Agenda item

Premier Inn, 90-104 Berwick Street, London, W1F 0QB

16/11235/LIPN

1.

Late Night Refreshment – Indoors

Monday to Thursday: 23:00 – 23:30

Friday to Saturday: 23:00 – 00:00

Sunday: N/A

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

To extend the proposed hours as identified on New Year’s Eve: 23:00 until New Year’s Day: 05:00.

The premises shall remain open to permit Late Night Refreshment to hotel residents 24 hours a day.

Please note that under Schedule 2 Para 3 of the Licensing Act 2003, the premises is exempt from requiring Late Night Refreshment for any person staying at the hotel for the night in question.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Whitbread Group PLC for a new premises licence in respect of Premier Inn, 90-104 Berwick Street, London, W1F 0QB.

The Licensing Officer provided an outline of the application to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Gaunt representing the applicant advised that the application had been amended so the sale of alcohol would now only be permitted to 23:00 hours Monday to Thursday, 23:30 on Friday and Saturday. The application was for a 110 bed hotel which was part of a wider development and would be the fourth ‘Hub’ to be located in the City of Westminster. It was confirmed that the food and beverage offer would be located in the basement area of the Premises. This aspect was highlighted as it would make this area invisible to any members of the public passing by which was important as the premises was located in a cumulative impact area (“CIA”). There would be no external signage to the bar with access only allowed through the reception area which was manned 24 hours a day. A food offer would be available throughout the opening hours. The sale of alcohol would be through waiter/waitress service only with no off sales allowed except to hotel residents taking drinks to their room.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had invested £30 million into the development which would create forty new jobs and it would be attempted to source these locally. Under the Licensing Act 2003 there was a provision for non-residents of a hotel to use the bar facility. It was envisaged  that there would not be a significant number of non-residents using the facilities, so  the application therefore required  a common sense and flexible approach to this. The Sub-Committee was advised that conditions had been agreed with the Police following a meeting. Constructive talks had also been held with EH following which a schedule of conditions had  been agreed. The representations received from the residents’ associations centred on the perceived detrimental effect the bar would have on their local amenity. The Sub-Committee had to consider the evidence before it and there was no evidence to support the claims that the Premises t would create problems. The Sub-Committee was advised that the other ‘Hubs’ located in the City of Westminster had not created any issues that would undermine the licensing objectives. In any event, if such  problems did arise the residents would have the right to call a review of the premises licence. The hours requested were within core hours, it was located in a CIA however there were a number of exceptions in the City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (“SLP”) of which it was suggested this was one. It was therefore submitted that the applicant was a very responsible operator which managed over 700 hotels nationwide. Most hotel residents vacated after breakfast and checked-in later which diminished any potential disturbance for residents. The applicant had worked with the responsible authorities to ensure the application would have a positive impact on the local community.

In response to a question regarding where smokers would be located Mr Gaunt confirmed that this would be in the immediate vicinity of the hotel and staff would monitor the area to ensure there was no public nuisance. EH advised that due to the nature of the operation it was not necessary to have door staff in place however a condition had been agreed to undertake a risk assessment of this on an on-going basis. In response to a query over the level of engagement undertaken with local residents Mr Gaunt stressed that the application had been advertised, letters had been sent to all the parties making representations and a mediation meeting had been offered.

Mr Anil Drayan, representing EH, confirmed that EH was satisfied with the application even though it was located in a CIA. The bar would be ancillary to the hotel use and there would be no direct access to it from the street. EH had also noted that there would be no external advertising of the bar. Conditions had been agreed with the applicant and the representation would have been withdrawn however unresolved representations with local residents still remained.

Mr Brown, from Westminster Citizens Advice Bureau, advised the Sub-Committee that the planning application for the premises stated that any food or beverage offer would not be available to members of the public. It was accepted by the Sub-Committee that the planning and licensing regimes were separate but it was thought unsatisfactory that they seemed to contradict each other in this instance. The main area of concern though centred on the fact that the application would allow hotel residents, guests of hotel residents and members of the public to all access the bar. This would mean it could function as a new bar in a CIA which was contrary to  Licensing Policy. Allowing the sale of alcohol to hotel guests and members of the public would result in an intensification of use. Due to the near vicinity of local residents a question was raised over the effect of noise from the hotel’s plant and extract equipment. Noise testing usually occurred from the ground floor so clarification was sought on how noise from the plant located on the fifth floor would be measured? A concern was raised over the hours stated for the collection of waste and recycling materials, in response Mr Gaunt confirmed that this could be altered to ensure no collections took place between 22:00 and 08:00. Mr Brown explained how the proposed capacity was for ninety people excluding staff however the floor plan only displayed fifty-three seats, this was considered a large difference and had the potential to encourage vertical drinking. It was also highlighted that currently there was no condition requiring the sale of alcohol to be by waiter/waitress service. This application was likely to increase numbers of people drinking in a CIA and  policy stated that incremental increases of people drinking in CIAs was likely to raise issues. Concern was also expressed over the lack of security people at the entrance of the bar which would be easy for members of the public to access.

Mr Osbourne-Smith, representing the Ingenstre Court Residents Voice, explained the impact the opening of the hotel would have on residents of Ingestre Court. The narrowness of the roads in the immediate vicinity of the hotel was stressed. It was currently a quiet area in a busy location and the opening of the hotel would cause serious noise disturbance for residents. The bar would be open to members of the public and further noise would be created by people entering and exiting the hotel and associated traffic noise. Noise levels would be exacerbated for some residents as their windows would be located directly opposite some of the plant and extract equipment. It was disappointing that the application was different to the plans originally submitted which could result in a different clientele base using the bar facilities. A question was raised over how the outside area used by smokers would be monitored so as to prevent public nuisance. In response Mr Gaunt confirmed that the area would be covered by CCTV and a sufficient number of staff would be available to monitor the area. Mr Osbourne-Smith advised that the application would result in an increased number of people drinking in a CIA with a subsequent increase in noise disturbance in a quiet location.

Mr Andrew Murray, representing the Soho Society, remarked how the application did not recognise the uniqueness of the location. The area was very residential and the proposal would increase pressure in the area. Any loss of residential amenity would have a big impact on the residents in a CIA and the application could be expected to increase noise disturbance. No case had been provided to state why hotel residents should be allowed access to alcohol twenty-four hours a day. Concern was expressed that the bar area would be drink led with potential vertical drinking and only a minimal food offer available. Mr Murray suggested that the application was basically for a new bar situated within a CIA that could provide alcohol to members of the public.

Mr Gaunt confirmed that the food offer would consist of cold platters and pre-prepared food heated in a microwave.

In response to the representations received from the residents’ associations Mr Drayan confirmed that EH was satisfied that the plant and extract equipment of the hotel would not cause noise disturbance if it was built in accordance with the planning permission. An explanation over the acoustic measuring to be utilised was detailed and waste collection times for the area were also provided.

Councillor Acton requested that to minimise noise disturbance and reduce the environmental impact of the application the hotel encouraged hotel guests to use electric vehicles when accessing or leaving the premises. Mr Rider, representing the applicant, suggested this could be investigated. He also explained how the licenced area would primarily be used for the service of breakfast. It was designed to provide a comfortable area for guests to consume their breakfast and this was a more important factor for them rather than the sale of alcohol.

Mr Gaunt advised the Sub-Committee that the planning and licensing regimes were separate and the two should not be confused. Planning determined the use of the premises under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, whilst licensing determined how the premises operated for the purposes of the Licensing Act 2003. Noise had been highlighted as a key issue and EH was satisfied that the impact of the premises would not create a noise disturbance. It was recognised that there was no condition in place to ensure all sales of alcohol were by waiter/waitress service only but the applicant was willing to accept that a condition requiring this be added to the licence.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and noted the high quality nature of the operation. It was felt that the objectors should have taken up the applicant’s offer of a mediation meeting as this could have allayed some of the concerns they raised. The Sub-Committee recognised that the premises was located in a CIA though and in particular a very quiet street in a noisy location. As such the Sub-Committee acknowledged that the local residents required a degree of protection from potential public nuisance. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that limiting access to the bar to hotel residents and up to five bona fide guests each would limit disturbance to residents. Therefore it was felt that due to the nature of the operation, the location of the bar in the basement of the premises, no external signage and a limit on up to five bona fide guests being able to access the bar with hotel residents made the application an exception to policy. In determining the matter, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the application would uphold and promote the licensing objectives and as such granted the application accordingly. The Sub-Committee also added an informative to the licence requesting that the applicant use its best endeavours to encourage hotel residents to use electric vehicles when arriving or departing from the hotel.

The Sub-Committee agreed to amend the following conditions on the licence in order to update the licence:

• Condition 10 be deleted from the premises licence;
• An additional condition be added to the licence to read “Alcohol may only be supplied to and consumed by a) hotel residents and b) bona fide guests of hotel residents up to a maximum of 5 guests per hotel resident”;
• An additional condition be added to the licence to read “Guests of hotel residents shall vacate the premises by 23:30 Monday to Thursday, 00:00 Friday to Saturday and 22:30 on Sunday”;
• An additional condition be added to the licence to read “The supply of alcohol on the premises shall be by waiter/waitress service only”;
• An additional condition be added to the licence to read “There shall be no sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises other than for consumption by hotel residents and their bona fide guests in their hotel bedroom”;
• An additional condition be added to the licence to read “ Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises e.g. to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them”;
• Condition 32 be amended to read “No collection of waste or recycling materials (including bottle) from the premises shall take place between 22:00 and 08:00 on the following day”; and
• Condition 33 be amended to read “No deliveries to the premises shall take place between 22:00 and 08:00 on the following day”.

2.

Sales By retail of Alcohol – On and Off Sales

Monday to Thursday: 10:00 – 23:30

Friday to Saturday: 10:00 – 00:00

Sunday: 10:00 – 22:30

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

To extend the proposed hours as identified on New Year’s Eve: 10:00 until New Year’s Day: terminal hour as proposed being 00.30 on 2 January.

The premises shall remain open to permit the sale of alcohol to hotel residents 24 hours a day.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

The applicant advised that the hours for the sale of alcohol had been amended to Monday to Thursday: 10:00 – 23:00 and Friday to Saturday: 10:00 – 23:30.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application, see reasons for decision in Section 1.

3.

Hours Premises are Open to the Public

Monday to Saturday: 07:00 – 00:00

Sunday: 07:00 – 23:00

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings:

The premises shall remain open 24 hours a day for hotel residents.

For non-residents, the premises will close 30 minutes after the end of the non-standard timings for licensable activities.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

The Sub-Committee granted the application, see reasons for decision in Section 1.