Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The applicant and their legal representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant and their legal representative.

It was noted that all of the responsible authorities had conciliated with the applicant.

The local resident objecting to the application addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the local resident.

Both parties were offered five minutes for summing up.

The meeting went into closed session at 12 noon.

The meeting resumed at 12.38pm.  The chair did not read out the decision as the legal officer had advised the parties of the decision and that an electronic version of the notice of decision would be sent to all interested parties.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by Dominvs Hotels UK Limited for a premises licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Tower Bridge Autograph Collection Hotel,(Former magistrates court and police station) 209-211 Tooley Street,  London SE1 2JY is granted as follows:

Conditions

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, conditions derived from the operation schedule highlighted in Section M of the application form and the conciliated conditions agreed with the responsible authorities.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who informed the sub-committee that the Tower Bridge Autograph collection hotel would operate as a reputable company owned by Marriot Hotels. 

The hotel will have 191 bedrooms and the applicant has agreed to additional conditions limiting the capacity of the areas within the hotel at any one time.

The applicant’s representative also informed the sub committee that a dispersal policy had been agreed by the licensing authority in order to assist with upholding the licensing objectives.

The applicant’s representative informed the sub committee that their business is to sell a good nights sleep and in doing so the priority is to ensure that noise nuisance is managed thereby ensuring that their hotel guests are not disturbed and that this approach is also extended to the neighbours of the hotel.

The applicant requested that this application should be considered on its own merit and highlighted the measures within the operating schedule and additional conditions agreed with the licensing authority and the public health authority in order to ensure that the premises operates in a responsible manner and in accordance with the licensing objectives.

The licensing sub-committee noted that the Metropolitan Police Service had agreed conditions with the applicant and therefore did not object to the application.

The licensing sub-committee also noted that the licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority was satisfied with the proposed dispersal policy submitted by the applicant and had withdrawn their representation.

The licensing sub-committee noted that the public health authority officer had conciliated their concerns by way of agreement to a further condition.

The licensing sub-committee noted the representations from 12 local residents. The sub- committee heard from one resident objecting to the application on behalf of the other local residents.  They informed the sub-committee that they considered the development to be the most significant change to the neighbourhood in the last 30 years and they believed that it will have a negative impact on the quality of life for the residents.

The local resident stated that he believed there is a high crime level in Shad Thames and also stated that there are a total of 25 licensed premises within the area, which is mostly residential.

The resident stated that there were concerns about the applicant’s ability to operate the hotel in such an area and expressed concern in relation to potential increase in the risk of nuisance and crime and disorder.

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and were of the opinion that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated that the premises would operate in accordance with the licensing objectives and that the application should be granted.

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal rights

The applicant may appeal against any decision:

a)  To impose conditions on the licence

b)  To exclude a licensable activity or refuse to specify a person as premises supervisor.

Any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application who desire to contend that:

a)  The  licence ought not to be been granted; or

b)  That on granting the licence, the licensing authority ought to have imposed different or additional conditions to the licence, or ought to have modified them in a different way

may appeal against the decision.

Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates’ Court for the area in which the premises are situated. Any appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.