Agenda item

Ward CIA*	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
Hyde Park	Premier Inn, Development Site at Paddington Exchange, N. Wharf Rd, London W2 1LF	New Premises Licence	20/10150/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area

 

Present:                       Mr Tim Shield, John Gaunt & Partners, Licensing Solicitors (representing the applicant); Niall Hyslop, Whitbread Group Plc (for the applicant); Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster that (representing residents); and John Zamit, SEBRA (Southeast Bayswater Residents’ Association).

 

Representations:        Representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service (EHS); Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)[1]; John Zamit, SEBRA; and Elizabeth Virgo, The Paddington Waterways & Maida Vale Society.

Applicant:                    Whitbread Group Plc

Ward:                           Hyde Park

CIA[2]:                             Not applicable

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence.

INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the Members of the Sub Committee and the Council Officers who would be supporting the Sub Committee. The Chairman explained the procedure that would be followed at the meeting before inviting the Presenting Officer, Ms Jessica Donovan, to present the report.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Ms Jessica Donovan, Senior Licensing Officer

Ms Donovan summarised the application as set out in the report before the Sub Committee, noting that representations had been received from The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS);[3] the Environmental Health Service; a local resident; and the Chairman of the Mayfair Residents’ Group.

Mr Tim Shield, John Gaunt & Thomas Partners, Licensing Solicitors

Mr Shield stated that he would be presenting the application on behalf of Whitbread Group Plc and that he was accompanied by Mr Niall Hyslop, New Openings Manager for Whitbread Group Plc, who would be able to advise the Sub Committee on the detail of the application, if necessary.

Mr Shield referred the Sub Committee to his submission which was set out on Page 5 of the Additional Information Pack. He stated that Whitbread Group Plc was a well-known company which operated Premier Inns across the UK[4] and had done so for many years without any issues arising in relation to the licensing objectives. The present application was for the sale of alcohol within core hours to non-residents, and 24-hours a day to residents

Mr Shield referred the Sub Committee to the plans of the premises set out in Pages 18 & 19 of the Agenda Pack, and the areas which it was proposed would be licensed as demarcated by the red outline in the Plan. He noted at the premises was primarily a hotel with a restaurant and bar. The bar would be open to non-residents, but access to the bar would be restricted after 11 PM and would require using a secure key card, or entry on demand.

Referring to the Plan on Page 13 of the Additional Information Pack, Mr Shield stated that this was indicative of the layout of the bedrooms of which there would be approximately 290 over the 19 floors of the development. Mr Shield then referred the Sub Committee to the indicative menu on Page 19 of the Additional Information Pack, along with several photographs that were indicative of the layout of the bar, restaurant, and reception area in a typical Premier Inn.

Regarding the Licensing Objectives, in particular, the Prevention of Public Nuisance, Mr Shield stated that this was of paramount importance to Whitbread Group Plc. He noted that that the company was very experienced in managing its relationships with its neighbours, and that the presence of Premier Inn improved an area. The company also operated a “Good Night Guarantee” whereby residents would be offered a full refund if they were disturbed during the night by noise from either within or outside the premises. In addition, as the hotel was brand-new, it was built to the highest standards to prevent noise nuisance.

Regarding the representations, Mr Shield noted that agreement had been reached with the EHS and MPS on proposed conditions. Therefore, there remained only two outstanding representations from Residents’ Associations.

Regarding the reference to conditions in the submission by Mr Brown on behalf of the Residents’ Associations (Page 29 of the Additional Information Pack), and the conditions highlighted in red on Page 31 of the Agenda Pack, which had been agreed in relation to the recent Stay City Aparthotel premises licence application, Mr Shield stated that the present application was very different from that of the Stay City Aparthotel. However, the applicant did not object, in principle, to these conditions, with one exception viz.

48. The sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall only be to a person seated within the licensed area hatched green on the ground floor of the premises and shall be by waiter or waitress service only. The maximum number of such persons shall be [].

He stated that this condition did not apply to any other Premier Inn premises operated by Whitbread Group Plc.

In conclusion, Mr Shield stated that he believed that the applicant had made a good offer with regard to the conditions that the applicant was willing to accept.

In response to several questions, Mr Shield, and Mr Hyslop provided the following information.

(a)  It was not proposed that there be any licensable activity outside the premises and, therefore, it would be possible to amend the application in relation to Late Night Refreshment (LNR) to refer to “Indoors Only”.

(b)  Regarding the application in respect of Films as a licensable activity, the main reason for including this in the application was to allow films to be shown in guests’ bedrooms. Mr Hyslop noted that, other than a television in the bar area which usually featured BBC rolling news programmes, there were no other screens for showing films. Furthermore, there was no intention to show films on a regular basis.

(c)   As there was no demised area outside premises that the hotel could operate as a smoking area, a litter bin and ashtray would be provided as near to the front door as possible and the area would be managed by the hotel’s night team.

(d)  [At the conclusion of Mr Drayan’s submission (see infra), the applicant provided the following information in response to a question by the Chairman].

It was proposed that, before 11 PM, Off Sales would be permitted to Members of the Public, as well as hotel residents. However, after 11 PM, Off Sales would be restricted to hotel residents only. This was because the guest bedrooms were not included within the hotel’s licensable areas. By allowing Off Sales to non-residents up to 11 PM, this would allow non-residents who had purchased alcohol as part of their meal to take any remaining alcohol with them in a sealed container when they left the hotel.

Mr Anil Drayan, Environmental Health Service (EHS)

Mr Drayan confirmed that, as far as EHS and the MPS were concerned, he was not aware of any concerns regarding the operation of Premier Inns in Westminster. However, the EHS had requested additional conditions as set out on Page 36 of the Additional Information Pack and that these had been agreed with the applicant. Therefore, the EHS had no objections to the application.

Regarding the capacity of the premises, Mr Drayan stated that the applicant had advised him that the maximum capacity of the ground floor and basement area would be 235. Therefore, he proposed that, when the EHS carried out its site inspection in accordance with the proposed “Works” condition,[5] an appropriate assessment would be made to determine if the premises could accommodate this number of persons. In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Drayan stated that this would be an “umbrella” number.

Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster (on behalf of SEBRA & Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society)

Referring to the Stay City Aparthotel application that had previously been considered by the Sub Committee, Mr Brown noted that the operating schedule, conditions, and the representations made in respect of that application were very similar to the present application. He stated that the key issues for the objectors were how the how the public licenced areas were to operate. In particular, the objectors were concerned that the applicant was not willing to agree to the proposed Condition 48 (supra), which did not require that the sale of alcohol be ancillary to a meal. By not including this condition, the publicly licensed areas, which were considerably larger than the public licensed areas in the Stay City Aparthotel application, could operate as a large bar.

Referring to his submission on page 29 et seq. of the Additional Information Pack, Mr Brown noted that the conditions that he was proposing were substantially the same as those proposed and accepted in the Stay City Aparthotel application.

Referring to the conditions set out at Paragraph 4.6 on Page 31 of his submission, Mr Brown made the following observations.

1.     The applicant objected to the following proposed conditions:

“The sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises shall only be to a person seated within the licensed area hatched green on the ground floor of the premises and shall be by waiter or waitress service only. The maximum number of such persons shall be […].”

“At all times customers will be shown to the table and the supply of alcohol will be by waiter/waitress service only to customers.”

2.     The applicant had made no reference to the bona fide guest requirement of the following proposed condition:

“Non-residents can only remain in the licensed area during the permitted hours for the sale of alcohol. For the avoidance of doubt, residents and up to 4 bona fide guests for each resident can potentially remain in the licensed area at any time of the day.”

3.     The proposed smoking condition be amended to read:

“Persons permitted to temporarily leave then re-enter the premises to smoke shall be restricted to a designated smoking area to be determined by the premises licence holder [insert: and the Environmental Health Service].”

4.     The following proposed conditions regarding waste services were the same as those agreed for the Stay City Aparthotel:

“No waste and recyclable materials, including bottles, shall be moved, removed from, or placed in outside areas between 20:00 hours and 08:00 hours on the following day.”

“That collections of waste recycling materials (including bottles) from the premises shall take place between 20:00 hours and 08:00 hours on the following day.”

Referring to the applicant's correspondence on Page 41 of the Additional Information Pack, Mr Brown stated that, with regard to proposed Condition 3 –

"Other than to hotel bedrooms there shall be no sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises after 23:00 hours.";

it was his understanding that, after 23:00 hours, residents and their bona fide guests could be sold alcohol if they were in a guest room and he asked that this be clarified.

Referring to proposed Condition 8 –

"No deliveries to the premises shall take place between 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours on the following day.";

it was the residents’ proposal that the hours should be 21:00 hours to 07:00 hours, in line with the City Stay Aparthotel.

A In addition, Mr Brown proposed that Model Conditions (MCs) 12 & 57[6] should be included in the conditions.[7]

He noted that the theme running through the conditions proposed by residents was a concern about dispersal of patrons from the premises into a residential area. As each application had to be considered on its merits, residents were of the opinion that such a condition was appropriate for these premises.

Presentation by Mr John Zamit, SEBRA (Southeast Bayswater Residents’ Association)

Mr Zamit stated that residents would have welcomed the opportunity to have had a discussion with the applicant about the operation of the premises and were disappointed that this had not happened.

Mr Zamit then made following points.

1.     Smoking Area: as it was believed that it was a residential development that was taking place opposite the premises, residents would like the designated smoking area to be agreed with the Environmental Health Service.

2.     Off Sales: this should be restricted to partially consumed containers of alcohol served with a meal which were resealed for customers to take with them.

3.     Capacity: the capacity for each licence area should be specified rather than setting a limit on the total capacity for all licensed areas.

4.     Ground & Basement Floor: residents would like to know how it was proposed to lay out these areas and how they would operate.

5.     Refuse Collections: Paddington comprised mixed residential and commercial properties with a concentration of residential properties in some parts. Residents, therefore, were concerned that they should not be disturbed by the sounds of refuse collections.

6.     Dispersal: residents were concerned about the possibility of patrons leaving the hotel at night, heading to Merchant Square, and getting lost because the gates at Merchant Square were locked at night. In addition, there should be a condition that non-residents be required to leave the premises in accordance with core hours.

The Chairman invited Mr Shield and Mr Hyslop to respond to the various points raised by Mr Zamit. In response, Mr Shield provided the following information.

1.     Layout: referring to the plans of the basement area, Mr Shield stated that the plans were indicative of how the basement area would be laid out with a bar servery and a substantial number of tables and chairs.

[Mr Hyslop subsequently confirmed that the ground floor area was largely devoted to use as a business lounge with Wi-Fi and power points for guests to use. The basement restaurant would be a premium steak restaurant and that the table and chair plans were indicative of the layout of the restaurant].

2.     Proposed Condition: Basement Area -

“The layout of the licensed area as shown on the approved plan at basement level shall be substantially laid out with tables and chairs as indicated on the approved licensing drawing.”

3.     Ground Floor: referring to the photographs in the Additional Information Pack, it was proposed that the ground floor would comprise the reception area, including a self-service check-in area, lobby and business lounge. There would be no bar servery on the ground floor and guests would have to go to the basement bar if they wished to order a drink which they could then bring back up to the ground floor area.

4.     Capacity: this had been agreed with the Environmental Health Service (EHS) and it was the applicant’s preference to set an overall number on the capacity of the premises rather than impose limits for each licensed area.

5.     Smoking Area: the applicant would be willing to agree the location of an external smoking area with the EHS.

6.     Off Sales: the primary reason for seeking Off Sales was to allow diners to take partially consumed and resealed bottles of alcohol with them at the conclusion of their meal.

Regarding Off Sales, Mr Brown suggested that a revised form of Model Condition 66 might be sufficient to address objector’ concerns. To this end he proposed wording along the lines of –

“There shall be no Off Sales except to residents in their hotel rooms or part consumed and resealed bottles of wine.”

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman agreed a proposal that there be a short adjournment to allow Mr Hyslop and Mr Shield to discuss the conditions proposed by the residents with a view to determining which of these conditions could be agreed.

Meeting Reconvened at 11:20 AM

At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr Shield informed the Sub Committee of his conversation with Mr Hyslop (on behalf of the applicant) regarding the proposed conditions.

1.    Off Sales: as follows -

(a)  Residents: Off Sales to residents would be restricted to the sale of alcohol to residents for consumption in their hotel guest room; and

(b)  Non-residents: propose the following condition –   

“Sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises by non-residents to cease at 23:00 hours and shall be in sealed or resealed containers.”

2.    Hours for Recycling & Waste Collection: the applicant would be willing to agree to there being no recycling or waste collections between 21:00 hours and 07:00 hours.

3.    Smoking Area: the applicant was willing to agree a designated smoking area in consultation with, and with the agreement of, EHS. The smoking area would be supervised by hotel staff.

4.    Layout of the Basement Area: propose the following condition (see above):

“The layout of the licensed area shown on the approved plans at basement level shall be substantially laid out for tables and chairs as indicated on the approved licensing drawing.”

5.    Occupancy [capacity]: as the ground floor would be the main reception area with people passing through, the applicant would prefer to have a condition, agreed with EHS, limiting the overall capacity of the premises rather than limiting the capacity of the different licensed areas.

In response, Mr Brown and Mr Zamit, at the invitation of the Chairman, commented as follows.

1.    If the Sub Committee was not in agreement with the proposed condition requiring the sale of alcohol be by waiter/waitress service to persons who were seated, the suggested wording regarding the layout of tables and chairs was acceptable to residents.

2.    The objectors had submitted different hours specifically for waste collection as opposed to recycling operations.

3.    There be a condition that the smoking area be kept clean and tidy.

Horatio Chance, Legal Adviser, sought clarification on including the following Model Conditions –

MC12: No noise generated on the premises, or by its associated plant or equipment, shall emanate from the premises or vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

MC17:    All sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises shall be in sealed containers only, and shall not be consumed on the premises.

MC67:    Patrons permitted to temporarily leave then re-enter the premises to smoke shall be restricted to a designated smoking area defined as [specify location].

The Chairman proposed that the Sub Committee would tailor any Model Conditions, accordingly.

SUMMING UP

At this stage of the proceedings, the Chairman invited the various parties who had made representations to sum up their representations, if they so wished.

Mr Drayan, Environmental Health Service

Mr Drayan made the following points in his summing up.

1.    Smoking Area: the EHS would be willing to agree a suitable location for a smoking area outside the premises.

2.    Proposed Condition That Sales of Alcohol Be Restricted to Waiter/Waitress Service to Persons Who Were Seated: the EHS had considered this condition and had concluded that imposing such a condition would be to micromanage an operator who had given no cause for concern.

3.    Capacity: as the ground floor and basement area operated as one space, the EHS would prefer to determine an overall suitable capacity for both licensed areas as a whole.

4.    Layout of the Basement Area: to ensure that the basement area did not operate as a vertical drinking bar, the Sub Committee could impose a condition requiring that there be a minimum number of tables and chairs laid out in this area.

Mr Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster (on behalf of SEBRA & Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society)

Mr Brown made the following points.

1.    The Residents’ Associations would prefer to see a condition requiring sales of alcohol to be by waiter/waitress service to persons who were seated.

2.    Regarding MC57, which regulated smoking outside the premises, the Residents’ Associations requested confirmation that smokers would not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers when going outside to smoke.

3.    That MC41, which stated –

“Substantial food and non-intoxicating beverages, including drinking water, shall be available in all parts of the premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises.”;

or a similar provision, be included in the list of conditions.

Mr Zamit on behalf of SEBRA

Mr Zamit summarised the points he had previously made, noting that residents would expect there to be a notice on the premises requesting guests, when leaving the premises, to do so quietly so as not to disturb residents. He stated that he was satisfied with the arrangements proposed by the EHS in agreeing a number of conditions with the applicant.

Mr Shield on Behalf of the Applicant

In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Shield confirmed that the applicant had not sought to include bona fide guests within any condition relating to Off Sales and the consumption of alcohol by residents in their hotel room(s).

Noting that each application had to be considered on its merits and that a premises licence attached to the premises and not to the operator, Mr Shields stated that the Whitbread Group Limited had given a 30-year commitment to the operation of these premises. Accordingly, the additional conditions offered, which the applicant believed were appropriate, should provide residents with sufficient comfort.

Noting that Christmas and the Coronavirus Regulations had intervened during the application process, Mr Shields stated that, when applying for a premises licence, he preferred to get the agreement of the Environmental Health Services (EHS) and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on proposed conditions before seeking the views of residents. He stated that, on this occasion, agreement had only been reached with the EHS and MPS in the last few weeks and that it was not the case that the applicant was not taking into consideration the views of residents.

Regarding conditions, Mr Shields noted that the applicant had agreed to more than had been requested by the EHS and MPS. He stated that the Stay City Aparthotel application was for a different type of premises with its own requirements by way of conditions. As each application had to be considered on its merits, he proposed that the conditions agreed by the applicant were appropriate for this application and these premises.

Mr Shields stated that he was willing to confirm the layout plans, as discussed. He stated that, if it assisted, the applicant would be willing to accept a condition covering the ground floor and basement area to the effect that –

“Substantial food and non-intoxicating drinks be available in all parts of the premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises.”

Regarding Off Sales, he did not think that any of the Model Conditions relating to Off sales would be appropriate and that any MC wording would require tweaking to include residents and non-residents.

Mr Shield stated that the condition proposed by residents requiring the sale of alcohol to be restricted to waiter/waitress service only to patrons who were seated was not necessary or appropriate for these premises. Furthermore, the Law, Guidance, and Case Law supporting this position.

In conclusion, Mr Shields stated that the applicant was a good operator who had good relations with its neighbours. The applicant wanted these premises to be a success with the premises fitting into the neighbourhood.

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow Members to retire to consider their decision. He 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

It was the Sub Committee’s decision to approve the application, as set out in the Summary Decision attached to these minutes as an appendix.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having read the report by the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before it; the written submissions of the applicant and residents objecting to the application; and, having heard a presentation on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s responses to several questions, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to APPROVE the application.

In reaching its decision to approve the application, the Sub Committee took the following matters into consideration.

1.     As every application for a premises licence had to be considered on its merits, it was not appropriate to draw comparisons with the recent premises licence application in respect of Stay City Aparthotel.

2.     The applicant had addressed many of the concerns of residents by agreeing to several of the conditions proposed by Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, on behalf of the Southeast Bayswater Residents’ Association (SEBRA), and Mr Jon Zamit of SEBRA.

3.     Where the applicant had not been prepared to accept conditions proposed by residents, the Sub Committee was satisfied with the opinion of the Environmental Health Service (EHS), which had considered the proposed conditions when preparing it submissions for the Sub Committee, that to impose the conditions would be oppressive and they were not necessary.

Specifically, the conditions that the EHS did not deem to be appropriate for those relating to –

(a)  a requirement that alcohol be served by waiter/waitress service to customers who were seated; and

(b)  that the capacity of each licensable area on the ground floor and the basement floor be specified, rather than setting an overall capacity level for all licensed areas.

4.     The Sub Committee was also satisfied that, when the EHS carried out its site inspection in accordance with the proposed “Works” condition,[8] an appropriate assessment would be made to determine if the premises could accommodate this number of persons proposed by the applicant.

5.     The Sub Committee was further satisfied that, where it had not been possible to reach agreement on conditions proposed by residents, the applicant had been prepared to compromise and had offered terms and conditions that went part way to meeting the conditions proposed by residents.