Agenda item

App No	Ward / Cumulative Impact Area	Site Name and Address	App Type	Licensing Ref No.
2.	St James’s Ward/ Not in Cumulative Impact Area	The Farmers Club 3 Whitehall Court London SW1A 2EL	Premises Licence Variation	20/07368/LIPV

 

LICENSING SUB COMMITTEE No. 3

Wednesday, 22 October 2020

 

Membership:           Councillors Jacqui Wilkinson (Chairman), Susie Burbridge   and Maggie Carman.

 

Officer Support:      Legal Officer:                                  Viviene Walker

                                  Policy Officer:                                  Aaron Hardy

                                  Committee Officer:                                   Cameron MacLean

                                  Presenting Officer:                                  Kevin Jackaman

 

APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE 20/06917/LIPN

 

Present:                   Jelle van Essseveld (Applicant); Ian Watson, Environmental Health Services; Richard Brown, Citizens Advice, Licensing Advice Project (on behalf of Johanna White, Resident)

 

Representations:    Representations were received from the Environmental Health Service; and several residents.

Applicant:                The Farmers Club

Ward:                       St James’s

CIA[1]:                         None

 

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence allowing the premises to operate as a lounge bar.

INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed everyone to today’s meeting of Westminster City Council’s Licensing Sub Committee and introduced the Members of the Sub Committee and the Council Officers who would be supporting the Sub Committee. The Chairman then confirmed the names of the parties and representatives present before explaining the procedure that would be followed at the meeting.

The Chairman then invited the Presenting Officer, Mr Kevin Jackaman, to present the report that was before the Sub Committee.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Mr Kevin Jackaman, Licensing Officer

Mr Jackaman, Licensing Officer, stated that this was an application for a variation of the premises licence which included varying hours for licensable activities, updating the premises planned and updating the premises licence conditions with Westminster City Council Licensing Model Conditions.

Mr Jackaman summarised the various representations that had been received, noting that Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice, Licensing Advice Project, was representing one of the resident objectors and his submission to be found in the Additional Information Pack circulated to Members.

In conclusion, Mr Jackaman noted that the premises were within the St James’s Ward and did not fall within any Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

Mr Jelle Van Essseveld on Behalf of the Applicant

Mr Van Essseveld stated that The Farmers Club was a Private Members Club in Whitehall Court which had 5,500 members in the UK and overseas. Anyone who had any connection with agriculture was eligible to become a member of the club, along with the residents of Whitehall Court. The Club had been in existence for over 75 years and had 56 bedrooms within the building along with a restaurant, a bar and four function rooms. The club had a strong ethos embedded in its rules which included a dress code and standards of behaviour. Most members used the club for either business or leisure with their friends and families

Regarding the application to vary the premises licence, Mr Van Essseveld stated that the club had been advised that they did not have the correct licence for this type of establishment. Therefore, the applicant had contacted Westminster City Council and had been advised by the Council’s Environmental Health Service that the premise licence was appropriate but could benefit from being updated as a consequence of a refurbishment of the premises in 2016 which had altered the floor plans and the had made slight changes to the licensed area. In addition, the conditions attached to the licence could be updated. Therefore, the applicant was seeking to improve what it could offer in the way of food and beverages without making major changes to its current business model. To this end, the applicant would like to be able to offer Champagne Breakfasts which were frequently requested on occasions such as weddings and christenings. In addition, the Applicant would like to extend the hours for licensable activities on New Year’s Eve thereby dispensing with the requirement to apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN).

The applicant acknowledged that the premises was within a residential building and that it was vital to maintain good relations between the club members and residents. Accordingly, it was proposed to amend the application such that the sale by retail of alcohol would still end at midnight (not 01:00 hours as proposed in the application) except for New Year’s Eve/day when the sale of alcohol would cease at 01:00 hours.

Mr Van Essseveld stated that it was acknowledged that there was concern about possible noise and nuisance, from the terrace area. Therefore, the Applicant had offered several proposed conditions which were set out in the letter from Andrei Spence, Chief Executive & Secretary of The Farmers Club, which was at page 62 of the Additional Information Pack. He stated that it was hoped that these proposed conditions would address those concerns.

In response to a few questions from Members, Mr Van Essseveld provided the following information.

(a)    The amended application for the sale of alcohol was now for the sale of alcohol until 01:00 hours on New Year’s Eve. Previously, the applicant had applied for, and been granted, Temporary Event Notices (TENs) for New Year’s Eve which had permitted the sale of alcohol until 01:00 hours with the bar closing at 02:00 hours.

(b)    The recent changes to the premises had allowed the applicant to operate a lot more efficiently, including being able to split the main function room into two separate rooms for smaller events. However, the main purpose of the refurbishment was to accommodate a doubling of business since 2014 (Mr Van Essseveld noted that the club operated like a boutique hotel except that it was not open to the public).

(c)    Regarding security, anyone entering the club premises would pass the Porter’s desk at the main entrance to the building where they would be given directions to the Club’s reception desk which was open from 7 AM to 11 PM.

(d)    The Club’s bedrooms were grouped together on different floors, so they were not interspersed with other residential apartments in the building. The eighth floor of the building comprised exclusively club bedrooms and there were many bedrooms on the seventh floor. There were also bedrooms on the on the fourth floor, the upper ground floor (with the main area of the club was located), and in the basement.

(e)    Access to the terrace area was via the Club’s Bar Lounge area which operated from 11 AM to 11 PM. When the bar and terrace area closed at 11 p.m., the building supporters would patrol the premises to ensure that there were no guests on the terrace area after 11 PM. The porters were paid from the service charge paid by residents and The Farmers Club.

(f)     The current licence allowed the sale of alcohol in the lounge bar until to 24:00 hours but operationally, the bar closed at 23:00 hours. If guests were making too much noise in the terrace area, staff would remind them that they were other residents in the building and that the club rules required that they not be disturbed.

(g)    There had never been any formal complaint about noise from the terrace area and, if there had been complaints, these were very few and had been dealt with informally.

(h)    Most of the Club’s members were in the age range of 50 to 60 years of age although there was a sizeable number of members who were under the age of 30.

(i)      The terrace could accommodate 32 persons at eight tables, each table seating for persons.

(j)      The current licence allowed both on and off sales of alcohol and club members could buy alcohol to take away with them or to have it delivered to their home address.

[Mr Van Essseveld, referring to the various plans in the report, described the Club’s various licenced areas. He then described the process for becoming a Member of the Club].

(k)    Regarding the number of guests, a Member could bring up to 10 guests to the club without prior notification. In addition, a Member could hire one of the function rooms which could accommodate up to 96 guests.

(l)      The applicant would be willing to accept a condition that restricted smoking on the terrace area to no later than 11 PM.

(m)  Regarding the proposal that both on and off sales be unrestricted for residents and their bona fides guests, it was confirmed that residents and their guests would only be able to purchase alcohol after the bar closed if a member of staff was available to serve them and that a shutter was pulled down when the bar closed restricting who had access to the bar.

(n)    There was no room service and, should a guest wish to take alcohol to their guestroom, they would have to purchase alcohol before taking it to their room.

Mr Ian Watson on Behalf of the Environmental Health Service

Mr Watson confirmed that he had been contacted by Mr Van Essseveld who had been advised that he required a Club Premises Certificate to sell alcohol. He had advised Mr Van Essseveld that this was not correct and that all that was required was a premises licence. During his discussions with Mr Van Essseveld, it was proposed that Mr Van Essseveld might wish to apply for a variation of the licence for the reasons stated by Mr Van Essseveld in his presentation.[2]

[Mr Watson then described the layout of the premises and the location of the bedrooms, all of which were within the licensed areas. He stated that, as this was an application for a variation, the Applicant had only been required to submit plans of those parts of the licensed premises which included the variations to the existing licence].

As many of the conditions on the existing licence were otiose, a revised set of conditions that would meet the requirements of the Club had been considered and these had been included in the present application. In addition, it was proposed to bring the licence in line with current permissions for hotels and/or private members clubs whereby Members of the Club and their bona fides guests would have unrestricted access to the licensable activities on offer.

Mr Watson stated that several objections had been received from residents of Whitehall Court. Most of the objections had focused on the proposed extension of hours, the use of the terrace area, and potential noise by Club Members walking late at night along the building’s corridors and communal spaces late-night en route to and from their guestrooms. It was in response to these objections that Mr Van Essseveld had amended the application.

[Mr Watson then described the location of the Members Club bedrooms, which were mostly at the front of the building, and resident’s apartments, which were mostly at the rear of the building overlooking the River Thames].

Mr Watson noted that no objections had been received to the proposed earlier hours of operation which would allow the applicant to offer events such as champagne breakfasts.

Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Advice Project (On Behalf of a Resident)

Mr Brown referred to his written submission which was included in the Additional Information Pack at page 55. He stated that he was not clear whether the terraced area was to be included within the variation to the licensed areas.

Referring to the Floor Plan of the 8^th Floor on page 77 of the main report, Mr Brown drew Member’s attention to that part of the plan that showed the staircase leading the 7^th Floor Corridor and private flats. He stated that, if alcohol was to be available to Club Members 24-hours a day, the proximity of the Club’s guestrooms on the 8^th Floor, and the use by Club Members of the 7^th Floor corridor to access the 8^th Floor guestrooms, would be a matter of concern to residents.

Referring to Mr Van Essseveld’s reference to the Club operating like a boutique hotel, Mr Brown stated that he did not think the analogy was appropriate as the Club’s guestrooms were scattered around the building and not all in one place. He noted that, because the bedrooms were included within the licensed areas, any sales of alcohol to residents in their bedroom would be classed as On Sales.

Regarding the use of the terrace [it had previously been noted that the nearest residential apartment to the terrace was immediately above the terrace], Mr Brown stated that residents, ideally, would like the use of the terrace, particularly for drinking, to be cut back, but that he would be guided by Mr White (a resident) on that point.

In response to a Member’s question, Mr Brown stated that the proposed 24-hour sale of alcohol to Club Members and their guests was a matter of contention, notwithstanding that he did not know how this would operate.

Mr Martin White, Resident and Member of The Farmers Club

Mr White stated that his concern regarded the use of the terrace area. He stated that Members and guests could generate a lot of noise on the terrace. He noted that there was now many younger members and any events in the club involving significant numbers of younger members tended to be louder than events involving the older members of the club. Therefore, his concern was that events involving younger persons could potentially be a nuisance to residents adjacent to the terrace should events spill out onto the terrace area. Accordingly, he proposed that the terrace area should be closed at 10 PM with some suitable provision being made to accommodate those who wish to smoke.

Mrs Johanna White, Resident and Member of The Farmers Club

Mrs White stated that there had been significant changes to The Farmers Club in the last 20 years. At one time, the Club was only open during weekdays and not at weekends. The bar staff used to place notices on the tables reminding Members and their guests that this was a residential block with apartments above and not to make a noise.

It was Mrs White understanding that the porters checked the building at 11 PM (and not midnight), when they locked the communicating door between the Club and the hotel. If the club was to be granted an extension to its licence, she queried who would be responsible for locking the doors. Therefore, it was preferable that the doors were locked at 11 PM, as was presently the case.

On occasions when there were people on the terrace at 11:45 PM, the only people available to deal with complaints about noise which, fortunately, were rare, were the Porters. Mrs White noted that there were now more meetings and dinners which was good for the Club’s commercial interests but hard on the residents who live nearby.

The programme of events for Young Farmers could entail late-night socialising on the terrace which was equipped with gas fires and umbrellas with guests been provided with wraps to keep warm while outside.

Mrs White stated that she hoped that Westminster City Council would oppose the adverse effects in extension to the licence would mean for residents affected by use of the terrace area and the increased traffic in the internal areas of the building. In particular, she was concerned that the younger Members of the Club might prefer to use the higher up bedrooms, which were part of the Cummings Suite and which had magnificent views, to the detriment of residents living below, particularly if these rooms were within the areas that were licensed.

In response to several questions, Mrs White provided the following information.

(a)    She had been informed by the Club’s Secretary about the licence application and that the letter informing her about the application acknowledged that late-night drinking did tend to cause noise and nuisance.

(b)    She stated that closing the terrace at 10 o’clock would be excellent and that she had no issue with the application to extend the hours on New Year’s Eve.

(c)    She was not concerned about the proposal to extend the licence to allow the Club to sell alcohol from 7 AM assuming that guests did not want to be on the terrace at that time and given the likelihood that it would not happen very often that guests would wish to be sold alcohol at that time.

(d)    She could foresee problems if the licence was extended in that, with a younger membership and a possible change of staff, the club could start to operate more like a boutique hotel. This would mean increased interaction between the Club’s younger members and their guests and the older and possibly single (widowed) residents who needed to feel safe in the common parts of the building.

Before asking the various parties to some of their presentations, the chairman asked if the Legal Officer, Ms Viviene Walker, are the policy officer, Mr Aaron Hardy, had any questions. Ms Walker and Mr Hardy proposed similar questions about the inclusion of the terraced area within the application to vary the premises licence. The Chairman proposed that Mr Van Essseveld might address this issue in his summing up.

SUMMING UP

The Chairman invited the various parties to sum up their presentations.

Mr Ian Watson, Environmental Health Service

Mr Watson confirmed that there were no public safety aspects to the application to vary the licence. He noted that the application had been amended to remove the proposed extension of opening hours from 12 midnight to 01:00 hours; there were no objections to the proposed extension to the sale of alcohol by retail from 10 AM to 7 AM; and the proposed extension of the sale of alcohol to 1 AM on New Year’s Eve had not met with any opposition from residents. However, the proposed extension of licensable activities to 24 hours for Club Members and their guests had met with some opposition from residents.

Mr Watson noted that The Farmers Club did not offer room service and, as the bar closed at 11 PM and there were no minibars in the Club bedrooms, any sales of alcohol after 11 PM when the bar closed would have to be at the discretion of any members of staff who might be available after 11 PM.

Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Advice Project (On Behalf of a Resident)

Regarding use of the terrace area, Brown stated that residents would prefer to see the use of the terrace area restricted to no later than 11 PM or, preferably 10 PM, and that a suitably worded condition might address resident’s concerns.

In relation to the proposed 24 hour licence for Club Members and their guests, given that the bar closed at 11 PM, Mr Brown did not think that the sale of alcohol after 11 PM was a practicable, or desirable, given that there would be very few staff available to serve Club Members and their guests after that time. However, the concern remains that, should the licence ever be transferred, a different operator might make the possibility of 24-hour service a greater concern for residents.

Mrs Johanna White, Resident and Member of The Farmers Club

referring to the terrace area, Mrs White stated that, if there was every problem after 11 PM, the only people available to deal with it were the Porters who might not be readily available as evidenced by an incident earlier this year, which caused much trauma, when a person was locked out on the terrace.

If the terrace area was closed at 11 PM that would address resident’s concerns, but it remained resident’s preference that the terrace should close at 10 PM.

Mr Martin White, Resident and Member of The Farmers Club

Referring to comments by Mr Watson, Mr White noted that there was only one entrance to The Farmers Club which was locked at night requiring any Member or Members and/or their guests wishing to gain entrance to the Club after midnight having to be let into the premises by member of staff.

Regarding the terrace area, he stated that residents were entitled to peace and quiet and that 10 PM would be a sensible time to close the terrace. Dated that he had no issues with any of the other proposals in the application.

Mr Jelle Van Essseveld on Behalf of the Applicant

Mr Van Essseveld stated that the terrace area had always been included in the licensed area and that the applicant was cognizant of resident’s concerns about noise. He stated that, as the bar was open until 11 PM, to close the terrace area at 10 PM would be too early but the applicant would be willing to revive notices on the terrace reminding Members and their guests that this was a residential block and to keep quiet, and to enforce this requirement if necessary. He stated that, in the six years he had been working at The Farmers Club, he was not aware of their ever having been any official complaints about noise from the terrace. Any complaints about noise from the terrace had been informal and infrequent and, on average, only about three or four times a year had they been a requirement to tell people not to make a noise.

As the club had a younger group of members, by the time the bar closed at 11 PM, these members prefer to leave the building and go clubbing. Accordingly, by 11 PM, most younger members had left the building.

Mr Van Essseveld stated that he would be happy to put notices on the terrace and to stop access to the terrace after 11 PM. He stated that The Farmers Club wanted to maintain good relationships with the residents and to work with residents to resolve any matters of concern.

[In response to a question by Mrs White, Mr Van Essseveld stated that the Applicant, if so required, would ensure that the terrace area would be cleared of Members and their guests and closed by 11 PM].

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman adjourned the meeting so that Members could retire to consider their decision. She stated that the Sub Committee would not announce its decision today but that a summary of the decision would be sent to the various parties within five working days.

The Chairman then closed the Live part of the virtual meeting.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

It was the Sub Committee’s decision to Approve the application for the reasons set out in the Full Decision attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.