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

calculating large premises were investigated. The Building Regulations were used, along with the examples of existing premises, as the main basis for calculating floorspace and capacities for A3 uses. This is a logical and reasonable approach which was upheld in the High Court regarding an appeal on 13 Market Place. Capacities and floorspace for D2 uses were calculated using current examples of large entertainment uses. These definitions recognise that there are differences between various types of entertainment uses. i.e. a bar and a restaurant. The large D2 definition has been amended to recognise that a casino use may differ from a nightclub in terms of floorspace and capacity ratios. [768] [843].

(74) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above.

(ii) It is considered that there is an adequate supply (e.g. 2,600 A3 uses in Westminster) of entertainment uses in the City and therefore further growth should be limited. [768] [843].

(75) (i) Entertainment use has been defined and included in the Glossary of the pre- Inquiry version of the Plan. [768] [843].

(76) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a), (e) and (g) above.

(ii) West End Stress Area revisions since First Deposit:

(77) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) and (g) above.

(ii) PPG6: There is nothing in Government Guidance which does not allow the designation of stress areas.

(iii) PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. In the Stress Areas allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on the residential amenity and local environment cannot be controlled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances in the stress areas.

(iv) There is a supply of entertainment uses in Westminster. It is not the City Council's aim to deplete this supply (see TACE 8(A)) however to manage future growth to minimise additional impacts. Public transport links are currently considered inadequate as they do not operate during the evening when customers spill out of venues following closing time of the Underground, for example. The City Council considers that the Underground should operate for

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 859 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

longer, at least on weekends to cater for current demand.

(vii) It is not considered unreasonable to impose conditions on use on planning permissions where it is to ensure that residential amenity is required to be protected. This is an approach which is often used by the Planning Inspectorate in planning appeals. [707]

(78) (i) There is nothing in Government Guidance or legislation which suggests that the City Council cannot distinguish between smaller and larger entertainment uses in setting policies for these. The approach is not considered to be introducing unilateral changes to legislation. [681]

(79) (i) Saturation

There is currently a ‘saturation’ or over- concentration of entertainment uses in the Stress Areas which is causing conflict with residents, visitors and workers. Saturation is considered to be where there is an over concentration of entertainment uses in an area which then results in environmental stress. It relates to the issue of balance where the vitality and viability of an area must be maintained and where an activity outgrows the capacity for public transport, policing and public services to cope with demand. The three designated Stress Areas are considered by the City Council to have reached this point of saturation or over concentration where growth needs to be managed to ensure detrimental effects are kept to a minimum. The City Council considers that the character and function of some areas are being eroded through the dominance of certain uses and their repercussions on the streets. [768]

(80) (i) Not agreed to delete the policy. Applications are considered on their merits having regard to the policy and other material considerations under S54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act. TACE 10(A) sets out the criteria in which applications will be considered. This replaces the criteria contained in SS3 (B) at 1st Deposit.

(ii) There has been a recent trend towards the establishment of larger bars, restaurants, night clubs and other entertainment uses. These large uses can be particularly harmful to residential amenity and can alter the character and function of an area. Large entertainment uses attract large numbers of people and therefore the locations of these types of uses should be adequately managed. Due to the overall growth in entertainment uses and the current over concentration in some areas and the impacts associated with that growth, future growth must be managed. The policy provides a management tool for limited growth of these uses to minimise addition impacts. See also response to this objector to policy SS13 at first deposit. [789].

(81) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above.

(ii) There is nothing specific in current Government Guidance which leads the City Council to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the Entertainment Policies is contrary or in conflict with this guidance. In particular the policies are consistent with PPG 6, PPG 12 and the draft London Plan.

PPG6

(iii) There is nothing in Government Guidance which does not allow the designation of stress areas. PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. In

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 860 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

the Stress Areas allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on the residential amenity and local environment cannot be controlled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances in the stress areas.

PPG12

(iv) The Entertainment policies fulfils the requirements of this PPG by providing clear policies on leisure uses, employment and wealth generating development. Chapter 4, on Sustainable Development indicates in paragraph 4.1 that thepPlanning system, development plans in particular, can make a major contribution to the achievement of the Government’s objectives for sustainable development.

(iv) Draft London Plan

The draft London Plan (2002) recognises that while London’s vibrant night-time economy is a major contributor to its world city status and that there is increasing demand for services to be provided later in the evening, the demands of the night time economy are concentrated in relatively small areas – key parts of Central London, especially the West End and in some town centres. (Paragraph 3D.27). Paragraph 3D.27 continues, “Longer opening hours contribute to the vibrancy and vitality of areas but can bring about their own problems, especially for the residents. Currently there are particular pressures on the West End.” Paragraph 3D.28 of the draft London Plan (2002) supports the City Council’s integrated response to tackling the wide range of issues associated with the night-time economy. Paragraph 3D.28 states that boroughs should ensure that planning, licensing, policing, transport and street management issues are managed through designated Entertainment Management Zones (EMZs). Although an EMZ has not been designated in the UDP the approach taken by the City Council in establishing a forum of agencies to co-ordinate issues affecting entertainment areas mirrors that envisaged in the draft London Plan.

(vi) Not agreed to delete or amend the entertainment policies to delete reference to the Stress Areas. Criteria are clearly set out in Policy TACE 10 and each application will be considered on its merits having regard to the policies and other material considerations under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act. [780] [491].

(82) (i) See the City Council’s response at (e) above. [64] [795].

(83) (i) It is City Council's aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(iii) There has been a recent trend towards the establishment of larger bars, restaurants, night clubs and other entertainment uses. These large uses can be

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 861 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

particularly harmful to residential amenity and can alter the character and function of an area. Large entertainment uses attract large numbers of people and therefore the locations of these types of uses should be adequately managed.

(iv) The City Council considers that different uses can cause different effects. This is often supported by the Planning Inspectorate when dealing with applications at appeal. This approach is not considered unreasonable. [777]

(84) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above.

(ii) The City Council does not agree with the decision made in this case regarding noise levels. Any additional noise is an increment to background noise levels and the current noise policies introduced at second deposit of the RUDP (which was after this decision) are designed to minimise these levels. [777]

(85) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above.

(ii) There has been a recent trend towards the establishment of larger bars, restaurants, night clubs and other entertainment uses. These large uses can be particularly harmful to residential amenity and can alter the character and function of an area. Large entertainment uses attract large numbers of people and therefore the locations of these types of uses should be adequately managed. It is considered that there is an over concentration of entertainment uses in the Stress Areas therefore the growth of further uses, particularly those which attract large amounts of people would exacerbate a current problem. [777]

(86) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above. Each application is considered on its merits having regard to the policy and other material considerations. [748]

(87) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above. [680]

(88) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a), (d) and (e) above. [821]

(89) (i) Not agreed. Under both policies consideration must be given to the circumstances of the case. This allows for flexibility and is a reasonable approach. All applications must also be considered under TACE 10 which addresses the issue of residential amenity and local environment. [10]

(90) (i) Material considerations will be considered when assessing applications for D2 uses. Each application will be considered on its merits. There has been a recent trend towards the establishment of larger bars, restaurants, night clubs and other entertainment uses. These large uses can be particularly harmful to residential amenity and can alter the character and function of an area. Large entertainment uses attract large numbers of people and therefore the locations of these types of uses should be adequately managed to ensure the protection of residential amenity, character and function of areas. [843].

(91) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above. [769].

(92) (i) Parts (C) & (D) agreement acknowledged.

(ii) (E) Exceptional Circumstances. See the City Council’s response at (a) above. The first bullet point could involve the conversion of a night club into a restaurant

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 862 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

which would generally have less impact on late night residential amenity, the particular application would still need to be considered on its merits.

(iii) 8.71m: Agreement acknowledged.

(iv) 8.71n: There is a need to provide some flexibility otherwise the statement becomes too restrictive and unreasonable.

(v) 8.71o: Support acknowledged. Some changes have been made to this paragraph in the pre-Inquiry version to recognise clearly that casinos under the current legislative framework warrant some special consideration, however if the legislation is changed during the life of the Plan, then changes to the Plan may be necessary. It is agreed that they should not have automatic exemption from the Plan.

(vi) 8.71p: This paragraph has been reworded to reflect this. [381].

(93) (i) 1.1 Noted. Not agreed that there are inconsistencies. 1.2 Support noted. Further changes have also been made in the Pre-Inquiry version of the Plan. 1.3 Noted. 1.4 Further changes have also been made in the Pre-Inquiry version of the Plan to clarify the position. Casinos could be considered exceptional circumstances depending on the proposal and the status of other regulation controlling casinos. 1.5 It is considered that the concerns raised by the BCA have been satisfied at Pre-Inquiry stage. 1.6 Noted 1.7 Further changes have also been made in the Pre-Inquiry version of the Plan to clarify the position. Casinos could be considered exceptional circumstances depending on the proposal and the status of other regulations controlling casinos. 1.8 Exceptional circumstances will apply depending on the proposal. This has been clarified in the paragraph. 1.9 It is not intended to exempt casinos from the requirements of TACE 8 & 9, however depending on the proposal exceptional circumstances could apply.

Not agreed to exclude casinos from the definition of an entertainment use. 1.10 Changes have already occurred to the legislation or are imminent, re: allowing alcohol to be drunk at gaming tables and permitting entertainment in Casinos. These changes are recognised in the Plan. City Council will still consider the impacts of the proposal. Recommended changes: not agreed in recommended format. However changes made to the Plan at pre inquiry stage to address some issues raised. [860]

(94) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) and (g) above. [693]

(95) (i) See the City Council’s response at (a) above. As the list is not exhaustive, an applicant could put forward an argument for 'replacement' and 'existing' in lodging a planning application. [853]

(96) (i) See the City Council’s response at (67) and (81) above. Not agreed that Policy TACE 9 is too prescriptive and inflexible. All applications are considered on their merits having regard to the policy and other material considerations under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act. These policies have been introduced for justifiable reasons.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 863 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) PPG 1: It is not considered that the policy is contrary to PPG 1. The aim of the policy is not to hinder growth but to manage growth and channel growth into other areas where there is less stress on the environment. The Guidance does not account for areas where growth has reached a level which is considered has been to an extent that it has led to problems relating to residential amenity, character and function.

(iii) PPG 15: It is not considered that the policy is contrary to this PPG as there is a policy provision which allows for exceptional circumstances and the change of use of a historic building to ensure its protection would warrant some consideration. Each application is considered on its merits.

(iv) PPG 21: Para 2.5 indicates that the preparation of statutory development plans should include existing and future provision for tourism and the relationship to other social, economic and environmental objectives. The policy provides for this but in specific locations having regard to local amenity and character issues. It is not considered that the policy is contrary to this guidance. There are other policies which support the growth in tourism. There is a need to attract a mix of uses to cater for the needs of all visitors, and the ensure that there is not one particular type of use which dominates. Attraction to return to the City is crucial.

(v) PPG 24: Refer to comments on the noise policy in chapter 9. TACE 10 accepts that noise must be a consideration when assessing an individual planning application. This is consistent with the PPG.

(vi) 9(A): Other material considerations will apply to this policy under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act. Therefore there could be exceptional circumstances that apply in a particular case. There is no need to amend the policy.

(vii) 9(B): Para 8.71h applies to this policy anyway. There is no need to amend the policy. The criteria in policy 8.71h is not and extensive list and therefore there could be other reasons/cases why exceptional circumstances should apply.

(viii) 9(C ): Not agreed to amend this policy. Other material considerations will apply to this policy under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act. Therefore there could be exceptional circumstances that apply in a particular case. There is no need to amend the policy.

(ix) 9(D): Not agreed to amend this policy. Other material considerations will apply to this policy under S54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, therefore there could be exceptional circumstances that apply in a particular case. There is no need to amend the policy.

(x) 9(E): Para 8.71h applies to this policy anyway. There is no need to amend the policy. The criteria in policy 8.71h are not an extensive list and therefore there could be other reasons or cases why exceptional circumstances should apply. [299].

(97) (i) See City Council’s response under (a) above. The effect of the proposed operation on amenity , local residents and the environment will be compared to the existing activity on site. TACE 10 sets out this criteria. [299]

(98) (i) See City Council’s response under (a), (d), (e) and (g) above.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 864 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Saturation

(ii) There is currently a ‘saturation’ of entertainment uses in the Stress Areas which are causing conflict with residents, visitors and workers. Saturation is considered to be where there is an over concentration of entertainment uses in an area which then results in environmental stress being present. It relates to the issue of balance where the vitality and viability of an area must be maintained. It is a situation where land use imbalance exists. It is where activity outgrows the capacity for public transport, policing and public services to cope with demand. The three designated Stress Areas are considered by the City Council to have reached this point of saturation or over concentration where growth needs to be managed to ensure impacts are kept to a minimum. [851]

(99) (i) See City Council’s response under (67) above. Other material considerations will need to be taken into account when considering a planning application. Each application will be considered on its merits having regard to the policy and other matters. [680]

(100) (i) See City Council’s response under (67) above. Paragraph 8.71p has been amended to ensure no inconsistency between Part (B) and this paragraph. Impact on amenity of a proposal is considered under TACE 10 in conjunction with TACE 9. [845]

(101) (i) See City Council’s response under (a) and (g) above.

(ii) Market Place: The Inspector considered this proposal not be defined as a large A3 use, but subsequently an appeal was lodged and the High Court ruled that the Inspector made a mistake in interpreting the policy and the decision made by the inspector was quashed on 9 November 2001. In addition, in considering the application the Inspector in the first instance did not take into consideration the matter of cumulative impact but had imposed conditions restricting the hours of operation (in line with Council's terminal hours) to minimise impacts. In relation to appeal decisions quoted: Wardour Street: The City Council did not agree with the assessment made by the Inspectorate on this occasion, however the Inspector did recognise that conditions should be imposed to restrict the use to a restaurant use only (300 seats) as it was considered that a bar would have unacceptable harmful effects on surrounding residential amenity. Conditions restricting the hours of operation were imposed in line with Council’s current terminal hours. It should be noted however that this decision was made prior to the introduction of Councils interim Policies on A3 uses (i.e. June 2000). [18] [66]

(102) (i) Change not agreed as other material considerations apply automatically under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act, therefore there is no need to insert the suggested wording into the policy. [826] [340] [264]

(103) (i) The definition of a large A3 use is contained in Appendix 8.1. This paragraph explains how exceptional circumstances will be considered in relation to large A3 uses and is considered reasonable. [768] [843]

(104) (i) See City Council’s response under (a) above. [680]

(105) (i) See City Council’s response under (a), (d), (e) and (g) above.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 865 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) The Use Classes Order has not yet been revised and therefore changes not confirmed. When it is revised the City Council is then able to amend the UDP where necessary to reflect the new changes. To make changes now would be considered premature.

Saturation

(iii) There is currently a ‘saturation’ or over- concentration of entertainment uses in the Stress Areas which are causing conflict with residents, visitors and workers. Saturation is considered to be where there is an over concentration of entertainment uses in an area which then results in environmental stress being present. It relates to the issue of balance where the vitality and viability of an area must be maintained. It is a situation where land use imbalance exists. It is where activity outgrows the capacity for public transport, policing and public services to cope with demand.

(iv) The three designated Stress Areas are considered by the City Council to have reached this point of saturation or over concentration where growth needs to be managed to ensure impacts are kept to a minimum.

(v) The City Council considers that the character and function of some areas is being eroded through the dominance of certain uses and the impacts which are occurring on the streets.

(vi) Policy TACE 10 provides clear criteria for applicants to consider and for City Council to consider applications against. [843]

(106) (i) Other material considerations will be considered when assessing applications for D2 uses. Each application will be considered on its merits.

(107) (i) The Use Classes Order has not yet been revised and therefore changes not confirmed. When it is revised the City Council is then able to amend the UDP where necessary to reflect the new changes. To make changes now would be considered premature. [768] [843]

(108) (i) See City Council’s response under (a) and (o) above. Applications are required under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to be considered on their merits having regard to the policy and other material considerations. [855]

(109) (i) There is nothing specific in current Government Guidance which leads the City Council to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the Entertainment policies is contrary or in conflict with the guidance in PPG6.

(ii) There is nothing in Government guidance which does not allow the designation of stress areas or policies to manage the growth of entertainment uses. PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. In the Stress Areas

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 866 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on the residential amenity and local environment cannot be controlled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances in the stress areas and other material considerations can apply. [768] [843]

(110) (i) See City Council’s response under (a) and (o) above. The City Council considers that cumulative impact needs to be taken into account. Applications can be considered on their merits having regard to the Policy and material considerations under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act. [777]

(111) (i) See City Council’s response under (a), (g) and (o) above. [532]

(112) (i) Support welcomed. [555] [381]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.10.3 As already stated, the degree of overlap, complexity and the somewhat repetitive nature of the various objections made to to Policies TACE 8-10 means that they will be considered together. Consideration will be given under the generic headings that have been used to group the various objections and the conclusions I have reached upon them collectively. The attached matrix schedule indicates under which heading(s) I have considered individual objections to Policy TACE 8. My conclusions are set out under these headings later in the report (see TA10):

Recommendations

SEE UNDER POLICY TACE 10 RECOMMENDATIONS

TA10: Criteria to Assess Entertainment Uses

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association 10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association) 18 Scottish & Newcastle Retail 64 Shaftesbury PLC 66 Restaurant Property Advisors' Society 68 Howard de Walden Estates 104 Consort House Residents Assn. 359 Manto Group 381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 491 Mercers Company 680 The Crown Estate 681 Bell Cornwell Partnership 693 Yates Group PLC 724 Grosvenor Limited 748 British Land Company PLC 757 Gascoyne Estate 768 Covent Garden Restaurant Association 769 Windmill Developments Ltd 777 J D Wetherspoon Plc 779 London Business School 780 Selfridges & Co.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 867 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

789 St George Plc 795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited) 803 Standard Life Assurance Company 841 The Office Bar 842 Body Shop International Plc 843 Westminster Licensees Association 843 Westminster Licensees Association 845 Ritterman Holdings 849 Nautilus Properties Ltd 851 Atlantic Bar and Grill 858 Fish! 860 Gala Leisure Ltd 33

TA10: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(1) (i) The circumstances where conditions could overcome potential adverse effects should be set out to enable applicants to better understand the anticipated level of control. Conditions of course, will have to meet the Governments tests as prescribed in circulars. Many conditions are likely to be unreasonable or such that they are unenforceable. [64]

(2) (i) TACE10(A) introduces the concept of character and function, which is difficult to define. Certain parts of the City are characterised by tourism, arts, culture and entertainment, and yet it is within these areas that the Unitary Development Plan seeks to restrict such uses.

(ii) In the light of the comment s set out above, the policy and reasoned justification needs to be reconsidered. [1]

(3) (i) As with TACE 9 and paragraph 8.71c, there is no basis in the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 for making this distinction within Classes A3 and D2 between 'large' and other premises. The UDP should not be used to introduce unilateral changes to primary legislation.

(ii) In paragraph 8.1.3, some of the restrictions proposed - such as waiter service only - are unreasonable, excessive and unenforceable, thereby failing the tests in Circular 11/95. [681]

(4) (i) This restriction is too wide ranging and doesn't allow each case to be treated on its merits. Concerns over residential amenity can be addressed by suitable conditions. Furthermore, folding doors can provide a quick and safe means of exit into the street in case of fire or other emergency, whereas fixed lobbies can impede the evacuation of customers and staff. [681]

(5) (i) The requirement upon applicants to supply details of air conditioning plant and ducting as part of any application for extensions to entertainments premises or changes of use is excessive and unnecessary. The approval of such details before the works or use commence can be sought via a condition on any permission issued. The requirement to provide the information as part of the initial application inevitably causes delay in the submission and processing of applications, often resulting in development proposals being shelved, even if permission is ultimately granted. [681]

(6) (i) Object to the deletion of the word "or" in line 3 because it combines two separate conditions into one, more restrictive one. [10]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 868 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(7) (i) In the light of objections to TACE policies, the Appendix should be reviewed. [68]

(8) (i) TACE 10 (A) introduces the concept of character and function, which is difficult to define. Certain parts of the City are characterised by tourism, arts, culture and entertainment, and yet it is within these areas that the Unitary Development Plan seeks to restrict such uses.

(ii) TACE 10 (B) - Entertainment uses have subsisted in close proximity to existing residential accommodation in many instances without difficulty. The policy approach is too restrictive.

(iii) TACE 10 (C) - The use of conditions may be appropriate. The policy, however, requires amendment in the light of other objections made, for example, in respect of terminal hours.

(iv) In the light of the comments set out above, the policy and reasoned justification needs to be reconsidered. [68]

(9) (i) TACE 10 (A) introduces the concept of character and function, which is difficult to define. Certain parts of the City are characterised by tourism, arts, culture and entertainment, and yet it is within these areas that the Unitary Development Plan seeks to restrict such uses.

(ii) TACE10 (B) - Entertainment uses have subsisted in close proximity to existing residential accommodation in many instances without difficulty. The policy approach is too restrictive.

(iii) TACE 10 (C) - The use of conditions may be appropriate. The policy, however requires amendment in the light of other objections made, for example, in respect of terminal hours.

(iv) In light of the comments set out above, the policy and reasoned justification needs to be reconsidered. [757]

(10) (i) Recommend that this policy is deleted and, in accordance with our objections to Policy TACE 9, a criteria based policy is adopted for the assessment of entertainment uses to ensure that such uses are not permitted in environmentally sensitive locations. [789]

(11) (i) Parts (A) and (B) of this policy are effectively a transfer from Policies SS6(D) and SS6(E) in the First Deposit draft. Our objections to these have not been addressed. Part (C) of this policy is derived from Policy SS3 in the First Deposit draft. Our objections to this policy have also not been addressed.

(ii) For the reasons given in our objections to Policies TACE8 and TACE9, (original objections to Policies SS3, SS6 and SS13), this ‘blanket approach’ is contrary to national and strategic planning guidance. There should be a positive approach to A3/entertainment uses, with clear policy criteria against which proposals can be assessed. Delete Policy TACE 10.

(iii) Please also refer to comments made in respect of Policies TACE 8 and TACE 9. [780]

(12) (i) Parts (A) and (B) of this policy are effectively a transfer from Policies SS6(D) and SS6(E) in the First Deposit draft. Our objections to these have not been

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 869 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

addressed. Part (C) of this policy is derived from Policy SS3 in the First Deposit draft. Our objections to this policy have also not been addressed.

(iii) Please also refer to comments made in respect of Policies TACE 8 and TACE 9. [491]

(13) (i) The policy provides very little in the way of criteria for assessing entertainment uses, save to make it abundantly clear that there is now to be a presumption against such uses, with applicants in future having to justify why their application should be permitted as opposed to the local authority having to give soundly based reasons why development should not proceed. The notion that entertainment uses cannot be reconciled with residential uses is ridiculous, particularly given the already large quantity of entertainment uses that exist below, adjacent or in the vicinity of residential property.

(ii) The policy could be very much more encouraging of those proposals that come forward which improve amenities and local environmental standards through the provision of particular environmental benefits that are sought elsewhere in the plan e.g. refuse handling facilities that may not otherwise have been provided. [803]

(14) (i) The circumstances where conditions could overcome potential adverse effects should be set out to enable applicants to better understand the anticipated level of control. Conditions of course, will have to meet the Governments tests as prescribed in circulars. Many conditions are likely to be unreasonable or such that they are unenforceable. [803]

(15) (i) For the reasons outlined in our objection to Policy TACE 8, we consider that Policy TACE10 is also unduly restrictive when assessing the criteria for entertainment uses in the West End. The West End is at the heart of a world city and not a quiet residential backwater [842]

(16) (i) Do not agree with the weight attached in terms of the applicant having to demonstrate, in all cases, that development would have no detrimental impact upon residential amenity. Fundamentally, as expressed above, there should not be a presumption against new/ extended Class A3/ entertainment uses.

(ii) Notwithstanding this, at paragraph 8.71t the criteria are outlined against which applications will be assessed, reiterate our concern with regard to the Council’s consideration of the ‘type of operation proposed’, and to the ‘size of the unit proposed’. The presumption that bars and pubs are less desirable than restaurants is inaccurate. An A3 use can incorporate many elements. In relation to both, there are appropriate mitigating measures including a ‘no-music’ policy, restrictions on servicing, terminal hour and noise attenuation, which can be imposed by way of condition which would ensure that neither would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact either in terms of residential amenity or on the local environment. [777]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 870 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(17) (i) TACE 10(B) - Entertainment uses have subsisted in close proximity to existing residential accommodation in many instances without difficulty. The policy approach is too restrictive.

(ii) In the light of the comment set out above, the policy and reasoned justification needs to be reconsidered. [1]

(18) (i) TACE 0(C) - The use of conditions may be appropriate. The policy, however, requires amendment in the light of other objections made, for example, in respect of terminal hours.

(ii) In the light of the comment s set out above, the policy and reasoned justification needs to be reconsidered. [1]

(19) (i) In the light of objections to TACE policies, the Appendix should be reviewed [1]

(20) (i) TACE10(A) introduces the concept of character and function, which is difficult to define. Certain parts of the City are characterised by tourism, arts, culture and entertainment, and yet it is within these areas that the Unitary Development Plan seeks to restrict such uses.

(ii) TACE10(B) - Entertainment uses have subsisted in close proximity to existing residential accommodation in many instances without difficulty. The policy approach is too restrictive.

(iii) TACE10(C) - The use of conditions may be appropriate. The policy, however, requires amendment in the light of other objections made, for example, in respect of terminal hours.

(iv) The policy and reasoned justification needs to be reconsidered. [724]

(21) (i) In the light of objections to TACE policies, the Appendix should be reviewed. [724]

(22) (i) The criteria for defining large entertainment premises give rise to an unreasonably small maximum number of potential patrons. The threshold reduction from the figure given in the first deposit draft is unreasonable. The use of thresholds based upon the number of patrons is inappropriate given the unenforceability of conditions restricting such numbers. [64]

(23) (i) The policy provides very little in the way of criteria for assessing entertainment uses, save to make it abundantly clear that there is now to be a presumption against such uses, with applicants in future having to justify why their application should be permitted as opposed to the local authority having to give soundly based reasons why development should not proceed. [64]

(24) (i) The notion that entertainment uses cannot be reconciled with residential uses is ridiculous, particularly given the already large quantity of entertainment uses that exist below, adjacent or in the vicinity of residential property.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 871 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(25) (i) Whilst consider the development of SPGs could potentially be useful in identifying the character of smaller areas within the CAZ, cannot comment with regard to this paragraph, save for reserving the right to comment on the draft SPGs. Object to the Council's use of the forthcoming SPGs as a means by which to reinforce their strong presumption against A3/ entertainment uses. [777]

(26) (i) There is a presumption against open shopfronts, and this is based upon the Council's assumption that A3 premises/ entertainment uses can lead to noise and smells permeating into the street. Object to the presumption against, and to the assumption that an A3/ entertainment would necessarily have a detrimental impact. This approach runs contrary to a national objective of enhancing vitality and the evening economy. [777]

(27) (i) Previously set out within Appendix 7.3 of the First Deposit Plan, the definition of 'large' A3 uses is based upon the fire standards, which for public houses consist of accommodating 200 customers or 500 square metres gross floorspace. These figures are arbitrary and not comparable. For example a customer floorspace of approximately 100 square metres would generally be able to accommodate 200 customers whereas a gross floorspace of 500 square metres would result in a customer floorspace of between 250-300 square metres, with a considerably greater number of customers. The assumptions made regarding the definitions of large A3 uses, specific types of A3 uses and their potential impacts are substantially inaccurate and not based upon any sound justification. The definition takes no account of operating characteristics or the type of A3 use, which in practice can encompass several elements of restaurant, café, public house and/or wine bar.

(ii) If retained, Appendix 8.1 should set out the criteria against which such uses will be assessed. The wording stating that such uses are acceptable only in 'exceptional circumstances' does not comply with government guidance. The policy presumption again needs to be changed to reflect the appropriate balance between residential and commercial uses within the centre of a world city.

(iii) The definition for large A3 uses is based upon incorrect assumptions that larger uses necessary create a greater degree of disturbance than smaller A3 uses. There is no justification for this stance which ignores important factors such as operating characteristics. [777]

(28) (i) The policy provides very little in the way of criteria for assessing entertainment uses, save to make it abundantly clear that there is now to be a presumption against such uses, with applicants in future having to justify why their application should be permitted as opposed to the local authority having to give soundly based reasons why development should not proceed. The notion that entertainment uses cannot be reconciled with residential uses is absurd, particularly given the already large quantity of entertainment uses that exist below, adjacent or in the vicinity of residential property.

(29) (i) The circumstances where conditions could overcome potential adverse effects should be set out to enable applicants to better understand the anticipated level

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 872 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

of control. Conditions of course, will have to meet the Governments tests as prescribed in circulars. Many conditions are likely to be unreasonable or such that they are unenforceable. [795]

(30) (i) Entertainment uses should be defined. In any event these are matters which can be addressed through the Licensing regime. [768]

(31) (i) The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal is adequate in amenity terms. Such justification should be in supporting text not part of the policy. [748]

(32) (i) The last sentence of policy TACE10 is more appropriate for inclusion in the supporting text rather than the main body of the policy [845]

(33) (i) The policy is too restrictive, especially when taken together with policies TACE 8 and 9, and is arbitrary. [769]

(34) (i) The policy is too restrictive in terms of the amount of information required to be provided by the applicant. It should take into account differences in the size and nature of the individual proposal. [779]

(35) (i) Object to the changes to this policy which now set criteria for assessing entertainment uses.

(ii) This policy would be generally unnecessary if amendment and clarification to policies TACE8 and 9. Policy TACE10 in effect seeks to preclude development for entertainment uses where they will adversely affect residential amenity, although it extends this consideration to encompass environmental quality and erosion of established character and function. The objective of restricting some entertainment uses which lead to anti-social behaviour and loss of residential amenity etc., would be achieved without this policy, which appears to duplicate the requirements of TACE8 and 9.

(iii) Object to the change to this policy in relation to the inclusion of an additional criterion, that being erosion of the established character of the function of a locality. It is clear from the approach of the Local Plan to entertainment uses and in particular, the West End Entertainment Impact Study carried out by Town Centres Limited, that the established character of a number of areas is a matter of concern. The objectives of the policies TACE8 and 9 and indeed 10, as drafted, would appear to change the established character in relation to certain aspects of that character. The policy is therefore internally contradictory and reference to established character should therefore be omitted.

(iv) Object to the proposed change to the policy which introduces an obligation upon applicants to demonstrate the proposed new entertainment use or extensions to existing uses which would not cause harm to residential amenity, environmental quality or established character. It is inherently difficult to prove a negative i.e. that a particular form of development would not have a particular effect. This is also contrary to the general principle upon which the planning system operates i.e. that planning permission should be granted unless a proposal would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

(v) In parallel with other objections submitted on behalf of Gala Casinos, objection is made to the use of the term “entertainment use” in policy TACE10 without adequate definition of the term “entertainment use”. In particular, it is

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 873 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

recommended in other objection that definition of this term exclude casino and bingo use.

(vi) Further objection is made to policy TACE10 on the basis of the changes from its original form, which apparently relates exclusively to A3 uses. It would appear to be no justification for extension of the restrictive approach taken in the revised wording.

(vii) Policy TACE10 should be amended by the deletion of reference to established character, to the onus being placed upon the applicant to demonstrate a proposed new use would not cause harm and to the inclusion of the term “entertainment use” as opposed to general A3 use in the policy unless this term is redefined in accordance with objections submitted in respect to paragraphs 8.63d and 8.1.4 to 8.1.6. [860]

(36) (i) There are no objections to part (A) of the Policy TACE10. However, parts (B) & (C) are unnecessary as part (A) adequately covers issues of residential dis- amenity.

(ii) There is a strong underlying presumption in Part (B) that appropriate entertainment uses will not be allowed under, over, adjacent or opposite residential accommodation notwithstanding the Council’s response to our earlier objections to SS3(C), now TACE 10 (B), that this new section is now more flexible and criteria based.

(iii) In response to Part (C), formerly SS3(D)), our objection still remains as it seeks to remove the benefits of the Use Classes Order 1987 and is contrary to advice contained in Circular 11/95 which states that a condition which restricts future changes of use that the Use Classes Order would otherwise allow, should not be applied save in exceptional circumstances. The fact that Inspectors may chose to impose such conditions is done on the basis of all the facts of the case being provided whereas this policy is being used to justify the imposition of such conditions making them subject to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Once the purpose for such conditions is enshrined in policy, they cease to be used only in exceptional circumstances. [693]

(37) (i) Paragraph 8.71ac. Much of this paragraph repeats, word for word, what is said in paragraph 8.65c [859]

(38) (i) Paragraph 8.71w. It is stated that open shopfronts “can be energy inefficient”. This statement is technically incorrect and should not be relied upon as a material consideration. [859]

(39) (i) Paragraph 8.71t. See above comments on policy TACE 10. [859]

(40) (i) The policy states that “the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that a proposed new entertainment use, or a variation in opening hours would not cause harm to residential amenity, environmental quality, or the established character and function of various parts of the city”.

(ii) Although most applicants will submit information demonstrating that their proposed use etc. would not cause an unacceptable impact on residential amenity, we believe that the onus is actually on the City Council to demonstrate that a proposal would have an unacceptable impact if they decided to refuse the application. There are many examples of appeals being dismissed, and costs

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 874 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

being awarded against Council’s because the LPA has behaved unreasonably, because, for example, they have been unable to substantiate reasons for refusal on appeal.

(iii) Suggest that this part of the policy might be reworded as follows:

…The City Council will consider whether a proposed new entertainment use, or an extension to an existing entertainment use, or a variation in opening hours against evidence as to whether it will cause harm to residential amenity, environmental quality, or the established character and function of various parts of the city. Any information submitted by the applicant in this respect will be taken into account when the Council considers the planning application." [359]

(41) (i) Much of this paragraph repeats, word for word, what is said in paragraph 8.65c [858]

(42) (i) It is stated that open shopfronts “can be energy inefficient”. This statement is technically incorrect and should not be relied upon as a material consideration. [858]

(43) (i) See comments on policy TACE 10. [858]

(44) (i) The policy states that “the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that a proposed new entertainment use, or a variation in opening hours would not cause harm to residential amenity, environmental quality, or the established character and function of various parts of the city”. Although most applicants will submit information demonstrating that their proposed use etc. would not cause an unacceptable impact on residential amenity, believe that the onus is actually on the City Council to demonstrate that a proposal would have an unacceptable impact if they decided to refuse the application. There are many examples of appeals being dismissed, and costs being awarded against Councils because the LPA has behaved unreasonably, because, for example, they have been unable to substantiate reasons for refusal on appeal.

(ii) Reworded policy as follows:

(45) (i) The Policy is unnecessary. The amount of entertainment uses has not reached a level of saturation justifying any restriction on such uses. It is not accepted that planning harm arises necessarily from such uses. It is important that this part of London which has traditionally been used for entertainment purposes flourishes in the context of London as a world city. There is no need for the terminal hours restriction of 1am. Alternatively the policy should be amended to ensure that the planning considerations are balanced properly. [851]

(46) (i) For reasons outlined in our objection to Policy TACE 8, consider that Policy TACE 10 is also unduly restrictive when assessing the criteria for entertainment uses in the West End. The West End is at the heart of a world city and not a quiet residential backwater. [841]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 875 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(47) (i) Object to the onus being on the applicant to prove the case, particularly where there is no evidence that harm has been caused. Such a policy in our fundamentally and unjustifiably affects the balance in planning matters. Moreover it could lead to smaller operators finding it more difficult to operate in the West End. This would lead to preponderance of large operators only. The overwhelming majority of bars and restaurants in the West End are run by independent small operators, and these form the bulk of the membership of the WLA. If these proposals were confirmed, the net effect would be to change the fundamental nature of the market place. [843] [768]

(48) (i) There is no reason why it is necessary to state that acoustic lobbies may also be required in the case of open shop-fronts. This implies that there is necessarily something objectionable with open shop-fronts with regard to noise and odours. This of course is not true since these matters can be conditioned within any planning permission. [768]

(49) (i) The Council is correct in stating that conditions may overcome potential adverse effects of a proposal. This is one of the very reasons why the above amendments and indeed the general thrust of policies TACE 8, 9 and 10 are unnecessary. [768]

(50) (i) Do not agree with the word “often”. If another word is necessary as a substitute a more suitable word would be “may”. [768]

(51) (i) Insofar as this paragraph cross-refers to other parts of the UDP and to SPG, the CGRA reiterate that that CAZ has been the traditional home of entertainment. It does not accept that increase in entertainment uses need cause problems. Its membership does not see the necessity or the reasonableness of entering into planning obligations or otherwise funding improvements to the matters referred to in Chapter 1. [768]

(52) (i) Object to Policy TACE10. The policy as proposed to be changed now encompasses a blanket approach to the control of entertainment uses with the potential for wide and unclear interpretation. In London’s role as a World City, international attraction and entertainment centre (as endorsed by STRA1), a policy on assessing entertainment uses should not include a presumption against such forms of development. In recognition of London’s status and culture, such a policy should seek to recognise the balance that needs to be made between promotion of the city as an entertainment destination and a place to live and work. [849]

(53) (i) Policy TACE10 should be amended to remove the presumption against entertainment uses. The Policy and supporting paragraphs should also be amended to include a greater recognition of the balance that should be achieved in Westminster to ensure it remains a key “World City” attraction. [849]

(54) (i) Entertainment uses should be defined. In any event these are matters which can be addressed through the Licensing regime. [843]

(55) (i) Reiterate the original objections raised in relation to policies SS3, SS6 and SS13 during the first deposit stage of the UDP review. Objection is raised to the principle of defining stress area within central London where permission for new A3 uses or extensions to existing uses or hours of operation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Central London is at the heart of London as a World City and the imposition of such a negatively worded policy is wholly

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 876 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

inappropriate given one of the strategic UDP aims of enhancing the attraction of London as a world city. It is acknowledged that there is an issue regarding the impact of A3 use on residential amenity in parts of Westminster but a suitable policy ought to be drafted which would ensure that individual applications for A3 uses within the stress areas would considered having regard to their potential impact on residential amenity. The policy and reasoned justification should be considered in light of the above [680]

(56) (i) There is no reason why it is necessary to state that acoustic lobbies may also be required in the case of open shop-fronts. This implies that there is necessarily something objectionable with open shop-fronts with regard to noise and odours. This of course is not true since these matters can be conditioned within any planning permission. [843]

(57) (i) The Council is correct in stating that conditions may overcome potential adverse effects of a proposal. This is one of the very reasons why the above amendments and indeed the general thrust of policies TACE 8, 9 and 10 are unnecessary. [843]

(58) (i) Do not agree with the word “often”. If another word is necessary as a substitute a more suitable word would be “may”.[843]

(59) (i) While it is recognised that some areas of Westminster have insufficient public toilet facilities this is an issue which should be addressed through town centre management, not on an ad-hoc basis when determining applications for A3 uses. The imposition of such conditions or the requirement of Section 106 agreements requiring the same is unduly onerous and it is therefore proposed that all reference to this provision be deleted. [18]

(60) (i) While it is recognised that some areas of Westminster have insufficient public toilet facilities this is an issue which should be addressed through town centre management, not on an ad-hoc basis when determining applications for A3 uses. The imposition of such conditions or the requirement of Section 106 agreements requiring the same is unduly onerous and it is proposed that all reference to this provision be deleted. [66]

(61) (i) The policy states that “the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that a proposed new entertainment use, or a variation in opening hours would not cause harm to residential amenity, environmental quality, or the established character and function of various parts of the city”.

(ii) Although most applicants will submit information demonstrating that their proposed use etc. would not cause an unacceptable impact on residential amenity, believe that the onus is actually on the City Council to demonstrate that a proposal would have an unacceptable impact if they decided to refuse the application. There are many examples of appeals being dismissed, and cost being awarded against Councils because the LPA has behaved unreasonably, because, for example, they have been unable to substantiate reasons for refusal on appeal.

(iii) Reword policy as follows:

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 877 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

environmental quality, or the established character and function of various parts of the city. Any information submitted by the applicant in this respect will be taken into account when the Council considers the planning application." [859]

(62) (i) Do not agree with the word “often”. If another word is necessary as a substitute a more suitable word would be “may”. [768]

(63) (i) The onus referred to in this policy is unreasonable and every application should be dealt with on its own merits without the need for such a policy. [843]

(64) (i) In the second line, the 'test' should be: "...seriously harm residential amenity…", otherwise relatively minor changes could result in permission being refused even though no material harm will actually be caused.

(ii) In the second sentence, the words: "The onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate that a…" should be deleted. We suggest that the sentence should start with "Any…" and "..would…" is replaced with "...should…". That change will correctly shift the onus of proof onto the Council to demonstrate that actual harm to amenity will result from any proposal for development. [681]

(65) (i) Object to the weight attached to the protection of residential amenity. Whilst we accept that the effect of residential amenity and local environment are relevant considerations, they should be assessed in the context of Westminster’s role as a World Class City. [777]

(66) (i) The onus referred to in this policy is unreasonable and every application should be dealt with on its own merits without the need for such a policy. [768]

(67) (i) TACE 10 (B) is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on a residential property opposite or adjacent to the site.

(ii) In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS6 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1046757 at 3-4 Vere Street, W1, dated 13 November 2000) concluding that residential flats above the application site would not be adversely affected by the proposed use. The policy is not supported by additional text or justification detailing why residential accommodation above, below or opposite an entertainment use would necessarily be adversely effected and there is no recognition that the use of appropriate soundproofing and conditions could overcome possible problems. It is therefore proposed that Policy TACE 10 (B) be deleted. [66]

(68) (i) TACE 10 (B) is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on a residential property opposite or adjacent to the site. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS6 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1046757 at 3-4 Vere Street, W1, dated 13 November 2000) concluding that residential flats above the application site would not be adversely affected by the proposed use. The policy is not supported by additional text or justification detailing why residential accommodation above, below or opposite an entertainment use would necessarily be adversely effected and there is no recognition that the use of appropriate soundproofing and conditions could overcome possible problems. It is therefore proposed that Policy TACE 10 (B) be deleted. [18]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 878 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(69) (i) The third line should read "...existing permanent residential accommodation…"

(ii) The final words "...in the vicinity of the application site." are superfluous. [681]

(70) (i) Acknowledge that the wording of the policy has been amended such as to avoid potential obstructions to the creation of mixed-use development, and amends the previous potential variety of interpretations. However, the wording ‘above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation’ is, unnecessary and cumbersome, and for this reason should be deleted. The removal of this section of the policy would not affect the underlying intention of safeguarding against any adverse impact upon residential amenity.[777]

(71) (i) Entertainment uses need to be defined and it is premature to do so at the moment. The same observation applies to TACE10 (C) [768]

(72) (i) Entertainment uses need to be defined and it is premature to do so at the moment. The same observation as with B applies.[843]

(73) (i) TACE 10 (C), 8.63c, 8.71I, 8.71z are contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order, 1987, which advises against the imposition of conditions imposing restrictions within a Use Class. In Part 3B – Rules and Orders it is stated that:

(ii) Given that there is a specific presumption against such conditions it is considered that the Council is unreasonable in proposing a policy that would impose them as a matter of course. Where it may be necessary to impose such a condition it can be done without the support of a policy and it is therefore considered that references to conditions should be removed from the Council’s proposed policies. It is therefore proposed that all references to the imposition of conditions as a matter of course be deleted. [18]

(74) (i) The following policies and paragraphs of supporting text all refer to the concept. It is considered that the introduction of “Terminal Hours” is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on local residential amenity. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS3 (now Policy TACE 10) (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1035299 at 40 – 44 Great Windmill Street, W1, dated 4 December 2000), concluding an extension of opening hours for the existing A3 use until 3am would not adversely affect local residential amenity. It is therefore proposed that the concept of “terminal hours”, and all references to them are deleted. [18]

(75) (i) It is considered that the introduction of “Terminal Hours” is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on local residential amenity. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS3 (now Policy TACE 10) (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1035299 at 40 – 44 Great Windmill Street, W1, dated 4 December 2000), concluding an extension of opening hours for the existing A3 use until 3am would not adversely affect local residential amenity. It

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 879 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

is therefore proposed that the concept of “terminal hours”, and all references to them are deleted. [66]

(76) (i) This first part of this policy should be deleted. It seeks to unreasonably make distinctions within A3 class in the 1987 Use Classes Order. [681]

(77) (i) TACE10(C), 8.63c, 8.71l, 8.71z are contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order, 1987, which advises against the imposition of conditions imposing restrictions within a Use Class. In Part 3B – Rules and Orders it is stated that:

(78) (i) The policy does not explain the term ‘where appropriate’ and it must be assumed therefore that this will be applied arbitrarily. On this basis, object to Policy TACE 10 (C).

(ii) Throughout the shopping policy, and indeed more generally throughout the plan, it is implied that bars and pubs have a greater detrimental impact upon residential amenity than do restaurant uses. In this section, the example given suggests that a permission may be limited to a restaurant use to the preclusion of bars. It is inaccurate to assume that such uses have a greater impact upon residential amenity. For example large restaurants which have both a seating and (slightly smaller) standing capacity with a bar area selling drinks (with attractions such as ‘happy hours’) are not dissimilar in terms of their impact on residential amenity and the local environment. Applications for Class A3 use should therefore be looked at on their merits, and should not be subject to a generalisation because of its type of operation. The specified characteristics are more important than the use. [777]

TA10: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements to Shopping Policies that are now transferred into TACE policies

(79) (i) Parts (D-F) of Policy SS 6 have been deleted, and replaced with Parts (A-C) of Policy TACE 10. Part (G) of Policy SS 6 has been replaced with Policy TACE 8.

(ii) See comments on policies TACE 8 and 10.

(iii) At paragraph 7.74, the Council states their wish to prevent the concentration and intensification of non-A1 units. The consideration that 3 non-retail units constitutes ‘harm’ on the basis of undermining the shopping function, affecting the character and causing environmental and amenity problems, is not necessarily accurate. Many non-retail uses actively support retail areas in terms of vitality and viability and diversity, and often attract similar or greater pedestrian

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 880 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

flows than retail units. Each application should therefore be looked at on its merits in terms of physical and functional break in any retail parade and impact upon vitality and viability. [777]

(80) (i) The West End Stress Area designation should be deleted.

(ii) The West End Stress Area designation is far too widely drawn. The area of stress within the CAZ, which the policies aim to alleviate, can be more tightly defined to those areas around the Covent Garden Market buildings/piazza and Bedford Street in Covent Garden and old Compton Street/Dean Street within Soho. If the concept is to remain, and we strongly counsel against it, then a revised boundary to the Stress Area needs to be formulated on the Proposals Map Plan.

(iii) The existing concentration of entertainment functions are perhaps a factor of the success of the previous Plans' "Entertainment Route" policy. A similar, more positive policy should be formulated to identify those localities within the CAZ where new entertainment facilities might be encouraged, in areas away from the primary residential concentrations but where support can be given to established retail facilities. [108]

(81) (i) Policy SS 6 D has been deleted, although its intention of, inter alia, protecting residential amenity is reflected within Policy TACE 10 A. See comments on TACE 10A.

(ii) The assessment of whether unacceptable harm would occur must be made in light of the CAZ location with residential amenity being of secondary importance. [777]

(82) (i) Policy SS 6 E has been deleted, although its intention is provided for by way of Policy TACE 10 B. Given the proposed changes to the policy, the wording ‘above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation’ is, in our view, unnecessary and cumbersome, and for this reason should be deleted.

(ii) See comments on TACE 10B

(iii) This further restricts the location of Class A3 establishments. However, in our view this section clearly contradicts an important national and local objective of encouraging a mixture of uses. The diversity of uses which is considered desirable has to mean that those residing in nearby or adjoining properties within commercial locations cannot benefit from the same amenities as others might expect in less commercial locations.

(iv) In addition, there are many examples of Class A3 and C3 uses juxtaposed immediately next to one another where the former has not had a detrimental impact upon the latter. Our clients have successfully converted a significant number of premises throughout the UK under or directly adjacent to residential properties with no significant detrimental impact upon residents and no complaints.

(v) Notwithstanding this, however, the wording of the policy is vague in terms of whether or not the section refers to the ‘immediate’ proximity of a Class A3 use next to residential use. For example, it could technically prevent an A3 use at ground level with offices above and a residential use on the upper floors. Alternatively, an A3 use would be contrary to policy if the proposal was opposite

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 881 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

a residential property on the other side of a busy main road, even though there would be no detrimental impact on residents amenity.

(vi) This inappropriately assumes all A3 uses have an adverse impact on residential amenity. The proposed wording will discourage urban diversity and mix of uses, contrary to government guidance. [777]

(83) (i) Policy SS 6 F has been deleted, although its intention is provided for by way of Policy TACE 10 C. Maintain - see comments on TACE 10C

(ii) The policy does not explain the term ‘where appropriate’ and it must be assumed therefore that this will be applied arbitrarily as with other such unexplained phrases in the plan. On that basis we object to Policy SS6(F).

(iii) Throughout the shopping policy, and indeed more generally throughout the plan, it is implied that bars and pubs have a greater detrimental impact upon residential amenity than do restaurant uses. In this section, the example given suggests that a permission may be limited to a restaurant use to the preclusion of bars. It is inaccurate to assume that such uses have a greater impact upon residential amenity. For example large restaurants which have both a seating and (slightly smaller) standing capacity with a bar area selling drinks (with attractions such as ‘happy hours’) are not dissimilar in terms of their impact on residential amenity and the local environment to our clients which have a large seating capacity for the consumption of hot, ‘bistro’ type food. Applications for Class A3 use should therefore be looked at on their merits, and should not be subject to a generalisation because of its type of on site operation. The characteristics are more important than the use. [777]

(84) (i) see comments on Policy TACE 8 A and B.

(ii) The designated ‘stress areas’ are at the heart of a World City, and as such are entirely appropriate locations for Class A3 use in terms of PPG6, and PPG13. The presumption against A3 uses in ‘stress areas’ therefore runs contrary to national guidance, and effectively shifts the responsibility for accommodating Class A3 uses to less commercial locations where there are very limited ‘acceptable’ opportunities in terms of amenity. It also passes the responsibility to adjoining boroughs which threatens the future stagnation of the City.

(iii) Furthermore, SSG6 (G) ambiguous in that it does not provide an explanation of what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’. It is therefore difficult for the developer to establish whether or not a Class A3 development would be considered acceptable within one of the 3 ‘stress areas’. Even if the objectives of the policy were met the proposal would be contrary as there is no explanation of exceptional circumstance. On this matter, in a recent appeal at 40-44 Windmill Street (Decision 4/12/00) the Inspector considered that given the high levels of background noise in the vicinity late at night from traffic and late night uses, the proposal would not result in additional noise and disturbance to residents. At paragraph 20 the Inspector considered that the existing high background noise levels in the vicinity during the late evening represented ‘exceptional circumstances’ which addressed policy SS16 (now policy SS13). We maintain that each application should be assessed on its merits, with an explanation given to what may be considered ‘exceptional circumstance’ for A3 uses or guidance provided regarding the objectives to be met for proposals to be considered ‘exceptional’.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 882 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iv) Consider the ‘exceptional circumstance’ wording to be inappropriate with the stress areas within which are an appropriate location of a World City, and consider that criteria should be included setting out the factors against which such uses will be judged.

(v) Consider that the policy should be amended to reflect the above comments with the deletion of criteria (e) and (f). [777]

(85) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

Now paragraphs 8.71, 8.71g, and 8.71q.

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

At paragraph 7.72, it states that:

‘the City Council will also support strategies that encourage the dispersal of bars, restaurants and entertainment uses to areas outside Westminster which are seeking to promote a more 24 hour city’.

(iii) Firstly, this suggests that whilst the draft policies seek to restrict late night activity on the basis of safeguarding residential amenity, the transposition of such uses to areas beyond the City boundary to areas where there is less commercial activity is considered acceptable by the Council. We would reiterate that there cannot be a more appropriate location for such uses than at the heart of a World City and the intention to prevent further A3 uses does not sit with the other strategic objectives. Secondly, the responsibility of accommodating Class A3 uses should not be passed to adjoining boroughs which are likely to be less appropriate locations, particularly given that tourists expect certain facilities to be available within the City, and are unlikely to travel further a field for entertainment uses. [777]

(86) (i) The conflict in the Council’s objectives is clearly evidenced by way of paragraph 7.59 which sets out the ‘aim’ of Policy SS6, which recognises the need for a ‘balance’ between commercial and residential uses but places the emphasis and priority on the latter. The weight attached to residential amenity is inappropriate in and inconsistent with a World City.

(ii) In terms of uses considered to be appropriate within the CAZ, the Council states that:

‘the plan guides non-residential uses, mainly to an area of central Westminster defined as the CAZ where such activities are better related to the existing character, infrastructure, transport facilities and environment’ (paragraph 1.6).

(iii) We would infer that commercial uses are therefore considered to be best located within the CAZ and that residential use will carry less importance. This view is not, however, reflected within any of the policies contained within the shopping chapter. This policy conflicts with government guidance and strategic policies STRA 1-3 of this plan. [777]

(87) (i) Refer also to objections made in respect of Policy TACE 10.

(ii) Parts (C), (D) and (E) of this policy are unnecessarily restrictive in preventing A3 uses near any residential premises, without consideration of the particular circumstances which may apply to individual proposals. Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 883 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) For the reasons given in our objections to Policies SS 3 and SS 13, this "blanket approach is contrary to national and strategic planning guidance. There should be a positive approach to A3 uses, with clear policy criteria against which proposals can be assessed.

(iv) Delete parts (C), (D) and (E) of TACE10. [780]

(88) (i) Section (E) of this policy (SS 6 in the First Deposit draft, TACE 10 (B) in the RUDP) relates to permission for A3 use above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation, or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the vicinity. This proposed policy is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on a residential property opposite or adjacent to the site. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council’s use of this section of proposed Policy SS6 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1046757 at 3-4 Vere Street, W1, dated 13 November 2000) concluding that residential flats above the application site would not be adversely affected by the proposed use. In instances where concerns about residential amenity cannot be mitigated by conditions planning permission it is accepted that will not be granted. However, this possibility is clearly covered in the proposed policy laid out above and it is therefore proposed that Section (E) be deleted from Policy SS6.

(ii) Section (F) relates to the imposition of conditions to limit an A3 use to a particular type of operation. This section is contrary to the advice and guidance laid down in the Use Classes Order, 1987, which advises against the imposition of conditions imposing restrictions within a Use Class. In Part 3B – Rules and Orders it is stated that:

(iii) Given that there is a specific presumption against such conditions it is considered that the Council is unreasonable in proposing a policy that would impose them as a matter of course. Where it may be necessary to impose such a condition it can be done without the support of a policy and it is therefore considered that references to conditions should be removed from the Council’s proposed policies. It is therefore proposed that Section (F) be deleted from Policy SS6.

(iv) Section (G) of this policy (TACE 8) relates to permission for new A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation within the proposed “Stress Areas”. The proposed Stress Areas are detailed on UDP Map Nos. 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. It is considered that the proposed Stress Areas are arbitrary in their definition and that insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the identification of their boundaries. The Central Activities Zone (CAZ), by its very nature, is an appropriate location for entertainment and leisure uses and the West End, in particular, is a long established entertainment area of international renown. This policy ignores the historic evolution of the area and is contrary to the needs and desires of the vast majority of people who live and work in the City and those who visit it.

(v) It is proposed that the concept of “Stress Areas” is fundamentally reviewed and that, if insufficient justification for their introduction or the definition of their

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 884 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

boundaries can be put forward, Section (G) and all references to “Stress Areas” be deleted from the UDP. [66]

(89) (i) This Policy would apply to the Edgware Road and Baker Street CAZ Frontages which are located on the Portman Estate.

(ii) Parts (D) (E) (F) and (G) are found elsewhere in the Plan under general policies. Part (D) overrides the need for Part (E).

(iii) Part (G1) applies to the Edgware Road Stress Area and provides certain policies. It is considered that this objection is inappropriate. In support of the objection we include two plans of the land use mix along the East side of Edgware Road (part of the Portman Estate). Plan 1 shows the land uses at ground floor level whilst Plan 2 demonstrates the uses above. These help illustrate the commercial nature of this street (hence the CAZ Frontage). On this basis it would seem inappropriate to designate Edgware Road a Stress Area. Where residential use exists these are high above the shopping street. Each case for an A3 use should be assessed on its merits. Parts (E) and (G) are considered inappropriate.

(iv) Policy should be reworded as follows: -

1. Delete (D), (E), (F), and (G)

2. Delete the Edgware Road Stress Area or modify in accordance with the attached Plan 3. [90]

(90) (i) Oppose the unduly restrictive policy towards new and extended A3 uses in the Central Activity Zone and in particular, the Stress Areas. The existing concentration of A3 and entertainment uses contributes to the character of certain parts of the Central Activity Zone. It is considered that the Stress Areas have not been identified using any objective criteria and that such a policy would lead to a stagnation in the A3 / leisure industry. [765]

(91) (i) Parts of this policy are now contained within Policy TACE 10. However the objections have not been addressed and therefore the representation in respect of part C of this policy is maintained.

(ii) Object to the inflexibility of this policy particularly as it relates to proposals for A3 uses. The character of areas such as Covent Garden derives as much from its function and mix of uses and activities as from the buildings they occupy. Within the Mercers Covent Garden Estate this mix includes residential accommodation, and the activity and vitality of the area is its greatest attraction to many residents. Policies SS6 (D) and (E) are considered to be unnecessarily restrictive and no evidence is provided that there is any reduction in demand for accommodation above, below, adjoining or opposite A3 or any other uses which have been considered traditionally to make up the character and function of London’s ‘West End’.

(iii) Delete Policies SS6 ( C), (D) and (E). [491]

(92) (i) Part (E) of the policy assumes that, in all circumstances, A3 uses are incompatible with residential accommodation. The acceptability of locating these two uses together has been established by the City Council where residential accommodation has been provided above or adjacent to existing A3 units. An example, in practice, is the residential conversion of 9-10 Dover Street above the

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 885 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

existing Dover Street Wine Bar. In terms of the compatibility of residential and A3 uses the primary issues should be wholly the effect on residential amenity and such the policy should be revised accordingly:-

(ii) Planning permission will not be granted for a large A3 use above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation, where residential amenity would be adversely affected. [709]

(93) (i) Section (E) of this policy relates to permission for A3 use above, below, adjoining or opposite existing residential accommodation, or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the vicinity. This proposed policy is arbitrary and takes no account of the degree of impact, or otherwise that an A3 use might have on a residential property opposite or adjacent to the site. In recent appeal decisions Inspectors have dismissed the Council's use of this section of proposed Policy SS6 (see Appeal Decision APP/X5990/A/00/1046757 at 3-4 Vere Street, W1, dated 13 November 2000) concluding that residential flats above the application site would not be adversely affected by the proposed use. In instances where concerns about residential amenity cannot be mitigated by conditions planning permission it is accepted that will not be granted. However, this possibility is clearly covered in the proposed policy laid out above and it is therefore proposed that Section (E) be deleted from Policy SS6.

"…as a matter of law, the benefits of the Use Classes Order are capable of being excluded by a planning condition… But the Secretary of State has, as a matter of policy, established a presumption against such conditions, and will regard them as unreasonable…"

(iii) Given that there is a specific presumption against such conditions it is considered that the Council is unreasonable in proposing a policy that would impose them as a matter of course. Where it may be necessary to impose such a condition it can be done without the support of a policy and it is therefore considered that references to conditions should be removed from the Council's proposed policies. It is therefore proposed that Section (F) be deleted from Policy SS6.

(iv) Section (G) of this policy relates to permission for new A3 uses, or extensions to existing A3 uses or hours of operation within the proposed 'Stress Areas". The proposed Stress Areas are detailed on UDP Map Nos. 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. It is considered that the proposed Stress Areas are arbitrary in their definition and that insufficient justification has been given for their introduction, or for the identification of their boundaries. The Central Activities Zone (CAZ), by its very nature, is an appropriate location for entertainment and leisure uses and the West End, in particular, is a long established entertainment area of international renown. This policy ignores the historic evolution of the area and is contrary to the needs and desires of the vast majority of people who live and work in the city, and those who visit it.

(v) It is proposed that the concept of 'Stress Areas' is fundamentally reviewed and that, if insufficient justification of their introduction or the definition of their

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 886 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

boundaries can be put forward, Section (G) and all references to "Stress Areas" be deleted from the UDP. [18]

(94) (i) Second Deposit Comments

Objection related to criterion D, which the proposed changes have deleted from this policy. On the basis that this deletion is carried through to the final draft of the replacement UDP, withdraw our original objection. In the event that the pre- inquiry changes mean that this proposed change is deleted, wish to maintain our original objection.

(ii) Section (d) of the Policy states that proposals which would harm residential amenity or local environmental quality as a result of smells, noise vibration, or increased late night activity and disturbance, or increased traffic and parking will be refused. It is unnecessarily prescriptive and duplicates more detailed policies concerning impact upon the environment and residential amenity outlined in the Environment Chapter, particularly Policies ENV6 and ENV12. Additionally, PPG6 recognises the need to develop a clear strategy and policies that support the evening economy of the centre. Section (d) clearly conflicts with the requirements of PPG6 in that it directly prohibits an increase in night time activity. Accordingly, for the reasons above we recommend that section (d) be deleted. [722]

(95) (i) Sections (E-G) of Policy SS6 are too prescriptive and discourage determination of planning applications on their individual merits and circumstances.

(ii) The policy and supporting paragraphs apply general, broad-brush criteria, against which all planning applications for changes of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (food and drink) uses will be assessed, which do not take into account the specific locational characteristics of individual sites.

(iv) The policy and explanatory paragraphs should be revised to protect loss of retail accommodation in line with PPG6 only, but should not resist alternative land use groups without objection and individual assessment of the suitability of a specific use for each site. [299]

(96) (i) 2nd Deposit Comments

for further comments see those on TACE9 & 10

(ii) 1st Deposit Comments

This policy should recognise that concentrations of A3 uses (i.e. more than 3 consecutive units) can be a positive draw to an area, providing for "comparison dining" within a given locality, allowing choice and convenience for the consumer/patron more often as part of a shopping or entertainment trip. An example of such an area is Chinatown, where a wide range of oriental cuisine is available to the consumer. The concept of three or more consecutive non Class

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 887 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

A1 uses being resisted within the CAZ should now be dropped, or at very least qualified to provide recognition that a great many streets within the CAZ are not retail (Class A1) locations anyway.

(iii) For example, the exclusively Class A1 retail frontages of Carnaby Street can only be sustained by ensuring there is a strong supply of restaurants, bars, service uses and other leisure uses in neighbouring streets, where a concentration of A3 will naturally exist to balance the concentration of retail in Carnaby Street itself. These concentrations of A3 are in no way harmful to the character and function of the area, in many ways they establish the character.

(iv) With changing lifestyle trends, manifesting themselves with the trend towards more dining out at all times of the day and night often in combination with a shopping trip, these are likely to impact further upon the local retail scene. The Plan does not sufficiently address these issues and their consequences for land use change. More research is required. [64]

(98) (i) SS6(D) - Delete "increase late night-activity"

(ii) If no disturbance, noise etc. is created then late hours themselves should not be a specific reason for refusal. [371]

(99) (i) SS6(E) - Add "unless the city Council can demonstrate that adequate safeguards are not in place or where residential amenity would be adversely affected in the immediate vicinity".

(ii) Is this policy referring to all applications for planning permissions? If an A3 consent form is already held, would, for instance, planning permission be denied for any changes or extensions? The policy needs to be clarified. [371]

(100) (i) SS6(F) - consider revising this policy so that conditions will only be used if harm can be demonstrated.

(ii) Flexibility should be allowed. [371]

(101) (i) SS6(G) - Delete "or hours of operation".

(ii) Substitute "will not normally be granted" for "will only be granted in exceptional circumstances".

(iii) This is a regressive policy that will create an unfair market. Those already with a late licence will have an advantage over those applying for a late licence irrespective of the 'quality' of the A3 use.

(iv) The policy allows no incentive for good management. If the A3 use is badly managed but already has a late license, they will most likely still be better off than would a well managed operator be applying for a late license. We would recommend substituting a system based on quality of management that, if properly policed, would reduce late licensing on that basis.

(v) There is no guidance as to what are 'exceptional circumstances'. It would be more helpful to suggest circumstances when A3 permissions would be granted.

(vi) The policy does not differentiate between various uses within A3. For example, bars and night clubs may pose more of a concern to the local environments then restaurants, and yet all are subject to the same restrictions. Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 888 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(vii) The early terminal hour could exacerbate the problems the UDP is trying to solve. Large numbers of people leaving at the same time is more likely to cause public nuisance and control problems than a gradual decanting of people. [371]

(102) (i) Insofar as this paragraph cross-refers to other parts of the UDP and to SPG, the WLA reiterate that that CAZ has been the traditional home of entertainment. It does not accept that increase in entertainment uses need cause problems. Its membership does not see the necessity or the reasonableness of entering into planning obligations or otherwise funding improvements to the matters referred to in Chapter 1. [843]

(103) (i) We support the wording especially the requirement for the applicant to demonstrate ‘no harm’.8.71w Agree the new wording. [381] [104]

TA10: Summary of Council Response

(1) (i) It is agreed that conditions imposed will need to meet the tests set out in Government Guidance. It is not agreed however that the City Council should set out all the circumstances where conditions could overcome potential adverse effects. There would be too many potential scenarios to be identified and may limit the flexibility of the policy. [64]

(2) (i) It is not entirely correct to say that some areas are completely characterised by tourism, arts, culture and entertainment only. The City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note on the Central Activities Zone: Area Profiles provides an outline on the character, function and land uses within sub areas of the CAZ. It clearly recognises that most sub areas are diverse with a mix of land uses with residential within and around them. It recognises that the presence of residential accommodation will influence decisions about locating other uses. It is critical that the City Council recognises and continues to encourage this mix of uses to maintain the character and function. It is recognised that there are sub areas where there are higher concentrations of entertainment uses. It is considered that due to the effects associated with this concentration that further growth would not be in the interest of the residents, visitors and workers. [1]

(3) (i) There is nothing in Government Guidance or in legislation which suggests that the City Council cannot distinguish between smaller and larger entertainment uses in setting policies for these. The approach is not considered to be introducing unilateral changes to legislation. It is suggested that conditions may be used. This would depend on the particular case and whether this was considered reasonable. [681]

(4) (i) Not agreed. Each case will still be considered on its merits having regard to the potential impact on the amenity. It is not agreed that conditions can always address amenity problems. Lobbies can help reduce noise levels and disturbance. The paragraph states that acoustic lobbies may be required depending on certain circumstances. Each application will be considered on its merits. Due to the current problems with noise levels measures are being introduced to attempt to ensure that future development has minimal impact. [681]

(5) (i) Agreed that asking for full details with the application may be too onerous for applicants. However it is considered fundamental that details of at least the proposed location of the air conditioning plant and/or ducting is crucial to the assessment of the application and the likely impacts on residential amenity. It is

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 889 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

agreed that more detailed information can be required as a condition on any permission. Paragraph 8.71v has been amended in the pre-Inquiry version of the Plan to reflect this. [681]

(6) (i) This relates to Policy 10(B) para 8.71r (not v). The deletion of 'or' in line three of this policy allows for greater flexibility to consider applications adjacent to residential development. This more flexible approach is considered reasonable and will allow applications to be considered on their merits. [10]

(7) (i) Not agreed. [68]

(8) (i) It is not entirely correct to say that some areas are completely characterised by tourism, arts, culture and entertainment only. The City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note on the Central Activities Zone: Area Profiles provides an outline on the character, function and land uses within sub areas of the CAZ. It clearly recognises that most sub areas are diverse with a mix of land uses with residential within and around them. It recognises that the presence of residential accommodation will influence decisions about locating other uses. It is critical that the City Council recognises and continues to encourage this mix of uses to maintain the character and function. It is recognised that there are sub areas where there are higher concentrations of entertainment uses. It is considered that due to the effects associated with this concentration that further growth would not be in the interest of the residents, visitors and workers.

(B) This policy allows for exceptional cases thereby providing some flexibility. Material considerations must also be taken into account under S54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act.

(C ) In some cases conditions may overcome potential effects of a development however this is not always the case. The cumulative impact of growth needs to be taken into account. [68]

(9) (i) It is not entirely correct to say that some areas are completely characterised by tourism, arts, culture and entertainment only.

The City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note on the Central Activities Zone: Area Profiles provides an outline on the character, function and land uses within sub areas of the CAZ. It clearly recognises that most sub areas are diverse with a mix of land uses with residential within and around them. It recognises that the presence of residential accommodation will influence decisions about locating other uses. It is critical that the City Council recognises and continues to encourage this mix of uses to maintain the character and function. It is recognised that there are sub areas where there are higher concentrations of entertainment uses. It is considered that due to the effects associated with this concentration that further growth would not be in the interest of the residents, visitors and workers.

(B) This policy allows for exceptional cases thereby providing some flexibility. Material considerations must also be taken into account under S54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act.

(C) In some cases conditions may overcome potential effects of a development however this is not always the case. The cumulative impact of growth needs to be taken into account. [757]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 890 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(10) (i) The criteria in TACE 10 provides clear policy on the matters which will be considered when assessing a planning application. The City Council needs to manage land use to ensure that the impacts on residential amenity, character and function of areas are minimised for the future. It is not agreed to delete TACE 10. [789]

(11-12)(i) There is nothing specific in current Government Guidance which leads the City Council to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the Entertainment Policies is contrary or in conflict with this guidance. In particular the policies are consistent with PPG 6, PPG 12 and the draft London Plan.

(ii) There is nothing in Government Guidance which does not allow the designation of stress areas. PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. In the Stress Areas allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the current level of stress on the residential amenity and local environment cannot be controlled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policy allows for exceptional circumstances in the stress areas.

(iii) The Entertainment policies fulfil the requirements of PPG12 by providing clear policies on leisure uses, employment and wealth generating development. Chapter 4, on Sustainable Development, indicates in paragraph 4.1 that the planning system, and development plans in particular, can make a major contribution to the achievement of the Government’s objectives for sustainable development.

(iv) The draft London Plan (2002) recognises that while London’s vibrant night-time economy is a major contributor to its world city status and that there is increasing demand for services to be provided later in the evening, and the demands of the night time economy are concentrated in relatively small areas - key parts of Central London, especially the West End and in some town centres. (Paragraph 3D.27). Paragraph 3D.27 continues, “Longer opening hours contribute to the vibrancy and vitality of areas but can bring about their own problems, especially for the residents. Currently there are particular pressures on the West End.” Paragraph 3D.28 of the draft London Plan (2002) supports the City Council’s integrated response to tackling the wide range of issues associated with the night-time economy. Paragraph 3D.28 states that boroughs should ensure that planning, licensing, policing, transport and street management issues are managed through designated Entertainment Management Zones (EMZs).

(v) Although an EMZ has not been designated in the UDP the approach taken by the City Council in establishing a forum of agencies to co-ordinate issues affecting entertainment areas mirrors that envisaged in the draft London Plan.

(vi) The criteria in TACE 10 provides clear policy on the matters which will be considered when assessing a planning application. The City Council needs to manage land use to ensure that the impacts on residential amenity, character and function of areas are minimised for the future. It is not agreed to delete TACE 10. [780] [491]

(13) (i) The policy provides clear criteria in which will be taken into account when determining a planning application. (See para 8.71t). The onus is both on the applicant (as stated in the policy) and on the City Council (in being the determining authority for planning applications) to demonstrate harm to residential amenity etc. It is in the interest of the applicant to address these issues upfront to ensure that likely impacts are considered and ways of

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 891 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

addressing these are identified. Not agreed to alter the policy, as it is given that City Council has a certain amount of responsibility to consider the merits of the case, and material considerations in preparing reports considering whether a planning application should be granted. An assessment of the information submitted by the applicant would occur automatically.

(ii) The City Council is not stating in the policy that residential and entertainment uses cannot co-exist beside/adjoining, however the policy recognises that that residential amenity should not be adversely affected, which is considered reasonable.

(iii) The positive benefits which entertainment brings to London are recognised in the introduction to the Entertainment section of the chapter. The policy aims to protect existing entertainment uses to ensure the entertainment offer is available for all to enjoy. Proposals which improve amenities or local environmental standards could be considered under 'exceptional circumstances'. A case would need to be made to the City Council on the individual application. [803]

(14) (i) It is agreed that conditions imposed will need to meet the tests set out in Government guidance. It is not agreed however that the City Council should set out all the circumstances where conditions could overcome potential adverse effects. There would be too many potential scenarios to be identified and may limit the flexibility of the policy. [803]

(15) (i) The City Council recognises that the City is not a quiet residential 'backwater' and it is not the aim of the policies to create this situation. The entertainment policies aim to manage the growth and location of entertainment uses having regard to issues of residential amenity, character and function of areas.

(ii) It is necessary to have the criteria outlined in the policy to assist in addressing issues surrounding future entertainment uses in an area where there is considered to be an adequate supply and where conflict can easily arise due to existing uses.

(iii) It is the aim to provide a good quality choice and offer of entertainment, services and facilities for residents, visitors and workers and to ensure that residents can get a good night sleep, to which they are entitled. [842]

(16) (i) The policy provides clear criteria in which will be taken into account when determining a planning application. (See Para 8.71t). The onus is both on the applicant (as stated in the policy) and on the City Council (in being the determining authority for planning applications) to demonstrate harm to residential amenity, etc. It is in the interest of the applicant to address these issues upfront to ensure that likely impacts are considered and ways of addressing these are identified. If the effects are likely to be minimal this would not result in an unreasonable amount of work for the applicant.

(ii) It would be unreasonable for the City Council to treat all types of uses in the same way. Even within the current Use Classes Order it is clear that a café open from 9am-5pm with no alcohol being served, would have less impact than a pub/wine bar open in the evening. There is a need to distinguish between these uses to a certain degree. It is recognised that the imposition of conditions could overcome some of the issues however there is a limit to what can be imposed as a condition. The City Council still has a concern over the impacts of people spilling out onto the streets following a night of alcohol consumption. The impacts

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 892 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

of this cannot be controlled through planning consent conditions. [777]

(17) (i) This policy, TACE10(8), allows for exceptional cases, thereby providing some flexibility. Material considerations must also be taken into account under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act. [1]

(18) (i) In some cases conditions may overcome potential effects of a development however this is not always the case. The cumulative impact of growth needs to be taken into account. [1]

(19) (i) Not agreed. [1]

(20) (i) It is not entirely correct to say that some areas are completely characterised by tourism, arts, culture and entertainment only. The City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note on the Central Activities Zone: Area Profiles, provides an outline on the character, function and land uses within sub areas of the CAZ. It clearly recognises that most sub areas are diverse with a mix of land uses with residential within and around them. It recognises that the presence of residential accommodation will influence decisions about locating other uses. It is critical that the City Council recognises and continues to encourage this mix of uses to maintain the character and function. It is recognised that there are sub areas where there are higher concentrations of entertainment uses. It is considered that due to the effects associated with this concentration that further growth would not be in the interest of the residents, visitors and workers.

(ii) This policy allows for exceptional cases thereby providing some flexibility. Material considerations must also be taken into account under s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act.

(iii) In some cases conditions may overcome potential effects of a development however this is not always the case. The cumulative impact of growth needs to be taken into account. [724]

(21) (i) Not agreed. [724]

(22) (i) There has been a recent trend towards the establishment of larger bars, restaurants, night clubs and other entertainment uses. These large uses can be particularly harmful to residential amenity and can alter the character and function of an area. Large entertainment uses attract large numbers of people and therefore the locations of these types of uses should be adequately managed. In defining large entertainment uses, the City Council considered a number of current examples of what were considered to be large premises with large capacities of people and where there were in some cases, issues regarding residential amenity, and impacts on the local environment. Various methods of calculating large premises were investigated. The Building Regulations were used as the main basis for calculating floorspace and capacities for A3 uses. Capacities and floorspace for D2 uses were calculated using current examples of large D2 entertainment uses. These definitions recognise that there are differences between various types of entertainment uses. i.e. a bar and a restaurant.

Using exceptional circumstances in the policy is not considered contrary to Government guidance. Material considerations will still apply under S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 893 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

It is City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

Whilst it is recognised that the entertainment industry is vital to the economy and a World Class City, there is a need to ensure that there is a mix of entertainment uses which caters for the needs of all age groups in the community. If certain areas are dominated by uses which attract the same age groups for one main purpose, the consumption of alcohol, other groups are deterred from using these areas.

The numbers of patrons is an enforceable condition which has been used in the past for both planning permissions and licences. [64]

(23) (i) The policy provides clear criteria in which will be taken into account when determining a planning application. (See Para 8.71t).

The onus is both on the applicant (as stated in the policy) and on the City Council (in being the determining authority for planning applications) to demonstrate harm to residential amenity, etc. It is in the interest of the applicant to address these issues “upfront” (i.e. at an early stage in the application process) to ensure that likely impacts are considered and ways of addressing these are identified.

Not agreed to alter the policy, as it is given that City Council has a certain amount of responsibility to consider the merits of the case, and material considerations in preparing reports considering whether a planning application should be granted. An assessment of the information submitted by the applicant would occur automatically.

(ii) The City Council is not stating in the policy that residential and entertainment uses cannot co-exist beside or adjoining. However, the policy recognises that that residential amenity should not be adversely affected, which is considered reasonable.

(24) (i) See (y) below. [64]

(25) (i) The CAZ SPG has already been completed. The City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note on the Central Activities Zone: Area Profiles, provides an outline on the character, function and land uses within sub areas of the CAZ. It clearly recognises that most sub areas are diverse with a mix of land uses with residential within and around them. It recognises that the presence of residential accommodation will influence decisions about locating other uses. It is critical that the City Council recognises and continues to encourage this mix of uses to maintain the character and function. It is recognised that there are sub areas where there are higher concentrations of entertainment uses. It is considered that due to the effects associated with this concentration that further growth would not be in the interest of the residents, visitors and workers.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 894 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Acknowledge the right reserved to comment further on forthcoming SPGs.

The SPGs are used to form a description to characterise areas so that future decisions can be mad in an informed way. [777]

(26) (i) From City Council's experience open shop-fronts can lead to additional noise and odours permeating into the street. It is not considered necessary to have open shop-fronts to ensure the vitality of the evening economy. The City has a sufficient supply of entertainment uses which have and are contributing to the vitality of Westminster. Not permitting open shop-fronts is not considered to be contrary to National guidance. [777]

(27) (i) There has been a recent trend towards the establishment of larger bars, restaurants, night clubs and other entertainment uses. These large uses can be particularly harmful to residential amenity and can alter the character and function of an area. Large entertainment uses attract large numbers of people and therefore the locations of these types of uses should be adequately managed.

(ii) In defining large entertainment uses, the City Council considered a number of current examples of what were considered to be large premises with large capacities of people and where there were in some cases, issues regarding residential amenity, and impacts on the local environment. Various methods of calculating large premises were investigated. The Building Regulations were used as the main basis for calculating floorspace and capacities for A3 uses. Capacities and floorspace for D2 uses were calculated using current examples of large D2 entertainment uses. These definitions recognise that there are differences between various types of entertainment uses, i.e. a bar and a restaurant.

(iii) Using "exceptional circumstances" in the policy is not considered contrary to Government Guidance. Material considerations will still apply under S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act.

(iv) It is City Council's aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(v) Whilst it is recognised that the entertainment industry is vital to the economy and a World Class City, there is a need to ensure that there is a mix of entertainment uses which caters for the needs of all age groups in the community. If certain areas are dominated by uses which attract the same age groups, for one main purpose. the consumption of alcohol, other groups are deterred from using these areas. [777]

(28) (i) The policy provides clear criteria in which will be taken into account when determining a planning application. (See Para 8.71t).

The onus is both on the applicant (as stated in the policy) and on the City Council (in being the determining authority for planning applications) to demonstrate harm to residential amenity etc. It is in the interest of the applicant to address these issues upfront to ensure that likely impacts are considered and ways of addressing these are identified.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 895 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(29) (i) It is agreed that conditions imposed will need to meet the tests set out in Government guidance. It is not agreed however that the City Council should set out all the circumstances where conditions could overcome potential adverse effects. There would be too many potential scenarios to be identified and may limit the flexibility of the policy. [795]

(30) (i) A new definition of entertainment use has been inserted into the Glossary of the draft replacement UDP. [768]

(31) (i) It is the intention to make it clear to applicants that this will be required, therefore this is necessary in the text of the Policy. The policy (in bold text) is required to ensure the aim outlined is achieved. [748]

(32) (i) This part of the policy addresses the imposition of conditions which may be placed on a planning consent. It is not agreed this should be moved from the bold text Policy as it needs to be clear that this is a requirement and assists in meeting the aim of the policy. This information is important for the applicant to be aware of upfront when lodging a planning application. [845]

(33) (i) Refer to First Deposit comments in the Shopping chapter.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 896 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

recognised as competing as a global city with diverse communities and differences between the suburbs and the centre of the Cities highlighted.

- tackling litter, graffiti, vandalism and noise;

- maintaining and improving streets;’ (Page 9).

(vi) The Council's policies on entertainment uses will assist in achieving this aim for Westminster, where currently in some areas the impacts of conflicting uses is causing concern and degrading the street environment. It is considered that there is an adequate supply (e.g. 2,600 A3 uses in Westminster) of entertainment uses in the City and therefore further growth should be limited. [769]

(34) (i) The policy is not considered to be too restrictive. The amount of information required will depend on the size and likely impact of the proposal. The information which needs to be considered is not considered to be unreasonable. [779]

(35) (i) It is not agreed that this policy is a duplicate of Policies TACE 8 and 9. All duplication of policies was removed following First Deposit consultation on the UDP.

(ii) TACE 10 sets out the criteria upon which applications for entertainment uses will be assessed. TACE 8 and 9 set the specific policy on the preferred location of entertainment uses and areas which are under stress and what terminal hours may be imposed.

(iii) The City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note on the Central Activities Zone: Area Profiles provides an outline on the character, function and land uses within sub areas of the CAZ. It clearly recognises that most sub areas are diverse with a mix of land uses with residential within and around them. It recognises that the presence of residential accommodation will influence decisions about locating other uses. It is critical that the City Council recognises and continues to encourage this mix of uses to maintain the character and function. It is recognised that there are sub areas where there are higher concentrations of entertainment uses. It is considered that due to the effects associated with this concentration that further growth would not be in the interest of the residents, visitors and workers.

(iv) Due to the current level of problems being experienced in particular areas within the City there needs to be good reasons demonstrated why there should be additional entertainment uses permitted.

(v) It is agreed that entertainment use needs to be defined in the UDP. A new definition has been included in the Glossary of the pre-Inquiry version of the

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 897 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

UDP. This will include bingo halls and casinos, as it is not considered that they should be exempted from the TACE policies. Separate reference has been made in the plan to casino and bingo hall uses. They may in some cases be considered in exceptional circumstances.

(vi) The policy in its original form had similar controls under TCE 8 and SS3, SS6 and SS13. The changes to the original policy form was designed to reduce duplication in each policy relating to both A3 and D2 uses.

(vii) Not agreed to delete TACE 10 or amend TACE 10 as recommended. [860]

(36) (i) Acknowledge support.

(ii) Point (B) relates to situationswhere residential uses are located close by and often a particular problem which warrants separate mention.

(iii) Point (C) relates to conditions on planning consents which differs from the issue in A and therefore warrants separate mention.

(iv) TACE10 (B) was amended at Seconnd Deposit to provide greater flexibility and to be more criteria based. It must now be proven that there would be an adverse effect on residential amenity in the vicinity.

(v) TACE10(C) This approach has been used by Inspectors for entertainment developments at recent appeals. This approach may be beneficial in reducing potential impact of the use and therefore result in a permission being granted. This would not normally be used in all circumstances but as stated in the policy ' Where appropriate…'. [693]

(37) (i) Para 8.65c differs from 8.71ac and has also been altered further at pre-Inquiry stage to make reference to D2 uses and casinos. [859]

(38) (i) The City Council has received contrary advice. The paragraph states that they can be energy inefficient, which means in some circumstances. [859]

(39) (i) Noted. [859]

(40) (i) The onus is both on the applicant (as stated in the policy) and on the City Council (in being the determining authority for planning applications) to demonstrate harm to residential amenity etc. It is in the interest of the applicant to address these issues upfront to ensure that likely impacts are considered and ways of addressing these are identified. Not agreed to alter the policy, as it is given that City Council has a certain amount of responsibility to consider the merits of the case, and material considerations in preparing reports considering whether a planning application should be granted. An assessment of the information submitted by the applicant would occur automatically. [359]

(41) (i) Para 8.65c differs from 8.71ac and has also been altered further at pre-Inquiry stage to make reference to D2 uses and casinos. [858]

(42) (i) The City Council has received contrary advice. The paragraph states that they can be energy inefficient, which means in some circumstances. [858]

(43) (i) Noted. [858]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 898 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(44) (i) The onus is both on the applicant (as stated in the policy) and on the City Council (in being the determining authority for planning applications) to demonstrate harm to residential amenity etc. It is in the interest of the applicant to address these issues upfront to ensure that likely impacts are considered and ways of addressing these are identified. Not agreed to alter the policy, as it is given that City Council has a certain amount of responsibility to consider the merits of the case, and material considerations in preparing reports considering whether a planning application should be granted. An assessment of the information submitted by the applicant would occur automatically. [858]

(45) (i) The policy is necessary to assist applicants in understanding, up front, how planning applications will be assessed and assist in achieving the City Council's aim to provide a mix of uses in the City, particularly in the CAZ.

(iii) Whilst it is recognised that this part of London has been traditionally used for entertainment it has also been used for creative industry, residential , shopping and mixed uses generally operating side by side, not just entertainment. The City Council aims to achieve a mix of uses to maintain the character and function of the city.

(iv) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. There also may be exceptional circumstances which arise where the terminal hours may be varied. Terminal hours currently vary across the City. Closing times for music and dance licensed premises in the West End vary more than any other area, with a range of 14 different terminal hours. The majority of licensed venues in the West End close between 3am and 4am. The numbers of licensed venues closing between this time rose dramatically from 45 in 1992 to 144 in 2000. As these variations already occur in closing times of premises, staggered operating hours are considered to already exist in the City. All residents have a right to a good night sleep. There needs to be a ‘window of opportunity’ which allows for this, where noise levels and disturbance are kept to a minimum.

(v) There is need for time to service the streets i.e.: street/pavement cleansing and litter collection. This is best carried out when there are minimum people on the streets. In some parts of the City this window of opportunity is minimal, placing pressure on services to deliver. In consideration of 27 recent A3 appeal cases the inspectors have imposed conditions relating to hours of operation and in 78% of cases imposed terminal hours of earlier or similar to that contained in the draft replacement UDP.

(vi) No amendments to policy considered appropriate at pre-Inquiry stage. [851]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 899 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(46) (i) The criteria in TACE 10 provides clear policy on the matters which will be considered when assessing a planning application. The City Council needs to manage land use to ensure that the impacts on residential amenity, character and function of areas are minimised for the future.

(ii) The City Council recognises that the City is not a quiet residential 'backwater' and it is not the aim of the policies to create this situation. The entertainment policies aim to manage the growth and location of entertainment uses having regard to issues of residential amenity, character and function of areas.

(iii) It is necessary to have the criteria outlined in the policy to assist in addressing issues surrounding future entertainment uses in an area where there is considered to be an adequate supply and where conflict can easily arise due to existing uses.

(iv) It is the aim to provide a good quality choice and offer of entertainment, services and facilities for residents, visitors and workers and to ensure that residents can get a good night sleep, to which they are entitled). [841]

(47) (i) The policy provides clear criteria in which will be taken into account when determining a planning application. (See Para 8.71t). The onus is both on the applicant (as stated in the policy) and on the City Council (in being the determining authority for planning applications) to demonstrate harm to residential amenity etc. It is in the interest of the applicant to address these issues upfront to ensure that likely impacts are considered and ways of addressing these are identified. If the effects are likely to be minimal this would not result in an unreasonable amount of work for the applicant.

(ii) Not agreed to alter the policy, as it is given that City Council has a certain amount of responsibility to consider the merits of the case, and material considerations in preparing reports considering whether a planning application should be granted. An assessment of the information submitted by the applicant would occur automatically.

(iii) It is not agreed that this requirement would impact greater on smaller operators. Evidence of this has not been provided. [843] [768]

(48) (i) Not agreed. To clarify this matter acoustic lobbies may be required even where there is no open shop-front. This paragraph has been misinterpreted. Each case for open shop-fronts will still be considered on its merits having regard to the potential impact on the amenity. It is not agreed that conditions can always address amenity problems. Conditions on a planning permission cannot in all situations mitigate the potential impacts of the noise and odours which may escape from an open shop-fronts.

(ii) Lobbies can help reduce noise levels and disturbance. The paragraph states that acoustic lobbies may be required depending on certain circumstances. Each application will be considered on its merits. Due to the currents problems with noise levels measures are being introduced to attempt to ensure that future development has minimal impact. [768]

(49) (i) In some cases conditions may overcome potential effects of a development however this is not always the case. The cumulative impact of growth needs to be taken into account.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 900 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) The scale of growth in night-time activity now threatens a fundamental aim of both local and national policy: sustainable urban living and the maintenance of residential communities in parts of the city. Pavements have become more congested; and streets and premises have become increasingly hard to service with refuse and cleansing vehicles at any hour. The incidence of crime and anti- social behaviour (including rowdiness and the fouling of footways and doorways) has increased. The City Council needs to deal with this overall problem in a holistic way by providing clear policy guidance for future growth. TACE 8, 9, and 10 provide that policy guidance and therefore are considered necessary. [768]

(50) (i) The paragraph has been amended. The words ' will often' have been replaced with 'can'. [768]

(51) (i) The CAZ is not completely characterised by entertainment only, however there are certain areas where there are concentrations of entertainment uses. This has not always been the case, as there has been substantial growth over the past ten years. (West End 35% growth in A3 uses).

(ii) The City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note on the Central Activities Zone: Area Profiles provides an outline on the character, function and land uses within sub areas of the CAZ. It clearly recognises that most sub areas are diverse with a mix of land uses with residential within and around them. It recognises that the presence of residential accommodation will influence decisions about locating other uses. It is critical that the City Council recognises and continues to encourage this mix of uses to maintain the character and function. It is recognised that there are sub areas where there are higher concentrations of entertainment uses. It is considered that due to the effects associated with this concentration that further growth would not be in the interest of the residents, visitors and workers.

(iii) The City Council considers that there is a link between the growth in the entertainment industry and the impacts on the streets, i.e. pavement congestion, anti-social behaviour, noise, etc.

(iv) Where there is a nexus established between the industry and the need for improved services, planning obligations are considered a reasonable approach. [768]

(52) (i) This policy sets out the criteria on which the City Council will consider a planning application. It is acknowledged that there is a presumption against proposals in particular that are expected to have an impact on residential and local amenity etc. The reason for this however is due to the current supply of entertainment uses and the problems associated with conflict between a mix of uses.

(ii) It is City Council's aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(53) (i) It is not agreed to reword the policy removing the "presumption against". There is recognition of the importance of the entertainment industry at the beginning of

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 901 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

the entertainment policies section of the chapter. TACE 8 also states that the loss of existing entertainment uses will be resisted. [849]

(54) (i) A new definition of 'entertainment use' has been inserted into the Glossary of the draft replacement UDP. [843]

(55) (i) The Stress Area boundary has been modified slightly to take into account the area off the western side of Regent Street. All applications are considered on their merits and exceptional circumstances can apply.

(ii) The issues facing Westminster however, regarding the impacts of the late night economy, need a strategic policy approach.

(iv) Whilst it is recognised that the entertainment industry is vital to the economy and a World Class City, there is a need to ensure that there is a mix of entertainment uses which caters for the needs of all age groups in the community. If certain areas are dominated by uses which attract the same age groups, for one main purpose, the consumption of alcohol, other groups are deterred from using these areas. [680]

(56) (i) Not agreed. To clarify this matter acoustic lobbies may be required even where there is no open shop-front. This paragraph has been misinterpreted. Each case for open shop-fronts will still be considered on its merits having regard to the potential impact on the amenity. It is not agreed that conditions can always address amenity problems. Conditions on a planning permission cannot in all situations mitigate the potential impacts of the noise and odours which may escape from an open shop-fronts.

(57) (i) In some cases conditions may overcome potential effects of a development however this is not always the case. The cumulative impact of growth needs to be taken into account.

(58) (i) The paragraph has been amended. The words ' will often' have been replaced with 'can'. [843]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 902 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(59) (i) The UDP is a land use plan which is the basis for determining planning applications and defending planning appeals. The City Council is currently working on a package of measures to reduce street urination, particularly in the West End, by extending toilet opening hours and introducing mobile and fixed street urinals. It is considered more appropriate to set out these commitments in the City Council's community strategy, introduced by the Local Government Act 2000 to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the local area . In Westminster this is known as the City Plan. The City Plan has an objective to "reduce the incidence of street urination in the West End" and that the City Council will trial facilities, including telescopic urinals, to alleviate street urination in the West End by September 2002, in addition to the 14 new on-street urinals.

(ii) Whilst it is good 'customer' practice to provide public conveniences, local authorities do not have a statutory duty to do so, the 1936 Public Health Act allows local authorities to provide public conveniences at their discretion. The City Council provides a good service in relation to toilet facilities, providing 31 conventional public convenience free of charge and 10 automated public conveniences (APCs) throughout the city, with plans to open another 5 APCs.

(iii) There is great pressure for further facilities, particularly fuelled by the massive expansion of food and drink and other entertainment facilities, for example, in the last ten years there has been a 35% increase in A3 uses in the West End Stress Area. In addition to the efforts being made by the City Council to provide public conveniences, it is considered reasonable to expect private operators to provide facilities for public toilets in large developments.

(iv) The City Council is seeking public toilet provision in association with relevant development schemes help to cater for the needs of the people that visit them. The policy is aimed at those developments which will attract large numbers of people. The City Council is aiming to ensure that the local environment is protected. Westminster has a large number of visitors, in some parts of the City this has caused deterioration of the local environment, for example the West End Entertainment Impact Study noted that in areas where the street environment had declined (including anti-social behaviour such as on-street urination) which was caused by the concentration of entertainment uses.

(v) Greater provision of public toilets, as well as protecting the local environment, can also encourage access for all, and is encouraged in the draft London Plan policy 3A.23 and paragraph 3A.92

(vi) It is not considered unreasonable to require some form of contribution towards public toilets where a nexus between the development and the need for Public toilets for customers leaving the premises in certain circumstances. [18]

(60) (i) See response above to (18). [66]

(61) (i) The onus is both on the applicant (as stated in the policy) and on the City Council (in being the determining authority for planning applications) to demonstrate harm to residential amenity etc. It is in the interest of the applicant to address these issues upfront to ensure that likely impacts are considered and ways of addressing these are identified. Not agreed to alter the policy, as it is given that City Council has a certain amount of responsibility to consider the merits of the case, and material considerations in preparing reports considering whether a

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 903 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

planning application should be granted. An assessment of the information submitted by the applicant would occur automatically. [859]

(62) (i) The paragraph has been amended. The words ' will often' have been replaced with 'can'. [768]

(63) (i) Change to Policy TACE10(A) not agreed. It is accepted that the onus would be on the applicant. The City Council however is still required and responsible for determining a planning application and the onus is on Council also to make an assessment of the proposal and give reasons for the decision. Each application is dealt with on its merits having regard also to s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 [843]

(64) (i) Change to Policy TACE10(A) not agreed. 'Harm' in itself is considered to be an adverse impact. The degree of harm associated with a proposed development would be considered when determining a planning application.

(ii) Change to Policy TACE10(A) not agreed. It is accepted that the onus would be on the applicant. The City Council however is still required and responsible for determining a planning application and the onus is on Council also to make an assessment of the proposal and give reasons for the decision. [681]

(65) (i) With a residential population of about 245,000, it would be remiss of the City Council not to consider residential amenity.

(ii) It is City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress.

(iii) Whilst it is recognised that the entertainment industry is vital to the economy and a World Class City, there is a need to ensure that there is a mix of entertainment uses which caters for the needs of all age groups in the community. If certain areas are dominated by uses which attract the same age groups, for one main purpose i.e.: consumption of alcohol, other groups are deterred from using these areas. Issues such as character and function of areas are also considered. [777]

(66) (i) Change to Policty TACE10(A) not agreed. It is accepted that the onus would be on the applicant. The City Council however is still required and responsible for determining a planning application and the onus is on Council also to make an assessment of the proposal and give reasons for the decision. Each application is dealt with on its merits having regard also to s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 [768]

(67) (i) This policy was amended at Second Deposit stage to allow greater flexibility in consideration of residential amenity rather than an approach to not permit any entertainment uses, above, below adjoining or opposite residential. It is accepted that there may be cases where an entertainment use located adjacent a residential use may not adversely affect residential amenity. Each case will be considered on its merits. It is accepted that as part of the planning process the imposition of conditions could mitigate some impacts however in some cases this is not possible. Not agreed to delete Policy TACE10(B). [66]

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 904 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(68) (i) This policy was amended at second deposit stage to allow greater flexibility in consideration of residential amenity rather than an approach to not permit any entertainment uses, above, below adjoining or opposite residential. It is accepted that there may be cases where an entertainment use located adjacent a residential use may not adversely affect residential amenity. Each case will be considered on its merits. It is accepted that as part of the planning process the imposition of conditions could mitigate some impacts however in some cases this is not possible. Not agreed to delete Policy 10(B). [18]

(69) (i) It is considered that all residential accommodation should be given consideration due to the potential impacts and conflict that could occur, there should be no distinction made between temporary or permanent residents needs.

(ii) The statement 'in the vicinity of the application site' was included at 2nd Deposit to make it clear that is was referring to residential close to the application site in particular. [681]

(70) (i) This policy was amended at Second Deposit stage to allow greater flexibility in consideration of residential amenity rather than an approach to not permit any entertainment uses, above, below adjoining or opposite residential. It is accepted that there may be cases where an entertainment use located adjacent a residential use may not adversely affect residential amenity. Each case will be considered on its merits. It is accepted that as part of the planning process the imposition of conditions could mitigate some impacts however in some cases this is not possible. Not agreed to amend or delete Policy 10 (B). [777]

(71) (i) 'Entertainment use' has now been defined in the Glossary of the Pre-Inquiry version of the Plan. [768]

(72) (i) See (bs) above. [843]

(73) (i) Not agreed to delete this policy. There are recognisable differences between the impacts generated from differing A3 uses. This is supported by the current review of the Use Classes Order. It is considered, therefore, reasonable to impose conditions where this may ensure impacts at minimised having regard to residential amenity. The approach to condition planning permissions is used by Inspectors at appeal. [18]

(74) (i) Terminal hours are clarified to be guideline hours only. At times there may be the need to impose an early time restriction depending on location, use and likely impacts of the proposal. There also may be exceptional circumstances which arise where the terminal hours may be varied. Terminal hours currently vary across the City. Closing times for music and dance licensed premises in the West End vary more than any other area, with a range of 14 different terminal hours. The majority of licensed venues in the West End close between 03.00 and 04.00. The numbers of licensed venues closing between this time rose dramatically from 45 in 1992 to 144 in 2000. As these variations already occur in closing times of premises, staggered operating hours are considered to already exist in the City.

(ii) All residents have a right to a good night sleep. There needs to be a ‘window of opportunity’ which allows for this, where noise levels and disturbance are kept to a minimum.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 905 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(iii) There is need for time to service the streets, i.e. street/pavement cleansing and litter collection. This is best carried out when there are minimum people on the streets. In some parts of the City this window of opportunity is minimal, placing pressure on services to deliver.

(iv) In consideration of 27 recent A3 appeal cases the inspectors have imposed conditions relating to hours of operation and in 78% of cases imposed terminal hours of earlier or similar to that contained in the draft replacement UDP. [18]

(75) (i) See (bv) above. [66]

(76) (i) Not agreed to delete this policy. There are recognisable differences between the impacts generated from differing A3 uses. This is supported by the current review of the Use Classes Order. It is considered , therefore, reasonable to impose conditions where this may ensure impacts at minimised having regard to residential amenity. The approach to condition planning permissions is used by Inspectors at Appeal. [681]

(77) (i) Not agreed to delete this policy. There are recognisable differences between the impacts generated from differing A3 uses. This is supported by the current review of the Use Classes Order. It is considered , therefore, reasonable to impose conditions where this may ensure impacts at minimised having regard to residential amenity. The approach to condition planning permissions is used by Inspectors at Appeal. [66]

(78) (i) 'Where appropriate' is a common statement used in planning and allows for interpretation and flexibility. This also means that conditions will not always be imposed, only when it is considered reasonable.

(ii) It is acknowledged that some restaurant uses may have similar impacts to other A3 uses depending on the presence of a bar etc. Each application is considered on its merits having regard to these type of issues, i.e. proportion of bar use within the restaurant and vertical drinking, etc. [777]

Former Shopping (SS) Policies and Objections: Council’s Responses

(79) (i) Policy SS6 has been amended and part of it has been moved into Chapter 8, a revised Chapter now called Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment and combined with TCE 8 to create a new policy of entertainment uses. Part of SS6 criteria has also be included in new Policy TACE 10:Criteria for Assessing Entertainment Uses. Policy SS6 now has more of a focus on the protection of A1 uses in the CAZ and CAZ frontages outside the Primary Shopping Frontages and restricting the introduction of non-A1 retail uses particularly at basement, ground and first floor level. It removes Clauses (D), (E), (F) and (G) related to A3 uses which are covered in the new TACE 10 policy.

(ii) Para. 7.74 supports part (C) and is necessary to manage the mix of A3 and other non-A1 uses in the CAZ. Over-concentrations of A3 uses can and has led to problems with residential amenity, cleansing and anti-social behaviour, and can change the character of an area from retail to one dominated by A3 uses. Three or more non-A1 uses is considered in retail and amenity terms likely to be harmful to the character and function of an area and therefore is justified. This policy requirement was in the Adopted UDP policy SS4 as 'three or more non retail units located in a frontage…'. The use of 'units' in the adopted policy is actually more stringent than the new policy proposed. The three or more in a row

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 906 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

policy is a way to define over-concentration. Over concentration depends on the amount of non A1 uses in a street having regard to the number of A1 uses and the impact that the A3 concentration may have on the residential amenity, local environment and shopping vitality and viability. Each application will be assessed on its merits in terms of physical and functional break in any retail parade and impact upon vitality and viability, part (B) of the policy covers this aspect and the second bullet point of part (C) allows the assessment of A3 and entertainment uses according to the character and function of the area and the ability of an area to absorb further A3 uses in terms of sustainability.

(iii) Applications will be considered on their merits having regard to the policy requirements. In some instances it may be justified that a non-A1 use is appropriate in a particular area. [777]

(80) (i) The Stress Area boundaries have been drawn to reflect the areas where there is a saturation of A3/entertainment uses to the extent that the character is being eroded and where stress on the street environment is evident.

(ii) The boundary has been extended north of Oxford Street to include part of Hanway Place, Hanway Street, and the eastern side of Rathbone Place, due to the presence of A3 uses and vertical drinking which occurs in these streets outside present venues. The rest of the boundary has been taken approximately on block north of Oxford Street along East Castle, Market and Great Castle Street. The boundary has been extended to the west to include parts of Hanover Street, Maddox Street, Conduit Street, Heddon Street, Swallow Street, Vine Street and Air Street. A small area has also been included between Norris and Charles Street.

(iii) The area bounded by St. Martins Place, William IV Street and Duncannon Street has been removed from the Stress Area, as there is no concentration or saturation of A3 or entertainment uses in this area. [108]

(81) (i) Refer to comments on Policy TACE 10A and general paragraph above. [777]

(82) (i) Part (E) of SS6 policy is now located in TACE 10. It has been amended to allow greater flexibility and consideration of the impact of the proposed use entertainment uses on residential amenity. [777]

(83) (i) Refer to comments on Policy TACE 10C.

(ii) The terms 'where appropriate' have continued to be used in TACE 10. It may not be appropriate in all circumstances to impose conditions where they do not meet the six point test under circular 11/95. Therefore the terms 'where appropriate' clarifies the flexibility. In some cases the impacts from bars and pubs can be considered greater than that of a restaurant. It recognises this in the plan however the policies for A3 uses apply to pubs, bars and restaurants equally having regard to Use Class Order 1987. Where a restaurant is proposed by an applicant and impact is limited due to the nature of the operation; i.e. restriction on hours of operation, agree to a restriction on use, no use of music, focus on consumption of food, etc., then the application may in some circumstances be considered more favourably than a bar/pub where drinking is the prime focus and music is to be provided and likely to impact on residential amenity. Applications would be considered on their merits. [777]

(84) (i) Refer to comments on TACE 8(A) and (B).

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 907 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) It is not considered that the concept of Stress Areas is contrary to national Planning Policy Guidance. The development of the Stress Areas has been substantiated in the new TACE policies.

(iii) Exceptional circumstances have been clarified in the new policies TACE 8 and TACE 9. [777]

(85) (i) Second Deposit comments:

Refer to responses on Paras 8.71, 8.71g, 8.71q in the TACE Policies.

(ii) First Deposit comments:

This paragraph has been deleted and is now contained in policies TACE 8 and 9.

(iii) Due to improved transport links and need for regeneration in some areas there is no reason why other areas should not support the introduction of A3 uses where impact on residential amenity is not likely to occur. [777]

(86) (i) The TACE policies are now more focused on recognising the importance of the entertainment industry and the part it plays in the 'World City'. It is more consistent with the approach in STRA 1. [777]

(87) (i) Second Deposit comments:

Part (C) is necessary to manage the mix of A3 and other non-A1 uses in the CAZ. Over-concentration of A3 uses can and has led to problems with residential amenity, cleansing, and anti-social behaviour, and can change the character of an area from retail to one dominated by A3 uses. Three or more non-A1 uses is considered in retail and amenity terms likely to be harmful to the character and function of an area and therefore is justified. This policy requirement was in the Adopted UDP policy SS4 as 'three or more non retail units located in a frontage…'. The use of 'units' in the adopted policy is actually more stringent than the new policy proposed. The three or more in a row policy is a way to define over- concentration. Over concentration depends on the amount of non - A1 uses in a street having regard to the number of A1 uses and the impact that the A3 concentration may have on the residential amenity, local environment and shopping vitality and viability.

(ii) Refer to TACE Policies comments

(iii) Part (E) of SS6 policy, relating to above, below, adjoining etc. residential uses, has been deleted and is now located in TACE 10. It has been amended to allow greater flexibility and consideration of the impact of the proposed use entertainment uses on residential amenity. [780]

(88) (i) Part (E) of SS6 policy has been deleted and is now located in TACE 10. It has been amended to allow greater flexibility and consideration of the impact of the proposed use entertainment uses on residential amenity.

(ii) Parts (F) and (G) have been deleted from this policy.

(iii) The Stress Areas have been reviewed having regard to objections received and recent inspections of the areas and surrounds. Policy TACE 8 explains what a Stress Area is and provides an outlined justification for the use of the Stress Areas concept. The Stress Areas are considered justified and are not arbitrary in Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 908 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

their definition. The boundaries of each of the Stress Areas has been modified for Second Deposit. [66]

(89) (i) It is agreed that there was some repetition in the plan, therefore the TACE policies were created to amalgamate some parts of the policies relating to A3 and D2 uses. The Edgware Road Stress Area has been reviewed having regard to saturation of entertainment uses (A3 & D2) and the effects on the general amenity, character and function. Small amendments have been made to the Stress Area which include the most northern section of the stress area has been deleted based on the fact that it is located within the Paddington Special Policy Area where regeneration is being encouraged. There are no problems of conflict happening in this area due to entertainment uses. There is no over concentration of A3 or entertainment uses in this area.

(ii) The area fronting Cabbell Street has been removed as it is predominantly residential in nature.

(iii) The area between Connaught Place and Bayswater Road is dominated by office and residential development which are not likely to be converted to entertainment uses. This area has been removed.

(iv) Two new areas have been included. The corner of Marble Arch and Great Cumberland Place where a predominant A3 use is located and other opportunities exist and Seymour Place, which has a dominance of A3 uses including restaurants on both sides of the road and a Public House. It was not agreed to delete the entire Stress Area due to the concentration of entertainment uses which exist in this area. The area designated on the plan submitted does contain A3 uses at ground floor level and a casino. This area cannot be considered in isolation to the other surrounding uses and their impacts. It is considered this area contributes to the concentration of entertainment uses in this area and therefore there is no justifiable reason why it should be removed from the Stress Area. [90]

(90) (i) The Stress Area boundaries have been drawn to reflect the areas where there is a saturation of A3/entertainment uses to the extent that the character is being eroded and where stress on the street environment is evident.

(ii) The development of Stress Areas has occurred over a period of time and is justified in the new Policy TACE 8. [765]

(91) (i) As for (ap).

(ii) Part (E) of SS6 policy relating to above ,below, adjoining etc. residential, has been deleted and is now located in TACE 10. It has been amended to allow greater flexibility and consideration of the impact of the proposed use entertainment uses on residential amenity. [491]

(92) (i) Part (E) of SS6 policy has been deleted and is now located in TACE 10. It has been amended to allow greater flexibility and consideration of the impact of the proposed use entertainment uses on residential amenity. [709]

(93) (i) Part (E) of SS6 policy has been deleted and is now located in TACE 10. It has been amended to allow greater flexibility and consideration of the impact of the proposed use entertainment uses on residential amenity.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 909 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(ii) Parts (F) and (G) have been deleted from this policy.

(iii) The Stress Areas have been reviewed having regard to objections received and recent inspections of the areas and surrounds. Policy TACE 8 explains what a Stress Area is and provides an outlined justification for the use of the stress areas concept. The Stress Areas are considered justified and are not arbitrary in their definition. The boundaries of each of the Stress Areas has been modified for Second deposit. [18]

(94) (i) Acknowledge part withdrawal of objection. No changes are proposed to (D) in the pre- Inquiry version of the Plan.

(ii) Part (D) has been removed from this policy. [722]

(95) (i) It is not considered that the policy in its revised format is contrary to Planning Policy Guidance. [299]

(96) (i) The CAZ has not just been the traditional home for entertainment. It has been the home for residential, creative industries, offices and shopping. A home to a mix of uses. The growth in late night activity is partly attributable to the growth in entertainment premises. This growth has resulted in a change of character in some areas and pressures on the local environment. Where a nexus can be established between development and the additional need for public services and facilities, it is reasonable to expect planning obligations to be imposed. [843]

(97) (i) Support welcomed. [381] [104]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

(A) Growth in Entertainment Uses and Activities

8.10.1 The available evidence (CD 15/12) points to a considerable increase of West End entertainment uses and activity, especially over the past decade. Indeed, it is noticeable that the problem of consequential anti-social behaviour and street crime has subtly shifted in emphasis. This is clear from a comparison of adopted UDP Policies SS 14 and THE 8 with Policies TACE 8-10 (inclusive) in the Review UDP. The former suggest that street disturbance was a relatively localised social problem and that the criteria for control should relate mainly to residential amenity. There was also explicit Policy THE 10 support for a linear entertainment zone, linking Leicester Square and Covent Garden, within which there was a presumption in favour of new entertainment uses. The dropping of this Policy is the subject of objection. In this instance, I support the LPA’s decision for reasons which will be apparent in my consideration of the other 23 headings under which I intend to review the wide spectrum of objection.

(B) Mixed Use Proposals

8.10.2 The essence of the UDP’s land use policies for the CAZ is to introduce a broader base of combined residential and employment uses, wherever possible. In this context, it is perhaps a little surprising that no apparent consideration has been given to the possible emergence or introduction of mixed use in the form of combined Class A3-C3 development. Granted that Policy TACE 10(B) specifically sets its face against the introduction of Class A3- D2 development in the proximity of residential, I am inclined to wonder whether this absolute embargo is justified and whether a properly planned and controlled development might not comply with Policy CENT 4, in particular, having regard to entertainment uses being a

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 910 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

recognised supporting activity within the CAZ. I make no recommendation on this point but merely comment that integral residential accommodation might offer a valuable self-policing function as well as being a useful form of planning advantage to be taken into account in the context of generally more prescriptive criteria-based Policies which I later advocate.

8.10.3 There would appear to be more than adequate land use and time series data available to the LPA (CD 8/3 and CD 15/12), based on successive statutory land use surveys (TCPA 1990 s11(1)(a)). That being the case, it is perhaps a little surprising that Policies TACE 8-10 in particular do not differentiate, in a little more detail, between establishments which might be more or less acceptable or appropriate in the designated Stress Areas (and indeed beyond). This broad-brush embargo on certain wide Use Classes within what are fairly extensive areas of Central London is the subject of a large number of objections, as tabulated above. The fact that a number of objectors are singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak, does not at all invalidate their objections. It occurs to me that a degree of differentiation, in terms of overall floorspace, hours of opening, internal amenities and customer capacity, within a given Use Class might well offer useful criteria for assessing planning applications and would also allow restrictive conditions to limit activity within a Use Class to be reliably applied and, more importantly, to be effectively enforced.

(D) Conformity with Published Planning Policy Guidance

8.10.4 There would seem to be no very apparent conflict between Policies TACE 8-10 and the most directly relevant published planning guidance (PPGs 1,6,12 and 21). Objections have been made to alleged conflict between the UDP Policies and PPG 6 in particular. The latter sets out its advice on “Leisure and the Evening Economy” in paragraphs 2.19-2.23.This advice suggests that evening entertainment can be a source of residential disturbance and that LPAs should develop strategies that “support the evening economy”. It seems to me that many objections view any restrictions on the growth of entertainment facilities in WESA or elsewhere to be contrary to that advice. I do not, because I endorse the City Council’s view that unbridled activity by excess concentration constitutes a very clear threat, not only to other Central London activities, such as theatregoing, but also to aspects of the entertainment industry itself, such as small restaurants, for which Soho has long been renowned.

(E) Procedure for Planning Applications

8.10.4 Many objections refer to what is seen as an unnecessary level of detail in planning applications for A3 and D2 uses in the Stress Areas. The objections generally relate to the detail set out in the Policy Application section of TACE 10 (paragraphs 8.71s-8.71aa). The matters there set out seem to me to be highly relevant to applications for planning permission in what, by any definition, are bound to be potentially bad neighbour uses or activities city- wide and especially in the relatively congested Stress Areas. The problem seems to lie in the clarity of the Policy and the onus placed on applicants to provide evidence in support of proposals whose conformity with the development plan cannot always be reliably determined. By this I mean that explicit guidance, in the form of clearer criteria-based policies, ought to be available to applicants before they embark on preparing proposals in sufficient detail to satisfy the supporting text of the UDP Policies. In this respect, I conclude that the three TACE Policies fail to follow the explicit advice of PPG 12 (paragraph 3.11).

(F) Need for Policies TACE 8-10

8.10.5 There is no explicit strategic Policy in the Draft London Plan to support the inclusion of Policies TACE 8-10 in the UDP. However, as the LPA points out, the problems of the

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 911 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

night-time economy are recognised in paragraphs 3D.27-28 of the Plan and the concentration of night-time economic activity within Westminster (and especially in the Soho- Covent Garden area) is graphically illustrated in its Map 3D.2. The most relevant, albeit more general policy is Policy 3D.4 which covers “Culture, Leisure and Sport in London”. This reflects an important nexus between tourist, artistic, cultural and entertainment activities which together justify the status of London as a World Class City, as reflected in the title of Chapter 8 of the UDP. Several objections consider the whole concept of Stress Areas to be inimical to this status. On the contrary, I conclude that the four props of international status and standing are of equal importance. The unbridled and unrestricted growth of entertainment uses is a potential threat to the viability of the other three.

8.10.6 That there is a clear and present problem of public order and street violence in and around the designated Stress Areas can scarcely be doubted. During my several visits to the areas at night, both accompanied and unaccompanied, made at the LPA’s request, I was impressed by the sheer weight of numbers of people present until the small hours. This was most evident in Leicester Square, where the numbers and demeanour of people present almost amounted to a situation of mob rule. Indeed, even earlier in the evening and on the very fringes of the WESA at the Tottenham Court Road-Charing Cross Road intersection, the behaviour of individuals bordered on the terrifying, although probably not actually involving criminal activity. However, the perception of such dangers is evidenced in survey material (eg CD15/14) and it is beyond doubt that such fears among theatregoers and other decorous visitors, especially foreign visitors, could in the longer term lead to a collapse of other aspects of the night-time economy of Central London.

(G) Imposition of Terminal Hours

8.10.7 It is obvious that hours of operation of establishments, especially the so-called “vertical drinking” establishments, have a considerable bearing on pedestrian traffic density and movement and, hence, the incidence of disorder and street violence. The view of the Metropolitan Police, which I share, is that the staggering of permitted hours would remove the problems of congestion and disturbance. In this sense, there are probably conflicting trends. One is that licensing hours are likely to be liberalised (ie there may well be less scope for limiting or prescribing the hours of opening). The other is the welcome provision by TfL and the Mayor of London of greatly enhanced and more accessible all-night bus services (possibly eventually to include all-night services on the London Undergound). Taken together, these trends mean that an added responsibility must rest on the LPA to at least consider the more general imposition of time-limiting conditions on planning permissions for new Class A3 use. This will necessarily be a gradual process; evidence (CD 15/18) suggests that such conditions have not been general in the past, within WESA at least.

(H) Principle and Extent of Stress Area Definition

8.10.8 The evidence of the LPA, which I accept, is that the spatial definition of the three Stress Areas in Westminster is fully justified. This is an important aspect of the UDP in the sense that either similar Stress Areas or, possibly, Entertainment Management Zones (EMZs) (see the London Plan at paragraph 3D.28) may be designated in the Inner London Boroughs at places like Camden Town and Hammersmith Broadway and the success or otherwise of the UDP TACE Policies will be the subject of close study by other London Boroughs and the GLA itself. My overall conclusion is that the overall spatial data on street crime and disorder and patterns of land use are robust enough to justify the admittedly broad brush designation of such areas. Regarding the former, I believe that the proper basis of assessment is the comparative incidence of crime. This needs to be assessed relative to the whole of Westminster. The alternative indicator, relative incidence of crime as between one Stress Area and another, is an unsound basis. This was advanced by the Edgware Road Association (ERA) who appeared at the UDP Inquiry. The reason I take this view is the

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 912 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

demonstrable peaking of criminal street activity in the West End Stress Area (WESA); to define other Stress Areas relative to this would risk overlooking other pockets of anti-social activity directly attributable to the local clustering of entertainment activity.

8.10.9 I have no recommendations to make on the many very detailed adjustments that might be made to the WESA in particular. This is because the LPA have already looked at the boundaries and have made a number of fine-scale alterations (Maps 8.2-8.4). My various site inspections have tended to confirm the appropriateness of these adjustments and I moreover lack the detailed statistical data which might inform a considered recommendation on my part. The objections that I wish to address, on the other hand, are those which oppose the extension of WESA to the west of Regent Street and into Covent Garden. My reasoning is that the designation of any Stress Area (or EMZ for that matter) is likely to give rise to “frontier problems” which arise in the case of free-standing controlled parking zones (CPZs). Such problems, in my view, are best forestalled by the creation of buffer zones. By such means, in the case of WESA, any tendency for Class A3 or similar restricted uses to congregate around the exclusion zone would be avoided. If that were to happen, the basic aims and purposes of Policies TACE 8-10 might well be frustrated.

(I) Possible Use of Conditions

8.10.10 Many of the objections claim that a number of planning problems associated with entertainment use might well be overcome by the imposition of conditions rather than by outright embargo (or what is currently perceived as an embargo). With this view I cannot but agree, not least because it is long-standing planning policy not to oppose development in cases where its adverse effects can be reliably controlled by conditions. The problem with Policies TACE 8-10, in my view, is that their terms (even having regard to their supporting text) are insufficiently precise to support the accurate framing of suitable conditions. If, as I later conclude, the Policies were to be formulated as generally criteria-based, this would have certain advantages. By reference to specific criteria, such as space standards and density of patronage, not only would undue clustering or congestion be avoided, but the imposition of conditions would accord with the relevant legal and policy restrictions. I am bound to add that this advantage would be of gradual effect since only new development would be subject to such control. One significant advantage of revising Policies TACE 8-10 (as later recommended) might be to encourage or prioritise the physical adaptation of premises and thereby bring them under firmer control by condition. This obvious fact is indeed pointed out by several objectors.

(J) Flexible Application of Policies

8.10.11 I have little doubt and certainly no compelling evidence to suggest that the Chapter 8 policies of the UDP will be anything other than flexibly applied. However, my major misgivings relate to the somewhat rigid and inflexible nature of these TACE Policies themselves, rather than their future application. TACE 10 in particular gives limited locational guidance and refers to a wide number of possible adverse impacts which are nowhere precisely quantified or described in such a way as to give a prospective applicant or (more importantly) an intending developer a clear idea of the admissibility of development proposals. Reference has perforce to be made to a series of considerations in paragraph 8.71t of the supplementary text and to SPG, in the form of Area Profiles, as described in paragraph 8.71u. This strikes me as being a distinctly back to front arrangement and certainly does not accord with the spirit of PPG 12 guidance. I have little doubt that the Policy would be sympathetically and flexibly interpreted, according to s54A of the 1990 Act but that would be a poor substitute for a lucid, preferably criteria-based, Policy in the first place.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 913 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(K) Restrictions on Class D2 and Future Use Class Order Changes

8.10.12 It is clear that much of the deep public apprehension surrounding the entertainment activity in the Stress Areas generally and the WESA in particular relates to premises changing their character without the need for express planning permission. Changes within the same Use Class do not require planning permission unless a condition is imposed to restrict the permission to a specific use. The same end may be obtained by an article 4 Direction under the GPDO 1995. It is fair to say that government policy has been that LPAs should use these powers sparingly. Whether or not it is equally fair to say that restrictions such as these should only be used “exceptionally” (as claimed by several objectors) is open to doubt. In any case, the advice of C13/87 is that conditions restricting change of use within a Use Class may be justified in order to address significant local problems. In my view, the sort of problems of public order and amenity encountered within the Stress Areas are such as fully to justify such restrictions. That being the case, there would seem to be no good reason why an intention to apply such restrictions should not be signalled in the UDP. One reason for so doing would be to invoke the provisions of s54A of the Act in the determination of both planning applications and appeals.

(L) Impact on Residential Amenity

8.10.13 From a reading of the evidence and the objections and from a study of the provisions of the equivalent Policies in the adopted UDP, it is clear that this is the outstanding amenity consideration in the application of the generality of Chapter 8 Policies. I attach little weight to the claims of some objectors to the effect that residential amenity is not at risk in the WESA. In effect, they claim that people would not continue to buy or rent or live in property in Central London if external conditions were as dire as the LPA claim. This is a somewhat specious argument for a number of reasons. Firstly, the evidence before me points to a significant worsening of conditions during the past decade. It may well be that a significant number of residents have lived in the Stress Areas for a good deal longer. Secondly, it is a fundamental aim of both the London Plan and the UDP to try to increase the number of local residents in the interests of sustainability, among other things. This suggests that residential amenity throughout Central London ought to be a high planning priority. Lastly, it is implicitly the purpose of planning policy to enhance the quality of urban life and not merely to ensure that the status quo is maintained. This is epecially true of conservation areas, whose extent largely cover the WESA.

(M) Area Management

8.10.14 The WESA is effectively under 24-hour CCTV surveillance and control by private agencies, jointly funded by commercial interests and the City Council. During my night-time accompanied visit to the control centre near Piccadilly Circus, I was impressed by the system’s efficiency and effectiveness in detecting and recording instances of crime and unruly behaviour. It is essentially a system designed to detect public order offences and deploy police resources more effectively. It occurs to me that the detailed record of offences or disturbance might provide the sort of fine-grained spatial data on which to analyse or determine more precisely the putative correlation between the clustering of certain land use categories and the incidence of disorderly or criminal behaviour. This would be very much a “Planning out Crime” (CD 2/9) initiative to which considerable research has been undertaken in the context of new residential development. No such data were available at the Inquiry and it is an aspect of policy analysis that I would particularly commend to the LPA. It is true that a wealth of spatial data is available in connection with noise nuisance and complaints but these may or may not be related specifically to street crime, noise or disturbance.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 914 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(N) Licensing Regimes

8.10.15 There are a number of licensing or regulatory regimes available to the City Council and other agencies. These include the sale of alcohol, entertainment, music and dancing and the placing of tables and chairs in the highway. These are ancillary and complementary to the development and use of land and buildings. However, as I have concluded elsewhere (TA11) “the control of land use is the primary or most direct way of dealing with anti-social behaviour or disturbance at source”. Land use planning, provided that it is restricted to matters pertaining to the use and development of land, coupled with the control of other matters by way of legal agreement or unilateral undertaking, is the best way of securing the disposition and detailed design of facilities intended for the congregation of people bent on entertainment and the possible source of unruly and antisocial behaviour. The other regimes may have different criteria and methods of enforcement but I remain firmly of the view that the first line of defence must be land use planning, subject to site-specific or spatial policies.

(O) Enabling Development

8.10.16 There is a particular aspect of entertainment uses in Central London and the West End in particular which relates to enabling development. This matter is raised in the objections that refer to the introduction of Class A3 use within theatres and cinemas. Leaving aside the question of whether purely ancillary sales of food and drink, particularly alcoholic drink, would require express planning permission, there can be little doubt that such activity must enter into the economic calculations of theatrical and other proprietors. It will thus directly affect the viability of theatres and cinemas and their possible future development and redevelopment. This is a matter of vital public interest in view of the contribution such facilities make to the attractions of Central London and in recognition of the fact that many theatres are listed buildings to which subsidy by way of enabling development is actively supported by HBMC (CD 17/11). The LPA may therefore wish to include, in any revision of Policies TACE 8-10, provision to exempt such enabling development from the general restrictions in force within the Stress Areas.

(P) Stress Indicators

8.10.17 There is a very great deal of time-series and area-related statistical data relating to crime and disorder in Westminster (CD 15/31 etc). These data are useful in comparing Westminster with other London Boroughs and in comparing one Metropolitan Police Division within Westminster with the others (ie West End Central, Belgravia, Charing Cross, Marylebone and Paddington). The data are disaggregated in a number of ways, such as broad locations and proximity to main line railway termini but none of which are directly comparable with what might be called the building blocks used in data-bases for urban planning and development control. This lack of accurate or even possible statistical correlation between street crime and its demonstrable or ostensible causes seems to me to underlie a good deal of the justifiable scepticism which is evident in many of the objections to Policies 8-10 and their probable application within the Stress Areas.

(Q) Conformity with London Plan

8.10.18 There is no directly applicable policy contained in the emergent London Plan that suggests an immediate provenance for Policies TACE 8-10. However, paragraphs 3D.27-28 deal with the recognised problems of the night-time economy, with particular reference to Central London and the West End. In their consideration of this aspect of the London Plan the EiP Panel (in their July 2003 Report (page 93)) concluded that the GLA concept of EMZs (qv) should not be imposed on the London Boroughs but that they should pursue local policies intended to control unruly behaviour and street disorder. This is very

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 915 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

much the approach of the City Council and it is instructive to note the relevant recommendation of the Panel (R6.9) which I shall quote verbatim:

“Policy 3D.4 and the supporting text should recognise the flexibility the London Boroughs need in managing the night time economy and paragraph 3D.27 should be amended to remove the implication that the South Bank should relieve the pressures on the West End”.

The last point is of especial interest in that the City Council has referred to the possibility of the two new Hungerford footbridges across the Thames providing a sort of escape route or safety valve for excessive pedestrian activity within the southern part of the WESA. Whilst not wishing to comment on the merits of the EiP Panel’s recommendation, it does rather add point to my earlier conclusion that a buffer zone around the Stress Areas has some planning merit although its designation in this instance would be for the London Borough of Lambeth in its future UDP. Generally it seems to me that the basic tenor of Policies TACE 8-10 is in substantial conformity with the emergent London Plan, subject only to their comprehensive detailed review (as later recommended).

(R) Alternative Controls on Entertainment Uses

8.10.19 The objections that assert that the adverse impacts of entertainment uses are best controlled by means other than the land use planning system, such as liquor and entertainment licensing, are not supported. Firstly, such uses are recognised by the Use Classes Order and any change of use of premises from another Use Class requires express planning permission. Planning applications must be determined in the light of the provisions of the development plan. It follows that the LPA must necesssarily take a view, among many other things, on the degree of probability that the use (and its nature or intensity) willl directly or indirectly lead to noise, disturbance and anti-social or criminal behaviour. Moreover, it is commonly argued (at least in my professional experience) that comparably offending uses such as amusement arcades and mini-cab offices should be subject primarily to control under legislation governing public order offences and the regulation of traffic, rather than by planning control. This, in my view, is a specious argument and I conclude that the latter should be the first barrier of defence against any threat to public order in the sense that it is better to treat the basic causes rather than the overt symptoms of threats to public order and urban amenity.

(S) Need for Stress Area SPG

8.10.20 The UDP, in several places, quite rightly recognises that the character and function of a local area may be highly material to any detailed planning decision or determination. This is of course particularly true in the case of conservation areas where the words “character and appearance” appear in the relevant statute. It is the apparent intention of the LPA to prepare SPG to assist in the determination of applications in the CAZ and also within conservation areas. Since the WESA is entirely within the CAZ and several conservation areas, it would seem right to issue detailed SPG in respect of the character and function of identifiable small areas within it. By those means, conformity with the recommended criteria set out in a review of Policies TACE 8-10 might be more reliably assessed. Whether this be done before or after the UDP’s formal adoption is a matter for the LPA. My advice would be to prepare criteria-based policies first and to follow these with SPG, as a matter of urgency, so that adoption is not unduly delayed. Whether or not a modifications Inquiry would be needed would depend on the degree to which the many objectors were satisfied with a new criteria-based set of policies.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 916 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

(T) Management and Personal Permissions

8.10.21 Certain of the objectors [eg 777] took the view that the standard of management of licensed premises had a very good deal to do with the subsequent behaviour of customers on leaving the premises and hence the local incidence of public order offences This is undoubtedly the case, in that responsible publicans seek to ensure that further drink is not served to intoxicated or unruly people on the premises. However, this is essentially a matter for the licensing authorities. As I made clear at the Inquiry, the standard of management cannot be enforced by planning control and indeed is only a material planning consideration when a personal permission is being sought or is acceptable. It seems to me doubtful whether a significant number of prospective applicants are likely to seek or to accept personal permissions in an area like Soho and such permissions could not be routinely issued or be made a criterion by which the merits of an application would be judged, purely and simply because such rigidity would run counter to long-standing planning policy guidance.

(U) Character and Function of Areas

8.10.22 The character and function of areas is relevant to Stress Area designation in the UDP because, as I have earlier argued, the prevailing pattern, mix and intensity of land use must be material considerations when (a) formulating policy designed to prevent or reduce the concentration of entertainment uses which directly and demonstrably lead to public disorder and unruly behaviour in identifiable parts of these areas and (b) determining planning applications in the light of such policies. This is essentially a matter for SPG which might usefully define such physical characteristics as floorspace indices, seating capacities and age, condition and architectural or historic interest or value of buildings as well as the demographic aspects of areas such as size and composition of the locally resident population and the levels of employment offered or sustained by existing and proposed entertainment and other forms of land use. Such surveys and analyses are likely to have to be made with respect to a number of Chapter 1 and 10 UDP Policies (amongst others) and it is reasonable to assume that the relevant data will be available on which to base SPG for the various Stress Areas.

(V) Provision of All-Night Transport

8.10.23 All the Stress Areas appear to be highly accessible by both day and night time scheduled bus services and the London Underground. This is particularly true of the Edgware Road and Queensway-Bayswater Areas although parts of Soho may enjoy slightly lower levels of accessibility by bus services which is probably compensated for by enhanced levels of Underground access. The significance of the recent improvement of all-night bus services is that consideration may be given to the possible staggering of closing hours (or terminal hours as they are termed in the UDP) by the imposition of conditions to that effect, according to the type and location of premises. The only proviso is that such staggering of closing hours would be of limited immediate (if incremental) effect because it could only be imposed on new development proposals. However, the contents of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (CD 5/7) very strongly suggest that a 24-hour bus network will continue to be established and will certainly remain a permanent feature of London Transport.

(W) Definition of Entertainment Uses

8.10.24 The entertainment uses which are targetted in Policies TACE 8-10 are those currently contained in Use Classes A3 and D2. There may be future changes to the Use Classes Order (CD1/07) but, in any event, it would be possible to restrict individual changes of use within either existing or any future Use Classes by condition, provided that there are good planning reasons for doing so. It might therefore be a useful feature of future SPG, to

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 917 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

be issued in conjunction with TACE 8-10, to tabulate the various component uses within the two Use Classes in question in order to signal to applicants the likely restrictions that might be imposed on individual permissions within the Stress Areas. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that individual applicants might wish spontaneously to elect for such self-regulation, so to speak, if that were likely to enhance the prospects of an individual proposal for a given site. That would seem to me to be a more likely form of auto-restricted permission than one that confined a permission to a given operator or undertaking.

(X) Previous Appeal Decisions

8.10.25 Many of the objections refer to past planning decisions that have been issued on appeal within the proposed Stress Areas. These objections seek to have the provisions of the UDP altered to have regard to individual Inspectors’ decisions. This cannot be right since the purpose of s54A of the 1990 Act is to ensure that decisions are in line with the provisions of the current development plan, not that the development plan should be framed in such a way as to reflect the nature of decisions made some time previously. Apart from anything else, Inspectors’ decisions will probably have been made in the light of the adopted, rather than the emergent UDP. In addition, these decisions may have been made quite properly on the facts of the case in question and may be of limited general application. Finally, since I have only the bare text of the decision letters before me, I am unable to reach any firm conclusions on the individual determinations of my colleagues since no other evidence or material considerations are available upon which to judge their precise relevance.

General Conclusions on Policies TACE 8-10

8.10.26 I conclude that the collective aims of the Policies are unexceptionable. They appear to enjoy some strategic support from the emergent London Plan and they do not appear to me to be in significant conflict with extant policy guidance, either at national or regional level. As will indeed be obvious from my individual conclusions under the above headings (A-X), I consider the detailed formulation and future application of Policies TACE 8-10 to be flawed and likely to be very difficult fairly to implement and effectively to enforce. The essential problem, as pointed out by a number of the objectors, is the disparity between the broad- brush diagnostic approach to Stress Area definition and the fine-grained nature of planning decisions that need to be taken at individual property level. In other words, the related group of Policies are not only somewhat draconian in nature but would also be difficult to apply, justify and defend, according to clear and understood criteria, in the case of the individual determination of future planning applications and appeals.

8.10.27 Since I am going to recommend that the City Council delete the three existing Policies in favour of their replacement, it is necessary for me to indicate at least the very broad lines of future policy guidance and, more importantly, the methodology which might be employed in its formulation. Generally speaking, the greatest evidential gap is in the area of the spatial and statistical correlation of criminal activity and public order offences, on the one hand, and the pattern, rate of growth, capacity and opening hours of entertainment establishments, on the other. Data on the former group are relatively coarse-grained and not locationally precise, at least according to all the evidence before me. There is a positive wealth of data on land use and allied entertainment activity (CD 8/3 and CD 15/12 etc) as well as much non-spatial information on the trends, preferences, attitudes and anxieties of the tourist and visitor population (CD 15/14).

8.10.28 The problem, as I see it, is to assemble enough area or site-specific and comparable data to arrive at sound conclusions on interaction between land use and human activity within the Stress Areas after dark. I am well satisfied that the available data from the LPA, the Metropolitan Police and other agencies firmly support a prima facie case for the three Areas, as they are identified in the UDP. These data are adequate to support the

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 918 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

differential application of policies governing the size and location of Class A3 and D2 uses either inside the Stress Areas, within the CAZ or outside the CAZ. The arbitrary and aggregated bases of the Metropolitan Police statistics relating to street crime and disorder in the Edgware Road Stress Area was touched on in evidence by the Edgware Road Association (ERA) who appeared at the Inquiry. Although their objections were late in being made, ERA were allowed to appear at the Inquiry and made a very helpful contribution to it, not least in exposing the possible (if unproven) mismatch between street crime data and the LPA’s definition of the relevant Stress Area in the UDP.

8.10.29 Having concluded that there is a reasonably robust case for the definition of the three Stress Areas, I next turn to what reasonable land use planning criteria might be adopted for the purposes of interim development control. There seems to me a very rough inverse analogy between policies designed to protect the integrity, vitality and viability of shopping centres (cf PPG 6) and those which might be applied to the undesirable clustering and area domination of various forms of entertainment uses in the designated Stress Areas. Policies TACE 8 and TACE 10, in particular, might well be revised on a more criteria-based formulation such as to apply limits to street frontage occupied by Class A3 and D2 uses or, alternatively or additionally, the percentage of site area or aggregate floorspace within an individual street block (or any other definable spatial unit) that could be made up of these two land uses.

8.10.30 To be a little more technical, the calculation of location quotients (ie the relative local concentration of a given category of land use as compared with its average incidence within a wider area such as the whole of Westminster, Central London or even Greater London) for component land use categories might be used to determine both thresholds of application and the balance between residential, entertainment and employment land use activity within any given sub area of the WESA or any other Stress Area. This is touched on earlier where I advocated the assembly of data on a suitably disaggregated basis in order to illustrate and convincingly to correlate the impact of criminal activity in relation to the function and character of areas such as the Stress Areas for the ultimate purposes of preparing and issuing SPG to complement Policies TACE 8-10.

8.10.31 To pursue the earlier retail analogy a little further, the future formulation of both TACE 8 and 10 might employ the deliberate stratification of the size range of premises, much as component retail development is often broken down, as a matter of planning policy, into small, medium and large units in order to preserve the commercial interests of small traders or to secure or maintain the vitality and character of a given shopping centre. In the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of given areas of Soho, for example, the profile of A3 establishments might be prescribed by policy parameters such that invasive or incompatible and noisy activities are curtailed, either by reference to frontage control or by area-based calculation. In such cases, the LPA may wish to avoid the pitfalls of undue prescriptiveness, on the one hand, and of vagueness and imprecision, on the other. It is clear that many objectors view the latter with more apprehension than the former.

8.10.32 A final approach might be the application of judicious and variable density or capacity standards to all A3 and D2 premises. In my experience, the density of patronage is reasonably reliably calculated on the basis of persons per unit area of net floorspace. More importantly, such occupancy ratios are capable of being influenced or determined by physical factors such as the amount of fixed seating or the provision of restaurant covers. More importantly still, planning conditions governing such capacity are clearly enforceable. In the case of Westminster, there is the added advantage of its being also the licensing authority with parallel powers of enforcement. During my accompanied visits to the West End, at the express invitation of the LPA, I was impressed by the wealth of information, knowledge and detailed case histories that the licensing officers possessed. In this context, it is not so much

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 919 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

the case of planning control being superfluous as being directly complementary to the control exercised under parallel powers available to the authority.

8.10.33 On the issue of complementarity, or what is colloquially known as “joined-up thinking”, certain other matters may colour future policy formulation. One is the possible liberalisation of liquor licensing. Another is the probable emergence of legislation governing anti-social behaviour (the so-called ASB Bill). An important third is the Mayor of London’s and TfL’s increasing the frequency and coverage of all-night buses to and from Central London. There is some evidence that staggered terminal or closing hours may well reduce the incidence and severity of street disturbances. However, this is an area in which planning control is paramount; in the light of the probable liberalisation of licensing laws and the consequential limitations of the powers of licensing authorities to control the hours of sale of alcohol. The ASB legislation may or may not be effective but the essential point here is that it is aimed at the symptoms rather than the causes of street crime which is why, as I have elsewhere argued, planning control must remain the first line of public defence. Lastly, the provision of frequent and reliable public transport cannot but reduce the problem and impact of late-night drinking which future licensing liberalisation may well augment.

8.10.34 There remains the problem of how and how soon to replace the emergent Policies TACE 8-10. Much of these policies’ content is welcome but I have not attempted to respond to the many detailed objections since the LPA is in the best position to undertake a comprehensive review. The alternatives would seem to be the formulation of criteria-based policies, together with detailed SPG in relation to subdivisions of the defined Stress Areas and the generality of the CAZ and beyond. My view is that the LPA should bring forward the former as a matter of some urgency, to be followed by SPG at a later date, possibly in conjunction with the various Conservation Area Audits earlier referred to. To attempt an early review of both Policies and SPG would be ill-advised since it might lead to delayed adoption of the UDP. This would be most undesirable in the light of the pressing and growing pattern of street disturbances and crime which my reading of the available evidence and my several accompanied and unaccompanied inspections of the Areas lead me to conclude are very real and give rise to justifiable and widespread public concern.

Recommendations

R8.10.1 Delete Policy TACE 8(A-E) and replace with a new criteria-based Policy to reflect my comments made in paragraphs 8.10.27-8.10.34 above.

R8.10.2 Delete Policy TACE 9(A-E) and replace with a new criteria-based Policy. to reflect my comments made in paragraphs 8.10.27-8.10.34 above.

R8.10.3 Delete Policy TACE 10(A-C) and replace with a new criteria-based Policy to reflect my comments made in paragraphs 8.10.27-8.10.34 above.

R8.10.4 Delete the supporting text to all the above Policies in favour of revised justification and make the necessary consequential changes to the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

R8.10.5 Retain Maps 8.2-8.4 to indicate the proposed extent of the Stress Areas, the subject of (revised) Policies TACE 8-9 and supporting text.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 920 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TA11: Tables and Chairs

Objectors and Supporters

381 South East Bayswater Residents Association 681 Bell Cornwell Partnership 693 Yates Group PLC 768 Covent Garden Restaurant Association 795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited) 843 Westminster Licensees Association 858 Fish! 859 Manto Group

TA11: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Private forecourts, as recommended in our original comments to Chapter 7, Shopping, paragraphs 7.30 & 7.35 ought to be included in the policy as they can cause problems for residential amenity as much as on the public highway.

(ii) It should be possible to control use of tables and chairs on private forecourts by way of refusal or by conditions limiting hours or numbers of tables and chairs. Other impedimenta such as space heaters or umbrellas should be included here.

(iii) 8.71ag We agree adding the condition ‘hours of use’, but would suggest adding a further condition which would be (d) no playing of amplified music outside the premises’. [381]

(b) (i) The policy is too specific and is seeking to control matters which are subject to other legislation such as street trading licences. This degree of detail is contrary to advice contained in paragraphs 3.11 to 3.14 of PPG12: Development Plans. [693]

(c) (i) Licensing guidelines with regard to space heaters should not be included in the UDP. Such advice should be included in licensing documents. [858] [859]

(d) (i) Reference to "create unnecessary opportunities for crime" should be deleted. The use of tables and chairs acts as a valuable monitoring of crime and is hence a deterrent. [768, 843]

(e) (i) The restriction upon outdoor tables and chairs after 11.00 pm pays no regard to the particular location of any proposal, particularly whether there are any permanent residential units in the vicinity. As such, it is inconsistent with the provisions of TACE10.

(ii) The reference to an increase in the number of tables and chairs causing a shift from A1 to A3 use is not supported by the descriptions in the 1987 Use Classes Order or the explanatory guidance in Circular 13/87. It should, therefore, be deleted.

(iii) The last sentence, referring to opportunities for crime, is not a material planning consideration, and should be deleted. [681]

(f) (i) This paragraph is unbalanced, in that it concentrates solely upon the perceived negative aspects of tables and chairs, specifically their impact upon the amenities of local residents. Instead, it should present a balanced view, referring

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 921 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

as well to the benefits of the 'cafe society' upon the character of central London and its economy. It is inconsistent with paragraph 8.71aj, which acknowledges these benefits.

(ii) Unfortunately the City Council, in all its dealings with café and restaurant owners, places too great an emphasis upon the residential amenity aspects, at the expense of the needs of businesses and their customers. [681]

(g) (i) However welcome recognition of the contribution ‘alfresco eating’ can make to the vibrancy and character of an area. [795]

TA11: Summary of Council Response

(a) (i) Whilst the City Council recognises the concerns raised , the City Council cannot under planning legislation control the use of tables and chairs on private forecourts.

(ii) Agreement by the objector to the insertion of 'hours of use' in paragraph .71ag is acknowledged. An additional point has been added to paragraph 8.71ag of the pre-inquiry RUDP regarding a condition on no use of amplified music outside the premises. Such a condition is attached to current licences. [381]

(b) (i) This policy provides clear guidance to applicants on the matters that will be considered in determining an application. This is consistent with paragraph 3.12 of PPG12. It is not considered that the Policy is contrary to PPG 12. Where the use of tables and chairs for 'al fresco' dining requires planning approval there is the need to set out clear policy on the matters that the City Council will take into consideration. [693]

(c) (i) The reference to space heaters is the policy application and not part of the formal policy. It provides advice only, to applicants, up front, prior to the licensing process, that a formal risk assessment would be required. This was inserted in the plan as a request from an objector to the First Deposit RUDP. It is agreed that this information should be included in licensing advice documents and therefore it is contained in the 'Guidance notes for making applications for Planning permission and Temporary Street Trading Licences for Tables and Chairs on the Public Highway', produced by the City Council. [858] [859]

(d) (i) Crime prevention is a material consideration when planning applications are considered. This is confirmed in Circular 5/94: Planning Out Crime, issued February 25th, 1994. It states that "as with other material considerations the weight that is given will depend on the individual circumstances of the case." This part of the policy is therefore considered consistent with legislation. It is considered by Council and by the Metropolitan Police that there can be particular measures taken to minimise the risk of crime when considering the layout and design of tables and chairs. This will ensure that applicants consider the issue of crime prevention when designing their proposals.

(ii) It is not the opinion of the Metropolitan Police that tables and chairs act as a valuable means of monitoring crime and hence a deterrent. [843] [858]

(e) (i) The policy application, paragraph 8.71ai states that tables and chairs outside premises would not normally be permitted beyond 11pm. There may be circumstances however where this may be permitted. It is not a total restriction on 11pm. The location of the proposal, considering potential nuisance to

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 922 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

residents and the amenity of the area, are two of the criteria in the policy which would be considered.

(ii) The reference to tables and chairs causing a shift from an A1 catering use to an A3 Use Class has been deleted from Paragraph 8.71ai.

(iii) Crime prevention is a material consideration when planning applications are being considered. This is confirmed in Circular 5/94: Planning Out Crime issued February 25th, 1994. It states that "as with other material considerations the weight that is given will depend on the individual circumstances of the case." This part of the policy is therefore considered consistent with legislation. It is considered by Council and by the Metropolitan Police that there can be particular measures taken to minimise the risk of crime when considering the layout and design of tables and chairs. This will ensure that applicants consider the issue of crime prevention when designing their proposals. [681]

(f) (i) Agreed in part that there needs to be a recognition of the benefits brought by 'al fresco' dining in the heart of a World Class City. This was reflected in the change to paragraph 8.71aj at second deposit. The aim of the policy has also been reworded in a more positive way. [681]

(g) (i) Support welcomed. [795]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.11.1 Policy TACE 11 is explicitly concerned with the placing of tables and chairs on the footway, i.e. within the public highway and in the public realm. The provision of seating for the purposes of outdoor eating and drinking is now very much part of the metropolitan scene and will no doubt remain so. The LPA is properly concerned that such amenities do not affect the free flow and general convenience of pedestrian traffic (importantly including disabled people) along the highway. It is equally concerned that tables and chairs (and ancillary items such as space heaters and umbrellas or canopies) do not amount to a de facto intensification of an otherwise acceptable A3 use or look incongruous in the street scene or injure the setting of listed buildings. These are all proper planning purposes, as are the need to safeguard residential amenity (possibly by the imposition of suitable conditions) and the desire to avoid street crime, such as bag-snatching, this last planning aim being the subject of C5/94 advice (Planning Out Crime).

8.11.2 The objections that claim that the Policy duplicates other controls available to the LPA or that it is over-mindful of the well-being of local residents, are not supported. As with many other Chapter 8 Policies (esp TACE 8-10) the obvious fact that other powers are available to the local authority does not mean that planning powers should not be deployed, provided that they are used for a proper planning purpose or in situations where the control of land use is the primary or most direct way of dealing with anti-social behaviour or disturbance at source rather than by remedying its later ill effects. In this instance, the LPA have a large number of planning purposes listed under Policy TACE 11 (a-h), all of which I support, and some of which may well be used in support of the imposition of planning conditions. The way in which the LPA balance the conflicting needs of the tourist economy and the reasonable amenity of local residents is a matter of judgement, subject of course to the policy and legal constraints governing the use of conditions or restrictions on planning consent.

Recommendations

R8.11.1 Modify Policy TACE 11 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 923 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

R8.11.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 11 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TA12: Amusement Arcades and Centres

Objectors and Supporters

757 Gascoyne Estate

TA12: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Certain amusement arcades and centres are well managed and the policy and reasoned justification do not provide for their appropriate redevelopment. [757]

TA12: Summary of Council Response

(a) (i) The policy is primarily concerned with the location of Amusement Centres, because even if they are well-managed, they can be incompatible with other uses, as is recognised in Annex D of PPG6 on Town Centres and Retail Developments. The policy does not prevent development of Amusement centres inside the CAZ provided that the locational considerations and the five bullet points, listed under (A) are met. [757]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.12.1 The nature of this objection again raises the issue of the proper mangement of premises and also that of the overlap between planning and public order considerations. The objection is not supported (at least not to the extent of modifying Policy TACE 12) because the LPA argues quite correctly that even well-managed establishments can be disruptive of amenity, accessibility and the safety and free flow of traffic (including pedestrian traffic) by virtue of the activities carried on and the weight of numbers of patrons that they may attract. These are all perfectly proper planning considerations that the LPA will wish to take into account when considering planning applications within the CAZ. The issue of the bona fides of specific applicants and operators will not normally sway a decision since the relevant permission will run with the land in question unless it be made subject to a personal condition. The latter is not one, in my view and experience, that most developers would be readily inclined to accept and should not form part of the policy formulation in any event.

Recommendations

R8.12.1 Modify Policy TACE 12 (A-B) in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

R8.12.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 12 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

TA13: Sex-Related Uses

Objector

375 Government Office for London

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 924 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

TA13: Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) This policy, which seeks to restrict the location where sex-related uses may be allowed, potentially covers a number of different use classes (A1 and D2 etc.). However, the term “sex-related” is not definable in land use, as opposed to licensing, terms and it would not normally be appropriate to include UDP policies principally to guide handling licence applications. We object, therefore, on the basis that it is not clear how the policy would be implemented in practice.

(ii) The objection would be met by either deletion of the policy and its replacement by suitable textual references to the fact that uses of this kind can give rise to problems, and may need to be controlled on amenity grounds; or, a clearer explanation of how the policy would be applied in determining applications.

(iii) We note, following our comments at First Deposit, that the policy is largely unaltered, but paragraphs 8.72 and 8.76 of the reasoned justification plus the new paragraph 8.76a provide some additional explanation for the policy and how it will be implemented. Although we accept that the revisions do offer some extra clarification, we remain unconvinced as to how a policy of this sort straddling various Use Classes will actually be implemented through the UDP, as opposed to the licensing regime. Therefore, the objection is maintained.

(iv) PPG12 (paragraph 3.5) is clear that policies should not seek to replicate other legislative regimes. As no further changes have been made, the objection must be maintained. [375]

TA13: Summary of Council Response

(a) (i) The City Council considers it is appropriate to include a policy to guide and control sex - related uses within the UDP as such uses can give rise to amenity problems and undermine the character and function of areas within Westminster as explained in paragraph 8.76 of the Plan. However, paragraph 8.72a was revised at second deposit to acknowledge that sex- related uses may fall within several Use Classes and therefore affect the ability of the City Council, as planning authority, to control such uses. Definitions of sex establishments and sex-related uses and activities have also been added to the glossary.

(ii) The Policy is considered to be implementable as it is has been clarified how such uses are defined. The policy recognises the limited ability of the City Council to control these uses under planning legislation. However there needs to be an interface between planning and licensing. This policy enables a consistent approach to be taken at both Planning and Licensing stages .The City Council considers that there is a need for land use identification of sex-related uses. Sex- related activities have land use implications. These types of premises, along with a particular type of clientele can detrimentally affect the amenity and character of an area - if these are consequences, then land use is an issue. [375]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

8.13.1 I have considerable sympathy with the sustained GOL objection in that “sex-related activity or uses can overlap several Use Classes (eg A1, A3 or D2) and are moreover not defined in the current Use Classes Order. Accordingly, planning permission may not always be needed for such establishments and Policy TACE 13 may have no immediate bearing on their control by way of restriction to a certain defined area, in this case Soho. However, it seems to me that where express permission is required (for example a change of use from

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 925 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Class A1 to D2) it is perfectly possible for the LPA to impose a condition restricting such use to certain activities within the Use Class in question. This is commonly and successfullly done in the case of retail Use Class A1. Conversely, I see no reason why a planning condition should not exclude certain activities (in this case, sex-related activities) provided that they are capable of clear definition, notwithstanding the fact that they are not defined for the purposes of planning control but may nevertheless be regarded as sui generis..

8.13.2 Quite clearly, if an ancillary sex-related use or activity is begun within premises that enjoy prior planning permission for a predominant existing use such as Class A3, there is no easy way in which the Policy can be used to control that activity, be it inside or outside the area shown in Map 8.5. However, any future development involving a change of use could quite properly be restricted to a given Use Class and might further be made subject to a condition that specifically excluded sex-related activity. Such a condition would be constrained by the usual legal and policy restrictions (necessary, related to the development, reasonable etc) and any sui generis sex-related use might be adequately defined with reference to the licensing requirements covered in UDP paragraphs 8.73 and 8.74. In other words, a later licensing application (to the same authority) might trigger (or signal) the need for a planning application which the LPA would duly consider in the light of Policy TACE 13 and, of course, all other material planning considerations.

8.13.3 For all these reasons, I am disinclined to support the GOL objection. On the merits of the policy, I find the LPA’s reasons for its adoption to be convincing and not unrelated to the Policies relating to the Stress Areas (TACE 8-10). Policy TACE 13 seems to me to be adequately justified by the reasoning set out in paragraphs 8.76 and 8.76a. I understand that somewhat wider restrictions on sex-related uses were covered in an earlier statutory local plan, prepared by the erstwhile GLC for the Covent Garden Area, part of which was and is within the City of Westminster. I am inclined to wonder whether the London Borough of Camden (which partly covers the area subject of the previous local plan) had therefore been consulted on the formulation and application of TACE 13. In the absence of any objection to the effect that it had not, I do not now make a formal recommendation for such policy coverage and integration. However, the LPA will no doubt wish to ensure consistency of any directly relevant policies in the respective UDPs before they are adopted.

Recommendations

R8.13.1 Modify Policy TACE 13(A-B) in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

R8.13.2 Modify the Policy Application and Reasoned Justification of Policy TACE 13 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

Chapter 8 : Tourism, Arts, Culture and Entertainment page 926