Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services officer advised the meeting of the procedure.

There were none.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officeror a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

There was none.

These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Applicant: The Restaurant Group (UK) Limited, represented by Clare Eames (Poppleston Allen) and Mary Wilcock (Managing Director, Brunning & Price Ltd)

Other Persons: Anne Robins (The Empire Owners’ Association), Professor Stan Kolaczkowski (Chairman of the Empire Owners’ Association) and Ian Perkins (The Abbey Residents’ Association)

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. The application was for a new premises licence. There was an existing premises licence attached as Annex D to the report. Members noted that the premises were located in the Cumulative Impact Area, and that there was therefore a rebuttable presumption that the application should be refused unless the applicant could demonstrate that the application would not add to the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the Area. There had been eight representations from Other Persons, which collectively related to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety and the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objectives. There had been no representations from the Responsible Authorities. Additional information from the applicant had been circulated since the publication of the agenda (attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes).

Ms Eames stated the case for the applicant. She said that the premises currently traded as Garfunkels and the licence was held by the Restaurant Group. The plan of the premises was not included within the premises licence in the agenda: it could be found in pages 10 and 11 of the additional information submitted by the applicant. The Restaurant Group operated over five hundred restaurants and had recently acquired Wagamama. Today’s application had been made in the name of the Restaurant Group. The company wished to rebrand Garfunkels as a Brunning and Price business and to make a significant investment in Bath. As part of this investment the premises would be substantially upgraded. On pages 12 to 21 of the additional information there were photographs of Brunning and Price premises in Chelmsford and Beaconsfield, which gave a flavour of what was planned in Bath. A Brunning and Price brochure had been submitted with the application.

The current Garfunkels’ licence came into force in November 2005 following its conversion from the old licensing regime. The current licence required the sale of alcohol to be ancillary to the sale of food, a condition inherited from the old licensing regime. She submitted that this condition was somewhat ambiguous and a hangover from legislation that had been repealed. She suggested that in general the conditions in the current license were not very clear, and that the fifteen conditions offered as part of this application resulted in a more robust operating schedule more in keeping with present-day circumstances. The application actually proposed a slight reduction in trading hours with an earlier terminal hour on several nights, despite the fact that the proposed starting hour for licensable activities was 09:00, rather than 10:00 as at present. She submitted that a 09:00 start was common in the trade, and provided the operator with flexibility  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

 Applicant: Neil Glasspool (Managing Director)

Responsible Authority: Sara Chiffers (Senior Environmental Health Officer)(H&S))

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. The applicant was seeking to vary hours and remove non-standard timings, add conditions agreed with the Police and revise the plan of the ground floor. In addition the variation sought to remove the Annex 2 condition:

No sale of alcohol is to take place in the spa area, or the champagne area. All drinks for the champagne bar to be purchased from the exiting hotel bar.

Environmental Health had made a representation objecting to the removal of this condition. No other representations had been received.

Mr Glasspool stated his case. He said that Homewood was part of the Kaleidoscope Collection, which owned three hotels in Bath, Homewood, 15 Great Pulteney and The Bird. Kaleidoscope had purchased Homewood from Longleat Enterprises in August 2018. Homewood had been very run down and required major investment. As part of that investment guest facilities were being improved including the Spa. There was a champagne bar in the spa, which he did not agree with. He felt that guests should usually go to the main bar to purchase drinks so that management could maintain control over the consumption of alcohol. He wanted to put a pop-up snack bar adjacent to the outside pool area to sell tea and coffee, snacks, soft drinks, wine and beer, but no spirits or fortified wine. Guests would be served in the existing patio area, where they can sit and drink already around the pool area. The snack bar would operate only in high season between May and September from 2pm to 6pm for guests and staff members. The applicant would wish to deter people from drinking excessively in the spa area. Guest safety is a primary concern. People can already purchase drinks from the main bar to take to the patio. The area will be staffed, giving management greater control over the consumption of alcohol by guests. The amount that guests can purchase from the pop-up bar during its four hours of opening will be controlled. The aim of the pop-up bar is not to make money, but to enhance the experience of guests by providing an additional service, and to allow the supervision of what goes on around the pool area. The champagne bar will be removed.

Ms Chiffers stated her case. She said that she had objected to the removal of the condition because of the well-documented risks of drinking alcohol before the use of spa facilities. How will management judge whether a guest has consumed too much from the pop-up bar? Having a bar near the spa facilities may encourage guests to indulge in unsafe behaviour.

Responding to questions from Members Mr Glasspool said:

·  Staff serving from the pop-up bar would be skilled bar staff who would be able to decide from experience whether a customer had drunk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.