Agenda item - George IV Hotel - Application for a Premises Licence

Report of Head of Regulatory Services (copy attached).

33.1       The Panel considered a report of the Head of Regulatory Services regarding an application for a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for George IV Hotel, 34 Regency Square, Brighton.

 

33.2       The applicant, Mr Justin Salisbury, attended the meeting with his representative Mr John Newcombe to speak in favour of the application. Mr Roger Hinton and Mr Nigel Rose attended to make representations against the application. 

 

33.3       The Licensing Officer summarised the application.  He explained that the applicant no longer requested the provision of late night refreshment for members of the public (there was an exemption for late night guests).  Three representations had been received from local residents and a residents’ association on grounds of Prevention of Public Nuisance.  A representation from Sussex Police had been withdrawn as the applicant had agreed to a reduction in the hours and for conditions to be attached to the licence.  The premises was in the Cumulative Impact Area where applications would normally be refused.  This presumption could be rebutted if it could be demonstrated that there was no negative cumulative impact. 

 

33.4       The Licensing Officer drew attention to the Matrix at 2.71 of the Statement of Licensing Policy.  This should be considered but each case should be considered on its individual merits.  He confirmed that the premises did not currently have a licence.

 

33.5       The Panel Lawyer asked if extension of hours for bank holidays was still in the application.   The applicant confirmed that the hours would always be 10.00 to 23.00 hours.

 

33.6       Councillor Marsh asked about the position after public closing time.  The Licensing Manager explained that the same principles applied as to the public opening hours.  

 

33.7       The Chair asked what constituted a bona fide guest.  The Licensing Manager replied that this was not defined.  It would be a matter to investigate at the time by checking with the hotel and accessing hotel accounts.

 

33.8       Mr Rose stated that he thought the application should show how many people should be allowed to congregate on the steps outside.  The Licensing Manager explained that this matter would not form part of the licensing process.  The applicant stated that he had agreed with the police that no people would drink outside.  

 

33.9       Mr Rose asked why there was no mention of the yard in the application.  The applicant confirmed that the yard was not in his ownership.

 

33.10     Mr Hinton presented his representation as set out in his letter of 18^th July 2012.  He explained that he lived in Regency Square.  Mr Hinton stated that all of the premises in Regency Square except two, were residential properties or hotels. None had an alcohol licence to his knowledge.  Mr Hinton stressed that if the application was granted it would create a precedent and other hotels would want to follow.  This would change the character of the square.   

 

33.11     Mr Hinton noted that the applicant had said that he did not want stag or hen parties.  He stated that a licence would not be restricted to talented or educated people.  He stressed that business conditions changed and that even well run premises could cause problems.  Mr Hinton quoted the planning inspector in a recent planning case relating to Hampton Place (page 25 of the agenda).  The inspector had upheld the refusal of a late night café opening hours on the grounds of likely noise and disturbance.   Mr Hinton felt that the same principles applied to this application.  Residents’ bedrooms were feet away from the premises.

 

33.12     Mr Hinton informed the Panel that there were other opportunities nearby for refreshment.  There was no need for a public bar in Regency Square.  Mr Hinton asked the Panel to refuse the application in order to protect Regency Square, and ensure residents could have a good nights sleep.

 

33.13     Mr Rose presented his representation on behalf of the Regency Square Area Society as set out in his letter of 30^th July 2012.   He stated that he supported everything said by Mr Hinton.  There were 13 hotels in Regency Square and if one was granted a licence to operate as a pub it would set a dangerous precedent for others to do likewise and change the nature of the square.   There were already three pubs within 300 metres and one bar within 100 metres.   

 

33.14     Mr Rose stated that the premises had a reception that could hold between 30 and 40 people.  He asked what would prevent guests from inviting people to the premises until 05.00 hours.   The premises was in close proximity to people sleeping.  People could congregate on the steps of the George IV Hotel.

 

33.15     Mr Rose expressed his concern about smokers.  Smokers could congregate in the yard at the back.  Noise at the back of the house funnelled upwards and affected the bedrooms at the back of properties creating a public nuisance.  People could congregate outside until 05.00 hours.   Mr Rose objected to the application. 

 

33.16     Councillor Hyde asked if any other hotels in the square served alcohol.  Mr Rose stated that there were some that did serve alcohol.  He was not sure if this was extended to 05.00 hours for residents and guests.  

 

33.17     Councillor Marsh asked Mr Rose whether the premises currently caused problems.  Mr Rose replied that there were no problems at the moment.

 

33.18     Mr Newcombe reported that there were seven licensed premises in Regency Square.  Five had 24 hour licences. There had been one recorded crime in June.  Bearing that in mind, he asked Mr Rose to acknowledge that there would not be massive problems when other premises already had licences.  

 

33.19     Mr Rose stated that he was aware that there were licenses to enable premises to be public houses up to 23.00 hours. 

 

33.20     Mr Newcombe asked if Mr Hinton and Mr Rose were aware of any problems in the square.  Mr Hinton stated that people passed through the square.  Passing noise was not a problem.  Persistent noise would be a problem.   He asked if the licenses of existing hotels were for members of the public or for their guests.  The public could cause a noise on the entrance steps. 

 

33.21     The applicant stated that he was 99% sure that the Beach Hotel had a licence to supply alcohol to the public.   Mr Newcombe stated that the premises did not allow drinkers outside and would limit the number of smokers if the Panel was happy to approve numbers.  He was happy not to use the back Yard area.

 

33.22     Mr Newcombe set out the case for the applicant.  He stressed that it was a modest application to enable the premises to act as a public house.  The premises was a small hotel with 8 bedrooms.  Mr Newcombe explained that bona fide guests could be invited to the hotel by paid guests.  They would not be people off the streets.  The applicant wanted to allow a mini bar in rooms.   The intention was not to open as a pub, but to allow the manager to enable people staying in the hotel to invite visiting guests.

 

33.23     Mr Salisbury stressed that he was very aware of noise himself and would not encourage anyone to congregate on the steps.  It was his intention to allow people to have a good nights sleep.

 

33.24     Councillor Hyde asked for details of the size of the room where the alcohol would be served.  The applicant stated that it would be 12ft by 12ft.

 

33.25     Councillor Marsh referred to the plans in the agenda and asked for details about the basement.  The applicant stated that it was a very old plan and there was now an office and a staff bedroom in the basement.   There were 8 double bedrooms for guests.

 

33.26     Councillor Marsh asked about capacity numbers.  The applicant confirmed that numbers had not yet agreed with the fire and rescue service.  If the application was granted a fire safety risk assessment would have to be carried out.

 

33.27     Mr Rose asked why the applicant did not make the bar for residents and their guests when it was stated that they did not want to attract people from the street.  The applicant replied that in order to restrict the bar to residents and guests they would have to interview people to establish that they were bona fide guests.  He did not want to go down that route.

 

33.28     Councillor Marsh noted that there would be mini bars in rooms and asked if there would be sound proofing.  The applicant replied that there were solid walls between the buildings.

 

33.29     The Licensing Manager was able to report at this point that the Beach Hotel and the majority of hotels did have licences to sell alcohol.   The majority had conditions in place stating that the persons using the bar should be private friends of the residents.  

 

33.30     The Licensing Manager set out his closing observations.  He summarised the application and stated that the provision of late night refreshment had been removed.  The application was in the CIA but this could be rebutted in exceptional circumstances.  The Panel needed to establish whether the applicant had demonstrated that the application would not have a negative impact.  If so, the application could be granted.  Any conditions imposed needed to be clear and enforceable.  If there were no exceptional circumstances the Panel should consider refusing the application.  They would need to demonstrate that granting the licence would have a negative impact.    

 

33.31     Mr Hinton set out his closing observations.  He was concerned that the application would create a public bar in an area where there were no other public bars.  It would set a precedent for other hotels in the square.  They could have a 24 hour licence for residents and guests.    

 

33.32     Mr Rose set out his closing observations.  He concurred with Mr Hinton.  Mr Rose agreed granting the application would set a precedent.  It was not in keeping with the area.  He was concerned about people congregating on the steps of the hotel.   

 

33.33     Mr Newcombe set out his closing observations.   The main issue was access to the public.  There were currently no problems in the square.  There were 732 crimes in June in the CIA.  There was only 1 crime in Regency Square.  When the application was lodged, the applicant agreed with the conditions requested by the police and he was prepared to accept further conditions.  Mr Newcombe quoted Section 102 of the Licensing Guidance, paragraphs 13.29, 13.33, and 13.34.  Mr Newcombe also quoted paragraph 2.69 of the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. 

 

33.34     The Panel Lawyer stressed that any conditions imposed should be canvassed with all parties.

 

33.35     At this point the Panel established that the applicants had agreed that they would accept a condition restricting use of the back yard and  front steps.           

 

33.36  RESOLVED –  The Panel carefully considered the application and all the submissions made, along with the written report. The Panel also considered the detail of the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy. 

 

The Panel decided to grant this application as the applicant had demonstrated to their satisfaction that, in granting the application, it would not have a negative cumulative impact.  The Panel considered that the style & characteristics of a small hotel with a small bar area, open until 11.00pm was unlikely to cause impact or public nuisance.  Furthermore, the conditions from the operating schedule and those agreed with Sussex Police supported this.  

 

The Panel did, however, make a slight amendment to the conditions, to forbid consumption of drinks at the rear of the premises. The condition is as follows:

Patrons and their guests will not be permitted to consume drinks outside of the premises either on the steps to the hotel, in the front basement area, outside on the pavement or at the rear of the premises whilst smoking etc.

 

Panel wished also to limit smokers on the front doorstep to a maximum of 4 at any one time between 11.00pm and 8.00am.

 

 

The Panel solicitor reminded the parties of their appeal rights to the Magistrates Court under the Licensing Act and that appeals must be made within 21 days of written notification of the decision given at the meeting.