Agenda item

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that an application had been received from Whitbread Group PLC, Whitbread Court, Porz Avenue, Dunstable, Bedfordshire LU5 5 XE for a new Premises Licence for a new Premier Inn hotel, Beazer House, Lower Bristol Road, Bath BA2 3BA

Councillor Toby Simon referred to section 3.2 of the report and asked the officer to check the wording and amend if appropriate with regard to the non-standard timings in relation to New Year’s Eve / New Year’s Day.

Tim Shield, solicitor for the applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee. He stated that the premises would be a new build hotel that would be situated between the river and the railway line. He explained that the site is a former office block that has planning permission in place for the construction of the hotel.

He said that in line with the many other hotels in the chain the premises would offer a family friendly environment and would also cater for tourists and business customers.

He stated that no representations had been made by any of the Responsible Authorities and that only one objection to the application had been received from a member of the public.

He explained that regulated entertainment had not been applied for and that films would be available on demand by customers to watch in their rooms only.

He referred the Sub-Committee to the plans that had been submitted in the application and said that the reception area would be monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that entry after 23:00 would only be via a hotel keycard.

He stated that the premises should not be considered as offering vertical drinking as the ground floor area would be mainly setup for dining / breakfast.

He said that the applicant does not have a history of premises that cause problems and was one that relies on having good relationships with its nearby residents. He added that it should be noted that the objector lives beyond the railway line to which the premises will be situated. He said that the applicant would work with the residents should any problems occur.

He explained that the hotel was due to be built with enhanced insulation to protect customers from hearing outside noise to ensure their offer of a ‘Good Night Gaurantee’.

In response to the earlier point raised by Councillor Simon he confirmed that the non-standard timings expressed in the report were correct.

He said that with regard to Late-Night Refreshment there was no outside area that had been designated.

Councillor Toby Simon commented that he felt that the provision of Late-Night Refreshment seemed unnecessary without an outdoor area being allocated and asked if the applicant would consider removing this from their application or stating that it would be for indoor use only.

Tim Shield replied that he would take advice from the applicant regarding this request.

Councillor Shaun Hughes said that as there was no regulated outdoor area it would be helpful to remove Late-Night Refreshment from being available outside of the premises. He asked for clarification of the intention behind the application for off-sales.

Tim Shield replied that the rooms of the hotel would not have a mini-bar and that therefore this would allow guests to take drinks back to their rooms or for diners that were not staying at the premises to take an unfinished bottle of wine away with them. He added that he felt that this scenario would be quite rare. He agreed on behalf of the applicant that Late-Night Refreshment would only be available inside the premises.

Councillor Shaun Hughes asked if the applicant would be willing to accept that no alcohol should be taken to the outside area of the premises.

Tim Shield replied that there would be a designated smoking area outside of the premises and that guests were likely to take their drinks outside with them and therefore would require the flexibility to maintain this. He added that staff would manage this area carefully and that it would not be extensive in size. He explained to the Sub-Committee that guests would not necessarily want to leave their drinks unattended on the premises.

Councillor Toby Simon asked where the smoking area was likely to be situated.

Tim Shield replied that it would likely be outside the main entrance to the premises on the Lower Bristol Road side of the site. He added that relevant smoking bins would be put in place.

He concluded by giving a brief summing up statement. He said that the applicant has a good track record as a company and that whilst appreciating the concerns that had been raised the decision of the Sub-Committee and any conditions they attach to it must be proportionate.

Decision & Reasons

Members have determined an application for a new Premises Licence for Premier Inn, Beazer House, Lower Bristol Road, Bath, BA2 3BA. In doing so they have taken into consideration the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance updated February 2025, the Council’s Policy, Human Rights Act 1998, and case law.

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives on the information before them. Members reminded themselves that each application must be considered on its own merits.

Members had regard to 2 lots of additional information. The first was a written submission document on behalf of the applicant. This comprised 18 pages and had been circulated to the objector and Members in advance of the hearing. The second was an email from the objector Mr Milton-Meakin comprising two pages. This was shared with the applicant’s legal representative who had the opportunity to consider it immediately prior to the hearing and consented to its introduction.

The applicant was represented by its solicitor Tim Shield of John Gaunt & Partners and a representative of the Premier Inn management was also in attendance. Mr Shield explained to Members that the Premier Inn is a family friendly hotel and a good operator that does not have a particular problem with nuisance or crime and disorder.

He referred Members to his written submissions but amplified certain points including the fact that there had been no representations from responsible authorities such as the Police or Environmental Health who he noted were Members guides on matters such as crime and disorder and nuisance; he referred Members to paragraphs 9.12 and 2.26 of the Statutory Guidance. He highlighted for Members the Good Night Guarantee that Premier Inn offers where the cost of the accommodation is refunded to the resident if their night is disturbed, and the applicant's willingness to ensure that their residents and neighbours are not disturbed. He described how the hotel will be a new build and well insulated which will assist with noise.

Mr Shield clarified for Members that the hotel does not have an outdoors area for the purposes of late-night refreshment and confirmed that the applicant was content to forgo the provision of late-night refreshment outdoors, as part of the application. In summing up he submitted that it was a good application by a good operator, with no issues around public nuisance or crime and disorder. He said that conditions should be proportionate, that there is a balance to be struck and invited Members to look at the evidence before them. He said it was a fair application.

Members had read the written objection contained in the agenda report pack from Mr Milton-Meakin and his additional information. He expressed concerns regarding the prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives. Particular points of concern were the hours proposed for licensable activities, proximity to residential premises, the proposal for off sales of alcohol, late night refreshment for consumption off site, and how these would contribute to public nuisance and anti-social behaviour.

Members noted that there had been no representations of objection from responsible authorities, who they acknowledge with reference to paragraph 9.12 of the Statutory Guidance, “will be an expert in their respective field, and in some cases it is likely that a particular responsible authority will be the licensing authority’s main source of advice in relation to a particular licensing objective.”

Members noted that planning and licensing are separate statutory regimes, and it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that it complies with all obligations and conditions imposed upon it by those regimes.

The Committee is satisfied on the evidence before them that the measures offered by the applicant as part of its Operating Schedule would promote the licensing objectives. Authority is therefore delegated to the licensing officer to issue the licence in accordance with the Operating Schedule and Mandatory Conditions subject to one change being that the licence will not include outdoor late-night refreshment.

Members welcomed the suggestion by the applicant that they would manage their residents who may smoke and drink outside of the premises, particularly late at night.