Agenda item

10 AM: Home Grown, 44 Great Cumberland Place,W1H 7BS - Application for Premises Licence Variation


Site Name & Address


Licensing Reference No.

Bryanston & Dorset Square



Home Grown
44 Great Cumberland Pl

Premises Licence Variation


*Cumulative Impact Area
** Special Consideration Zone

This will be a virtual meeting. Members of the Public can view the live broadcast using the media links on the Council’s website.




(“The Committee”)


Thursday 29 July 2021


Membership:           Councillor Murad Gassanly (Chairman), Councillor Louise Hyams and Councillor Aziz Toki


Officer Support:       Legal Advisor:           Horatio Chance

                                Policy Officer:             Kerry Simpkin

                                Committee Officer:           Cameron Maclean

                                Presenting Officer:     Kevin Jackaman


Application for a New Premises Licence in respect of Home Grown

44 Great Cumberland Place London W1H 7BS 21/03349/LIPV


                                                     Full Decision




Home Grown

44 Great Cumberland Place






Home Grown Club Limited represented by Craig Baylis Solicitor of BCLP.


Cumulative Impact Area




Special Consideration Zone






Bryanston And Dorset Square


Case Summary


The Committee has determined an application for a Variation of Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (“The Act”). The Premise operates as a Private Members Club with accompanying accommodation and are located within the Bryanston And Dorset Square Ward. The Premises have had the benefit of a licence since 2012 (licence number 19/09266/LIPDPS) The Premises are not located within the West End Cumulative nor Special Consideration Zone. There is a resident count of 202.


The Applicant seeks to the vary the licence as follows:-


Suspend the operation of conditions 51, 53 and 54 below until 30th September 2021


Condition 51:           Any external terrace areas may only be used for the consumption of alcohol on Fridays and Saturdays.


Condition 53:           Any external terrace areas shall be vacated by 19:00 save

for persons using the area to smoke;


Condition 54:           No more than ten persons, excluding staff, shall be

permitted on the first-floor terrace at any one time.


Insert a new condition as follows:-


“No more than 25 patrons (who shall be seated) may occupy the terrace between 11.00 and 22.00 on any day until 30th September 2021 when this condition shall cease to have effect.”


Representations were received from Environmental Health Service (EHS), Three Local Ward Councillors and 18 Local Residents (comprising individuals and the amenity society). The thrust of those objection site public nuisance and crime and disorder.


Activities and Hours applied for


As per the Premises Licence save for the variations applied for.


Representations Received


·       Environmental Health Service (EHS) (Dave Nevitt)

·       Councillors Barbara Arzymanow, Richard Beddoe and Eoghain Murphy

·       Mr Guy Austin Marylebone Association

·       18 Local Residents


Summary of Objections


·       Great Cumberland Place is a quiet residential street as is the adjoining Brunswick Mews. Following several resident’s representations to the Ward Councillors we are objecting to the application for a licence variation 21/03349/LIPV at Home Grown Club as it will cause a public nuisance in this residential area. The noise created by giving permission to Home Grown customers to sit outside on a terrace will have a wide ranging “cauldron effect due to the amplification created by the surrounding tall buildings. Therefore, the noise would span a large number of residential properties across 6 streets. This variation is significantly contrary to the spirit of the original licensing conditions made in 2019 18/05022/LIPV and when planning permission was granted 2017. Currently all entertainment licences at this location are internal including next door at The Prince Akatoki Hotel (previously The Arch). The former New Cavendish Club (currently the Home

Grown site) was also mainly internal. The Home Grown Club’s business does not serve the local community unless one is a member of the Club. We are all fully aware of the needs for businesses to reopen, which the Club is able to do on 17th May. Any additional external hospitality must be balanced against the needs of local residents. In this case, Councillors are of the opinion that needs of surrounding residents must be protected.

·       The terrace of the Home Grown club is connected to the back of my house and I am concerned with the high levels of noise and the echo effect at the back of the buildings which will be very disruptive for me and my family - especially with the COVID challenges of needing to work from home. In addition, during the summer months it gets hot in the home and we need to have back windows open and cigarette smoke travels into the house which is also disruptive. I am not supportive of this application.

·       The use of the terrace in the way now proposed would cause public nuisance, and affect the amenity of the many residential properties surrounding this terrace. Furthermore, the height of the buildings around the terrace means that sound echoes and so would affect properties as far away as Montagu Street. I hope that the Council continues to restrict activity on this terrace, so that we can enjoy the peace and quiet of our own homes.

·       I oppose the variation of licence which would permit up to 25 people up to 10pm 7 days a week on their terrace. We have already suffered from noise pollution from the limited amount of people on the terrace, and also from the music system in their basement which manages to travel through multiple buildings.

·       I object strongly to this application for a variation the grounds that it will cause public nuisance to me in my home and to the numerous residents surrounding this property. Having the terrace used for hospitality purposes would make my own (and others') properties unliveable, due to noise, primarily, but also due to smells,. When cigarettes are being smoked on the terrace , the smell emanates into my home.

We are disappointed that the Homegrown Club has applied for such a variation, when residents and the adjoining hotel, made it clear, before they opened as a new club, that use of the terrace would affect the amenity for the residents of the surrounding properties - with noise pollution. The area at the back of the premises is totally residential and surrounded by high buildings - along Great Cumberland Place, George Street, Montagu Street and Upper Berkeley Street - and so noise within that area echoes around, affecting the back of these properties as well as the mews houses in Brunswick Mews and Montagu Mews South. With no other commercial activity in this area, it is normally very quiet and peaceful.

·       We hope that the Council considers the adverse impact that this would have on the residents surrounding the terrace of 44 Great Cumberland Place, and rejects this application to vary the conditions that were considered so carefully by previous Licensing Committee.

·       We believe conditions 51, 53 and 54 are essential to ensure that people living in adjoining residential premises and staying at our hotel are able to reside in those premises without undue noise and nuisance emanating from the Home Grown Club during evening and early morning hours.

·       THIS REPRESENTATION is made by the Marylebone Association, which is recognised by Westminster as the Amenity Society for the Marylebone Area south of Marylebone Road and so represents the interests of those who live and work in this area. We are writing to oppose the application by Home Grown Club 21/03349/LIPV as we believe that if granted it will be contrary to Westminster Policy PN1. We are supportive of the need for the hospitality and entertainments sectors to recover from the effects of the Covid lockdown. However, the licensing authority needs to balance the needs of business with the needs of residents and other businesses who live and operate in the

surrounding area.

·       I am writing on behalf of the Marble Arch London BID to express our support for the proposal by Home Grown for a temporary variation of their trading hours within their outdoor courtyard until 30 September 2021. Established in 2016, Marble Arch London BID is a not-for-profit company funded by 200 member businesses for the improvement of the area.


Policy Considerations


Policy HRS1 applies under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP)


·       Applications within the core hours set out below in this policy will

generally be granted for the relevant premises uses, subject to not

being contrary to other policies in the Statement of Licensing Policy.

Applications for hours outside the core hours set out in Clause C

will be considered on their merits, subject to other relevant policies,

and with particular regard to the following:


The demonstration of compliance in the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1 associated with the likelihood of the effect of the grant of a licence for later or earlier hours on crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.


Policy COMB1 applies


·       Applications outside the West End Cumulative Impact Zone for premises that propose to operate as a ‘combined use premises’ will be considered on their merits and subject to the application meeting the requirements of policies CD1, PS1, PN1 and CH1.

·       The hours for licensable activities for the relevant use being within the Council’s Core Hours Policy HRS1.





The Presenting Officer Mr Jackaman introduced the application and confirmed that this was a variation application relating to Home Grown 44 Great Cumberland Place London W1H 7BS. The Premise operates as a Private Members Club with accompanying accommodation and are located within the Bryanston And Dorset Square Ward. The Premises have had the benefit of a licence since 2012 (licence number 19/09266/LIPDPS) and are not located within the West End Cumulative nor Special Consideration Zone. The Applicant is wishing to vary the licence by the suspension of licence conditions namely; 51, 53 and 54 until 30th September 2021 and the insertion of a new proposed condition relating to the terrace area of the Premises effectively allowing up to 25 seated patrons between the hours of 11:00 to 23:00 until 30 September 2021.


Representations were received from Environmental Health Service (EHS), Three Local Ward Councillors and 18 Local Residents (comprising individuals and the amenity society). The thrust of those objection site public nuisance and crime and disorder.


Mr Craig Baylis Solicitor appearing on behalf of the Applicant outlined the nature of the application. He advised that Home Grown was not to be confused with Home Grown’s sister club which was different to home house. Mr Baylis referred the Sub-Committee to the terrace photos and plans on pages 44 and 45 of the committee papers. He emphasised the importance of the outside terrace area and explained that there would be 25 patrons to use the terrace but that they would be seated at all times. Members of staff would supervise the area to ensure that noise is kept to a minimum. Mr Baylis advised that the terrace area was to be used for meetings in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and that outside areas were generally supported by Government as safe places due to the transmission of the virus being lowered from person to person and felt that this should be encouraged here.


Mr Baylis advised that the terrace was well managed by staff and overseen by the General Manager and would continue to do so if the application was granted. He was not aware of any complaints that had been made in respect of nuisance. He said that it was the Applicant’s intention to look after its guests at all times especially those sleeping in its hotel rooms as they would not want to be disturbed by any potential noise coming from the terrace. He also said this extended to local residents and did not want for the Applicant to be a bad neighbour but instead to get on with residents and work together harmoniously.


Andrew Richardson of the Applicant Company stated that the purpose of the club is based purely on business grounds attracting entrepreneurs. The difference being Home House is that specific premises operates as a social club and so the distinction needs to be made when comparing Home Grown. He said that the Premises will be used as a space to hold events and meetings to help and assist its Members with their business ideas. He advised that alcohol sales are carried out at Home House whereas at Home Grown the majority was still water.


The Sub-Committee was advised that the application was not driven by revenue as this was minimal benefit to the Applicant. The rational was to allow its members to use the outside area seated temporarily to hold business meetings for a limited period until 30 September 2021 and that really was the crux of the application.


Dave Nevitt on behalf of the EHS addressed the Sub-Committee. Mr Nevitt stated that the Premises was well run and had not been the subject of any complaints or concerns of the Police. He said that the time limited application was noted but the main concern the Sub-Committee should have regard to is the outside terrace area because it was overlooked by residents and was in close proximity to those resident’s bedrooms. Consequently, this would have the potential for noise escaping and causing a disruption to local residents. He said that the area was quiet given its residential nature.  Mr Nevitt said that noise buffering preventive measures could be put in place by the Applicant to reduce noise such as furniture, artificial grass and appropriate screening if the Sub-Committee was minded granting the application.


Richard Brown of the Westminster Citizens Advice Licensing Project said that he represented 6 of the 18 objections. He said that the current licence conditions restrict the use of the terrace and the consumption of alcohol were imposed for that very reason and could see no reason why the Sub-Committee should depart from this. He referred the Sub-Committee to the application that was submitted in 2016 where similar issues were raised by residents with regard to noise nuisance and the effect overall this was having on local residents. Mr Brown said that in his view the position had not really changed with the passage of time, and the granting of the application would only exacerbate the current problems residents were still experiencing.


The Sub-Committee heard from 4 local residents, including Councillor Acton who objected in her personal capacity. The thrust of those representations from the residents to the Sub-Committee said that the character of the neighbourhood was a crucial factor in the determining of the application because the area was residential in nature quiet and referred to the terrace area being small, being in close proximity to nearby homes where sound would travel with up to 25 patrons being seated in the outside area (no matter how quiet they were) as sound transmission would still travel. Concerns were raised in respect of smoking in the terrace by patrons,  the affect nuisance would have on young children and the fact that residents are having to work from home due to the current Covid-19 pandemic which would cause disruption because windows would be open during the period of the time limited licensable activities. The consensus view amongst residents was that the application should be refused and this sentiment was noted by the Sub-Committee.




The Sub-Committee noted that the Premises operates as a Private Members Club with accompanying accommodation and has had a licence since 2012 with various licensable activities. The Premises are not located within the West End Cumulative nor Special Consideration Zone.


The Sub-Committee noted that representations were received from Environmental Health Service, three Local Ward Councillors and 18 Local Residents (comprising individuals and the amenity society). The thrust of those objections cited public nuisance and crime and disorder as a cause for grave concern.


The Sub-Committee noted and considered the Agenda Papers and the additional documentation supplied by Richard Brown of Westminster CAB Licensing Project including the offered conditions.


The Sub-Committee realises that it has a duty to consider the application on its individual merits and took into account all the committee papers, supplementary submissions made by the Applicant, Responsible Authorities, various resident objectors and the oral evidence given by all parties during the hearing in its determination of the matter.


The Sub-Committee when determining the application considered the Character of the Neighbourhood and this was a major factor and influence in the making of the Decision by the Sub-Committee in that the Premises was in close proximity to residential accommodation and that would give rise to public nuisance (noise, dispersal of customers, smoking etc) given the weight of objection from the Ward Councillors, the strong arguments and relevant key points advanced to the Sub-Committee from those residents who attended the hearing.


The Sub-Committee expressed concerns regarding the use of the Premises operating as a Members Club and what impact that would have locally in particular the outside terrace area which could accommodate up to 25 seated people drinking (including alcohol) and talking where noise would amplify in the Mews area. It was noted by the Sub-Committee that residents were working from home also due to the current Covid-19 pandemic and there was still families with young children who could be adversely affected by the activities of the outside terrace by club members. Therefore, Policy PN1 under the Council’s SLP is fully engaged in all respects when it comes to looking at issues of nuisance and the complications this will have for residents when enjoying daily life of their respective homes.


The Sub-Committee did consider whether the offered conditions and noise prevention measures suggested by EHS to mitigate the concerns of residents but concluded this would not help matters when it came to nuisance and noise break out from the Premises and the disturbance this would cause to nearby residents albeit this was a time limited application. It was the Sub-Committee views that the impact to residents would still be disproportionate and unnecessary given the residential nature of the area.


Whilst the application was dealt with on its merits, similar issues were raised in 2016 when a previous application came before a Licensing Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee, however, did not consider those previous issues binding for the purposes of determining this application. 


The Sub-Committee was not persuaded by the Applicant that the promotion of the licensing objectives would be upheld particularly the public nuisance licensing objective. The Sub-Committee when looking at the evidence had due regard to the policy considerations arising under Polices PN1, CD1 and CH1 under the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. 


The Sub-Committee decided that the Applicant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why the granting of the variation application and the suspension of certain conditions for a limited period, the adding of new conditions would promote the licensing objectives and therefore refused the application in all the circumstances of the case.


The application is Refused.


This is the Full Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee which takes effect forthwith.


The Licensing Sub-Committee

29 July 2021


Supporting documents: