Agenda item

Ward CIA*	Site Name & Address	Application Type	Licensing Reference No.
Bryanston & Dorset Square	No. 24 Upper Berkeley Street, London W2 2AW	New Premises Licence	20/08468/LIPN
*Cumulative Impact Area

 

Present:                   Caroline Horstmann (for the Applicant); Cathy Courtney (Resident); and Professor Eileen Hogan (Resident).

 

Representations:    Representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service; the Licensing Authority; and local residents.

Applicant:                Temple Guiting Manor Ltd

Ward:                       Bryanston and Dorset Square

CIA[1]:                         None

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence for the sale by retail of alcohol on the premises, as follows –

Sale by Retail of Alcohol on The Premises

Monday to Sunday:00:00 hours to 24:00 hours

Seasonal Variations/Non-Standard Timings

Alcohol to be served within the reception rooms between 09:00 hours and 00.00 hours. Only the minibars in rooms would be available 24 hours.

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 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.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Mr Kevin Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer

Mr Jackaman, Senior Licensing Officer, summarised the application as set out in the report before the Sub Committee, noting that several representations had been received, including representations from responsible authorities and local residents. After mediation between the parties, the representations by the responsible authorities had subsequently been withdrawn.

Ms Carolyn Horstmann On Behalf of the Applicant

Ms Horstmann stated that the premises, Henry’s Townhouse, at 24 Upper Berkeley Street was hoping to open for bookings as soon as possible, coronavirus permitting. The premises comprised a luxury private dwelling and boutique hotel with seven bedrooms sleeping a maximum of 14 guests.

The owners of the property had spent the last two years refurbishing the Grade 1 listed building. It was the applicant’s intention that the hotel would cater for a range of customers, including corporate clients who may wish to use the premises for small meetings or corporate lunches.

Referring to the plans attached to the application, Ms Horstmann noted that the premises comprised a pantry/kitchen in the basement and a dining table that could seat up to 14 guests; sitting room at the front of the house; a snug at the back of the house which could seat six guests; and a small terrace on the stairwell on the second floor.

Addressing residents’ concerns, Ms Horstmann stated that the terrace was protected by a party wall and had seating for up to 8 persons, or 10 to 12 persons if standing. Planning permission had been granted for the terrace to be an accessible outside space for guests to use. Agreement had been reached with the Environmental Health Service that the terrace would close at 11 PM. The on-site manager, who lived in the premises’ basement, would be responsible for monitoring noise to ensure that neighbours were not unfairly affected.

Ms Horstmann noted that the terrace was similar to terraces on a number of neighbouring properties opposite, some of which were higher up and overlooking the applicant’s terrace.

It was essential for the business to be able to offer its guests alcohol for sensible consumption on the premises if it was to compete with other licensed premises in the area which allowed alcohol to be consumed on terraces and in gardens, and which catered for much larger numbers of customers.

In conclusion, Ms Horstmann asked that the Sub Committee grant the licence based on the applicant’s adherence to the proposed use of the terrace in accordance with fair and practical times for use of the terrace having been agreed.

In response to a number of questions by Members, Ms Horstmann provided the following information.

(a)  The lounge was located on the ground floor near the entrance. It had been the intention to have a bedroom there but the plans had changed and this would be a sitting room area meaning that there would now only be seven bedrooms in the premises.

(b)  Updated plans showing the current configuration of the premises could be submitted today.

(c)   The pot washing area shown in the plans included a galley kitchen where the chef would prepare food for guests. There were also fridges in this area and the laundry area shown on the plans had now been removed. The applicant could provide photographs of the kitchen area, if necessary.

(d)  The kitchen extractor came out at the front of the building near the basement area where there was a fire exit and a staff entrance.

(e)  A full-time house manager, Ann Grimes, who would live on the premises, had already been employed and was presently setting up the premises. There would be a member of staff on the premises at all times.

(f)    The room that was marked IT on the plans was where the premises’ electrical systems could be accessed and where the premises manager had a small desk and computer. The room was also used as a storage space for linen.

(g)  Alcohol would be stored in the premises snug on the first floor next to the terrace where there were locked cabinets. Spirits would be stored here and this is where guests would be served. Wine was stored in the basement in refrigerators and was kept under lock and key.

(h)  A member of staff would serve guests from the wine/drinks list. Alcohol would not be sold after 9 PM unless it was part of a dinner. For guests wanting alcohol after that time, there were minibars available in the rooms.

(i)    On the terrace there were three tables that could seat two persons each, and a bench that could seat two persons. Therefore, the terrace could accommodate up to eight people sitting; six people if sitting comfortably.

(j)    It was proposed that the number of guests and use of the terrace would be limited in accordance with the coronavirus regulations and social distancing.

Ms Cathy Courtney, Local Resident

Ms Courtney said that she wished Henry’s House well, but proposed that its operation should be contained within the walls of the premises. Referring to the applicant’s use of the phrase “unfairly affected” by possible noise from the balcony, Ms Courtney stated that this was a very subjective term. She was particularly concerned about noise during the day that would “wipe out” her daytime study.

Ms Courtney was also concerned about possible noise from a separate non-residential building at the rear of the premises which adjoined the property. There was occasional noise from this building and she was worried that if this building was put to use, including using it for housing machinery, there could be added noise.

The disposition of tall buildings surrounding the small mews house acted like an echo chamber necessitating double or triple glazing in the mews properties as outside noise could be heard throughout residents’ properties.

Ms Courtney stated that she used her study at all times of the day and she required the quiet use of it. She stated that the use of the terrace was markedly different when use by a single resident compared with its commercial and continual use by hotel guests.

The premises advertised itself as offering a decadent home. When operating as a bed-and-breakfast, when guests only occasionally made a lot of noise, neighbouring residents could ask the owner for help in dealing with any noise issues. The use of the terrace was advertised as being available to guests to use. As such, it would be unreasonable to ask guests not to make any noise at all. Anyone sitting on the terrace using a laptop for meetings on Zoom, or using their mobile phone, would intrude upon her use of her study room.

There was also concern that if the doors to the terrace were left open, this would add to the noise from the premises which could be exacerbated by the use of the terrace throughout the day as it was advertised as being a peaceful place for a quiet morning coffee or an evening aperitif. In turn, noise from the terrace could cause neighbours to escalate their noise levels.

Ms Courtney stated that, if residents ever felt the need to call the Council’s Noise Team, it was often the case that the Noise Team could not respond immediately and, therefore, were not present at the time the noise was occurring to be able to record the complaint.

In response to a question, Ms Courtney stated that even if the use of the terrace was restricted to no later than 9 PM, this would be of little assistance to her as she required the use of her study throughout the day. In response to a further question, Ms Courtney stated she did not believe there were other properties with terraces that overlooked her property which were regular in use by residents.

Professor Eileen Hogan, Local Resident

Professor Hogan stated that she also wished Henry’s House well, but she strongly objected to the use of the terrace as described by the applicant and as advertised on the applicant’s website. She stated that all the houses in Wythburn Place [which were back-to-back with the properties on Upper Berkeley Street) were residential and the terrace overlooked the back of this row of houses.

Professor Hogan noted that the area was a sound well and that sound reverberated around the whole of this area. She stated that noise was a significant problem which would be made worse if the application was approved. She had no doubt about the good intentions of the applicant. However, staff changed and the premises may change ownership and, if the application was agreed, it may be very difficult to rectify any later problems.

In conclusion, Professor Hogan stated that Ms Courtney had already covered the matters that were of most concern to residents.

The Members of the Sub Committee and the Legal Officer, Ms Vivien Walker, and the Policy Officer, Mr Aaron Hardy, confirmed that they had no questions.

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.

Ms Carolyn Horstmann (for the Applicant)

Having been granted planning permission for use of the terrace, and having previously operated as a hotel, the applicants wished to allow guests the opportunity to have fresh air and enjoy a drink on the terrace. It was the intention that the applicant would cater more for private use, including families, and groups who knew each other.

There was a Member of Staff on site at all times. The applicant did not wish to upset residents and would be happy to remind guests to be respectful of residents and to put a notice to this effect in the guestbook in each of the guestrooms, as well as having someone on-site to manage any noise. A telephone number would also be made available to residents to contact staff at Henry’s Townhouse, should the need arise.

Not to allow use of the terrace during the day and early evening would be hard on the business in that there were pubs and restaurants at the front of the building and on Seymour Place. Accordingly, the applicant would want to be able to use the terrace until 10 PM, stating that the terrace would be monitored and controlled at all times.

In response to a question by the Chairman, Ms Horstmann confirmed that planning permission had been granted to add the terrace to the premises at the time the property, which had previously been a bedsit, was refurbished.

On a point of clarification, Vivien Walker, Legal Officer, confirmed that, even if the application were to be refused, the applicant had permission to use the terrace area where guests could be served coffee [or any non-alcoholic drink] and/or breakfast.

Ms Cathy Courtney (Local Resident)

Ms Courtney said that she was not concerned what activities were taking place on the terrace. Her request was that whatever activity was taking place, that it be done quietly.

In response to a Member’s question, Ms Horstmann confirmed that there would be a Member of Staff on the premises every day, 24 hours a day, and that the applicant was willing to provide residents with a telephone number which they could use to contact the on-site member of staff at any time, should they have any concerns.

In response to a further question, Ms Horstmann confirmed that, if guests wished to smoke, they would do so on the terrace area as it had been agreed with the Police that guests would not be permitted use the front of the premises as a smoking area.

Professor Hogan (Local Resident)

ProfessorHogan stated that the residents’ objection was to alcohol being served on the terrace. She stated that the examples of people drinking coffee and other activities on the terrace were examples of noise-related problems affecting residents, some of whom worked from home or were otherwise at home during the day, and because of the particular architecture of the surrounding space which exacerbated noise issues.

ProfessorHogan went on to say that, if the licence was granted, she could not see why the Sub Committee could not impose restrictions on serving alcohol and/or the consumption of alcohol on the terrace.

In response, the Chairman, stated that the Sub Committee could impose conditions on the licence. Professor Hogan said that imposing conditions on the licence might ameliorate some of the concerns of residents.

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

It was the Sub Committee’s decision to approve the application, as set out in the Appendix to these minutes, subject to conditions being attached to the premises licence regarding the use of the terrace, and subject to the applicant submitting updated plans and drawings of the premises that met with the requirements of the Licensing Authority.

 

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having read the report by the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before it; and having heard representations by the applicant and by residents objecting to the application, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to grant the application, subject to added conditions to the premises licence.

The Sub Committee accepted the argument by residents that there were particular problems in relation to noise affecting the properties in the area, and that the Environmental Health Service (EHS) had made representations that the application may undermine the Licensing Objectives of –

1.     The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and

2.     Public Safety;

However, following mediation and agreement between the applicant and the EHS on proposed conditions, as set out in Appendix 5 of the report, the EHS had subsequently withdrawn its representation.

The Sub Committee also noted that Ms Horstmann, during the course of her presentation, had offered a number of conditions intended to address residents’ concerns about noise. These conditions included restricting the hours the terrace may be used in the evening; providing residents with a mobile telephone contact number that could be used 24 hours a day should residents wish to complain about noise; and arranging for a Member of Staff being to be on the premises at all times who could be contacted by residents should they have any concerns about noise from the premises.

The Sub Committee noted that many of the residents’ concerns related to noise nuisance generally, and not specifically to the sale and/or consumption of alcohol on the premises and, specifically, the terrace area. It was the Sub Committee’s view that complaints about noise nuisance in general were governed by other statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the Sub Committee was of the view that it would be disproportionate to significantly curtail the hours that the terrace could be used by guests drinking alcohol, particularly as guests would be permitted to use the terrace for any number of other activities not governed by the Licensing Act 2003.