Tuesday, 06 November 2018 12:43

Premier Inn approved: will it help town centre?

Written by
The site of the new Premier Inn The site of the new Premier Inn
Plans for a 100-bed Premier Inn on the site of Barnet Market were approved by a clear majority at a meeting of Barnet Council’s planning committee despite the continued, forthright opposition of residents in the adjoining Chipping Close.

Criticism of the scheme, which the residents’ spokesman claimed would turn living in their road into “a nightmare”, was supported by the committee chair, Councillor Wendy Prentice, who is one of the three High Barnet councillors.

But when the application was put to the meeting (5.11.2018), she was heavily outvoted with seven votes in favour, three against and one abstention.

Councillor Prentice expressed her opposition from the start, challenging the evidence given in support of the hotel by Gordon Massey, former chair of the Barnet Residents Association, who spoke on behalf of Chipping Barnet Town Team and who had explained that all the town’s traders and community groups were in favour of the project.

“I don’t think a new hotel on the market site will improve the shopping centre,” declared Councillor Prentice when challenging Mr Massey.

“It’s my ward...I am not sure a majority of people are for this hotel...I want to know how it will regenerate the High Street...I am worried about congestion in the St Albans Road...There will be a tailback in Bruce Road...I think the parking will affect the High Street.”

Mr Massey – who earlier had argued that building a Premier Inn in the centre of High Barnet would create confidence in a shopping centre that faced decline – expressed sympathy for the residents of the ten houses in Chipping Close and commended their “very well-orchestrated campaign”.

I have talked to many people. They are for it.

“Notices were pinned on lamp posts, leaflets pushed through doors, a lot on social media, but it has given the impression of a disproportionate amount of opposition.

“I have talked to many people. They are for it. The Barnet Residents Association held three events in the Spires over the summer and we estimated over 80 per cent were either in support or neutral. There is not overwhelming opposition to it.”  

Posters appeared regularly around Barnet Market opposing the Premier InnExcept for the ten houses in Chipping Close, there were only three objections from the 200 houses in the three nearby roads, and the Barnet Society, which had consulted the 23 members living nearest the site, found that of the 12 who replied, eight were in favour and four against.  

“We all know shops are leaving High Barnet...the current vacancy rate is around 10 per cent; the Spires shopping centre has a vacancy rate of over 20 per cent. “

“The wider issue is the future of the town and how we adapt to a primarily service-based economy.

“This is already happening with noticeably more hairdressers, health spas, coffee shops and restaurants.

A Premier Inn precisely fits this model, it will bring jobs and more important up to 100 people a day who will spend money in the local economy, especially evening food and drink,” said Mr Massey.

Richard Gardham, a Chipping Close resident who voiced the opposition of his neighbours, appealed to the committee to reject a plan for a three-to-four storey hotel that would have an irrevocable impact on their homes.

“It will be a nightmare 24/7 with additional cars turning our close into a noisy alleyway.

“All guests will do is eat breakfast. They won’t shop in local shops and the restaurant will under cut independent eateries.

“The vision of the Premier Inn as an economic saviour is an exaggeration. All those working in the hotel will be in low-paid, minimum-wage jobs.”

It will be a nightmare 24/7 with additional cars turning our close into a noisy alleyway.

When questioned by councillors, Mr Gardham said the residents accepted the site would be developed and he thought they might well be supportive of a smaller hotel with its own on-site car parking.

Chris Benham, planning consultant for Locate Developments, which purchased the site and will build the hotel for Premer Inn, outlined the steps that had been taken since the rejection of their previous application.

After consultation with the council and local groups, the room size of the hotel had been reduced from 120 to 100; the main entrance to the hotel had been removed from Chipping Close and relocated to a new access and exit in Bruce Road; the restaurant entrance would front directly on to St Albans Road, rather than the corner with Chipping Close; the Chipping Close pavement would be cushioned to reduce noise from wheeling suitcases; and the hotel windows glazed so as to reduce overlooking into the Chipping Close houses.  

Gordon Massey with Gail Laser who co-ordinated the Chipping Barnet Town Team’s presentation in favour of Premier InnCouncillor Prentice questioned the arrangement reached with the NCP car park in the Spires for Premier Inn guests to park at a charge of £3 a night. What would happen if there was no enough room for shoppers? “People will turn away and this will encourage people to park in local streets,” said Councillor Prentice.

Mr Benham insisted there was more than sufficient space in the car park to meet the hotel’s requirements. The current car park occupancy was 39 per cent in the week, and 55 per cent during the Saturday peak, but this was day-time parking and the guests would be there overnight.

He said the developers were ready to finance a review of the local controlled parking zone should this be required: £10,000 towards monitoring a travel plan; £10,000 for CPZ monitoring; £15,000 for consulting on any changes; and £10,000 for implementation.

The Spires had agreed to provide improved facilities for the market once it was moved permanently to the bandstand site for which approval had already been given.

Locate Developments estimated that 40 jobs would be created during construction of the hotel – due for completion in late 2019 – and there would be 50 full and part-time jobs in the hotel. To assist recruitment, the company would contribute £91,000 to apprenticeships and employment training.

Mr Benham was challenged by several councillors when he claimed the new hotel would generate £2.8 million a year in visitor expenditure in High Barnet.

This was based on a hotel occupancy rate of 86 per cent, but he struggled to convince councillors this spend equated to an average spend of £73 per person per night – a figure which Mr Benham said was supported by London tourist authorities, but which the councillors believed might apply in central London, but not the outer suburbs.

Before the vote, Councillor Stephen Sowerby explained that he would support the plan not least because the developers had met their concerns about the original application with “an extra-ordinary amount of mitigation.”

“This is a very sympathetic design that enhances the conservation area and the site is currently an abandoned car park from which the local economy gets no benefit.”

Gail Laser, founder of Love Barnet and a member of the Town Team, congratulated Gordon Massey on the effectiveness of his arguments in favour of the hotel.

“I am so pleased the hotel has got the go ahead. I am not saying that it will on its own turn round High Barnet’s fortunes, but it will help to encourage further investment in the Spires.”                                                                               


  • Comment Link Tuesday, 06 November 2018 17:03 posted by Nick Saul

    A textbook demonstration of successful post–2016 political operation. As with other incarnations of that weird phenomena it probably has the same 2020 expiry date. Seriously, some of the presentations were brilliant as were the unflinching faces when the most audacious claims for the hotel's miraculous virtues were deployed and flew with the grace of lead balloons.

    It seems a common theme in the new politics that the only thing meaner than a sore loser (guilty as charged!) are sore winners. Just to set the record straight this really is a controversial scheme with huge potential commercial and social costs. Concerns for these spoke for themselves, the benefits of the scheme needed what can only be charitably described as a blind eye turned to blatant manipulations with conscience conveniently left at home.

    The opposition clearly and demonstrably spread further than the residents of Chipping Close. It did not jump miraculously from them to Cllr Wendy Prentice missing out the rest of the ward she has served with dedication for so many years.

    I do not claim to know how many people in the area support the hotel and how many oppose it. I do know that the only "very well organised campaign" to oppose it I know of was two and very occasionally three guys meeting occasionally in a pub and at least one of High Barnet's several freelance fly–posters.

    Such an ad hoc "campaign" was followed by many more (and usually far more independently conceived) objections lodged with the council than comments in support. What does it say for the merits and public view of a scheme supported so forcefully and with so much lobbying by the leaders of many residents' and community groups? If they could possibly have dragged up any more public support they would have. It would be strange indeed if the judgement and opinions of High Barnet residents were very different from those of Watford, Bushey, Camden and Westminster where similar projects have all been recently opposed and refused. We live in strange times.

    People can get away with saying whatever they like about the future – until the future that they themselves have made actually arrives.

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:46 posted by Nick de Naeyer

    Another step backwards.

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:46 posted by Sonya McElarney

    Can’t wait for the parking issues can’t park in my street now let alone when a hotel is built!!!

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:47 posted by Steve Abrahams

    Seems pointless having a Planning Department

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:47 posted by Ray Meehan

    They need places like this for an afternoon shag

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:48 posted by Roberta Cohen

    No surprise at the end of the day Barnet Council do what they want no thought for the people living here and the upheaval it will cause. Disgrace.

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:49 posted by Paul Meehan

    Am I missing something here ,surely a hotel will bring people into the high st ?

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:49 posted by Siobhan Wilkins

    Absolutely terrible news. A travesty for Chipping Barnet

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:50 posted by Genevieve Abranson

    What is upsetting people? That its on the market or it exists at all? I am very sad to see the market built on, but in reality the market is a shadow of its former self from 20+ years ago. Hopefully it will have its own parking under the building?? But besides the parking issue, I think it will bring some business to local pubs & restaurants, which is much needed. No one will visit Barnet as a tourist, especially as theres no football now, maybe during the medieval festival it might get visitors. So this hotel is going to be made up of business trips & hook ups, but some of those people we still wine & dine

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 09:50 posted by Colin Johnson

    The one in Southgate is generating business for the high st
    I did not think it would at first but guests don’t sit in their rooms all day
    Especially saw it with tourists this summer

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 11:04 posted by Richard Gardham

    "Except for the ten houses in Chipping Close, there were only three objections from the 200 houses in the three nearby roads"

    This was untrue when Gordon Massey made the claim on Monday night and it's untrue now. Mr Massey ignored the many objections from St Albans Road. There were also seven objections from six households on Strafford Road and one more from Carnarvon Road. For those of you who objected, you may also be interested to know that Mr Massey claimed that a number of the objections were 'ill-informed'. That's what the representative of the Barnet Residents Association thinks of many of its residents. He made no mention - of course - of the number of people supporting the development who'd done so because of Gail Laser's campaign on Love Barnet, several of whom copied and pasted in what Gail had told them to do, or just left the comments section blank. Are we to assume they were well informed?

    I found Gordon Massey's speaking somewhat disconcerting. He claimed to be speaking on behalf of the Chipping Barnet Town Team yet did little other than discuss what he had 'found out' through his role at the Barnet Residents Association. In my opinion, his talk was from the perspective of the BRA. He certainly mentioned them enough times. Pretty much all of his evidence in the support he had unearthed for the hotel was anecdotal.

    The hotel will be built now, as those of us who campaigned against it thought it would. What has left me concerned, however, is the influence that the Barnet Society, the Barnet Residents Association and, to a lesser extent, the Love Barnet group have on the general running of Barnet. Their membership numbers represent a tiny percentage of the population of the area, and their demographic seems very heavily weighted towards the retired and semi-retired residents (who should, of course, have a voice, just not a disproportionate one). When you get involved in a process such as this you realise just how huge their influence is. They have the ear of the council, and both sides seem to work on the assumption that these unelected people speak for the people of Barnet, when they do nothing of the sort. For anyone entering into this sort of thing in the future, be aware that the BS and the BRA invariably seem to get what they want. Not necessarily what the residents want (on this matter, Mr Massey conveniently skated over the fact that the objections to this development vastly outnumbered the 'supports' - save for his patronising 'ill-informed' comment - and also failed to mention that some of the support drummed up by Gail Laser came from as far away as New Barnet and Arkley). One councillor told one of our party before the meeting on Monday that to be successful we'd really have needed the residents associations on our side. Is it right that so much power is help by such a tiny, non-representative group? The whole process has been an eye-opener, and not in a good way.

    In spite of my opposition, I genuinely hope that the hotel does bring the benefits to the High Street that those in support have claimed. I have my doubts - lots of them - and the ludicrous average "£73 per person per night" (after accommodation) local expenditure claim from the developers was rightly laughed at by those who cross-examined them. If, however, in five years' time the High Street and the Spires are no better off, local restaurants and bars have found themselves undercut by the restaurant/bar at the Premier Inn, the hotel is being used for emergency social housing (as happens in many Premier Inns around the country), and the traffic problems we fear have been realised, I hope that those who did so much to support this venture will still be as vocal and getting these issues resolved...

    PS) You've misquoted me in the above. I did not say "All those working in the hotel will be in low-paid, minimum-wage jobs"; I said 'Many' not 'all'.

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2018 13:14 posted by Jacqui Jones

    It will be used by the council for homeless applicants they have a duty of care to house but can't because they have regenerated the borough so much there is not enough social housing left. Helps massage their homesless figures but not the high street.

  • Comment Link Thursday, 08 November 2018 20:08 posted by Mark

    I haven’t lived in Barnet long, but long enough to realise it has the bentest council I’ve ever encountered.
    They can’t say no to money, no matter how ridiculous the proposal (see also the new school in Underhill).

  • Comment Link Friday, 09 November 2018 16:20 posted by Dennis Bird

    Lies damned lies and statistics followed by spurious claims by so called local residents groups re the monstrosity to be built on the market site.I'm sure the butchers,bakers,fishmongers,and greengrocers can't wait for the extra trade from the hotel residents who of course will all go out for breakfast and their evening meal and to buy their papers on their way to retail therapy in our plethora of charity shops.
    They will park their cars in the Spires,no benefit to the local economy or on the streets,chaos!
    Flats on the site,with parking would add to our community and our economy,sadly not to be.

    PS All you people reading this have you ever stayed in one of these places for business a wedding ,a liaison?Surely not for pleasure.....Did you spend loads of dosh locally or go ASAP?
    Where was the voice of the Barnet Society ?

  • Comment Link Saturday, 10 November 2018 19:24 posted by Dr A Gardham

    As a Chipping Close resident I am devastated by the decision to build a large hotel on our tiny cul-de-sac. There is simply not the space or infrastructure to support the hotel. Traffic and parking will be chaotic and the residents of the road will be disturbed day and night by cars turning into the road and hotel residents coming in and out the hotel.
    I am particularly horrified at the influence Mr Massey and Ms Laser had over the council's decision. Neither is elected to represent Barnet residents and neither lives on Chipping Close.
    Mr Massey was either ill informed or lying -77 residents posted opposition to the hotel development on the Barnet Council website -many lived in surrounding roads. In addition, the information events run by the developers were inundated with unhappy local residents.
    The residents of Chipping Close would be happy for re-development to occur on the car park but it needed to be a much smaller hotel with its own car park. The developers are totally naïve (or don't really care I suspect) if they think hotel guests will pay to park in the Spires instead of park for free in nearby streets.
    The people staying at the hotel will be businessmen on their way to meetings in London or hen/stag parties on their way into town for a night out. Neither will spend any money in Barnet.
    I really hope I am wrong and that the hotel turn is well- used a benefits the local area. However, if it bring negative affects to the area, I will be happy to remind the residents of Barnet that it was the likes of Mr Massey and Ms Laser that persuaded the council that Barnet wanted the hotel.
    Finally I would like to express my gratitude to Cl Prentice and the residents of Chipping Close that campaigned to strongly against the hotel. Thank you for trying. It is such a shame that the council were so influenced by residents associations that hold way too much influence and are not elected to represent us.

  • Comment Link Sunday, 11 November 2018 20:06 posted by Carole Read

    I totally agree with all the criticisms of the decision to go ahead with the hotel. I have objected to it since I first heard about it. ( I do not live in Chipping Close as is the case with many objectors,). I have resigned from the Residents Association. I cannot understand why the Council accept evidence from such a group. How can they be said to represent residents' interests when they are a self selecting, undemocratic organisation who, as I realised when I spoke to them about my objections to the hotel, have no wish to be democratic and simply push the views of the minority leading the group. And like Barnet's partnership with Capita, where an employee has stolen £2million pounds from the Council, it is the residents and local businesses which will suffer and pay the costs.

  • Comment Link Monday, 12 November 2018 20:42 posted by Andy

    I have every sympathy for the residents of Chipping Close, I really do, but I do believe that the building of this hotel is a good thing for the wider area.

    As a customer of hotels like this I can tell you that yes, I have left the hotel and ventured into the local area. This has mainly been to eat out as hotel restaurants are normally pretty dire. The fact that this hotel is so central and close to the spires and high street means it’s far more likely that hotel patrons will venture out.

    I also think that having investment like this does send out a positive message and encourages further investment. The economy in High Barnet needs to evolve or it will die.

  • Comment Link Monday, 12 November 2018 23:29 posted by Amanda H

    To all those that say the Barnet Society or the Barnet Residents Association are not representative of their view. Either join these organisations and have your voice heard, create your own organisation or stop your incessant whining.

  • Comment Link Tuesday, 13 November 2018 12:53 posted by Gordon Massey

    At the planning meeting I did not say there were 3 objections from the 3 nearby roads - it is an error in the report. I said 5 in Strafford, 1 in Carnarvon and 1 in Sailisbury. It seems I miscounted for Strafford but the essential point remains that very few residents in these roads opposed the scheme. Look in the report of the Barnet Society figures from their survey which confirms this - just 4 out of 23 consulted opposed, and I understand most of those lived in Chipping Close.

    We have sympathized with the Chipping Close residents - on the first application we considered there would be too much intrusion and campaigned on their behalf. The three issues we pressed on were precisely the same three reasons for refusal of that application.

    We told our members we had no objection to the second application and apart from a small number of members who have vehemently campaigned against the scheme just ONE other out of nearly 700 members wrote to express disagreement.

    We consider our primary role is to act on the best interests of the wider community in the High Barnet and Underhill areas. Given the positive reaction we get to most of what we do we are comfortable with the decisions we take as an elected committee representing a fair cross- section of the local populace. As with the Barnet Society, we are very open about what we do and explaining why. A number of people feel very strongly that we took the wrong decision on the Inn and as above are being very voluble about it. But we remain confident that the vast majority of residents were in support or at least saw no reason to oppose, and we have fairly represented that view.

    Gordon Massey, Barnet Residents Association

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 14 November 2018 12:00 posted by Richard Gardham

    "To all those that say the Barnet Society or the Barnet Residents Association are not representative of their view. Either join these organisations and have your voice heard, create your own organisation or stop your incessant whining."

    Amanda - many of us have been members of one or both. Our voices went unheard. Some of us therefore got together in an attempt to oppose this. So I'm not really sure what your point is as we've covered much of the stuff you mention. When something comes along that will have an adverse impact on people's lives as the Premier Inn will, are they not allowed to complain?

    Gordon - my recollection is that you said what is printed above. If I'm wrong on that, fair enough, but it's evidently what the Barnet Society reporter heard and also what other people present on the evening believed you said. And why does St Albans Road not count as a 'nearby road'? You failed to mention that the hotel had 77 objections against 40 'supports', many of which came about from more far-flung places in the area after Gail Laser asked people to support the project on her Love Barnet Facebook page. You described many of those objecting as being 'illi-formed' yet at least all but a very small handful of those 77 wrote about their individual concerns regarding the hotel, as opposed to copying and pasting Gail's Facebook message or leaving the comments section blank.

    I still find your belief that you speak for a vast majority of Barnet residents ill-informed. You speak for your members, and are in no position to say what a majority of Barnet residents think beyond your 600 or so members. I think that both the BRA and the BS - for all the good they can undoubtedly do - have lost sight of this. And how much of a "cross-section of the local populace" do you really believe you represent? I'd wager that it's skewed to a certain demographic.

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 14 November 2018 20:51 posted by David Vaughan

    Agree with Andy. I also travel frequently and tend to use local amenities as opposed to those available in the hotel.

    Although I sympathise with those in the immediate locality this is an opportunity for the town.

  • Comment Link Sunday, 18 November 2018 12:46 posted by Nick Saul

    For all the worthy if blinkered ambitions of attracting service industry beyond reasonable doubt this well open the floodgates to a tsunami of toxic land grabs. Targets will include the Spires, the Library, the Stapylton Road and Moxon Street carparks and of course the Army Centre. The town has now sent out the message that it will buy any snake oil project sold as fitting the big picture of the handful of effectively self–appointed individuals controlling some key organisations.

    I too can see the deliberately seductive big picture painstakingly painted by the application – a marvellous new infrastructure project in the expanding service sector – a flagship to drag High Barnet town centre screaming and shouting into a prosperous 21st century. Whether it knows what is good for it or not.

    But this is only a shiny new asset when given only the briefest consideration or when recommended by someone in whom you have blind trust. it was pushed through by people themselves so blinded by the big picture they refused to see, or even worse ignored, the obvious gaping chasm of truth deficit in both its “proof” of claims of its benefits and assertions that negative impact could and would be mitigated.

    This blindness should have been curable by a single child pointing a stubby finger at a single obvious flaw prompting a proper look at the proposal. Actually we had scores of well educated adults seeing this emperor has no clothes and shouting it out in comments on the planning application.

    However we are told (outrageously) this, the ONLY record of public opinion is simply invalid and (arrogantly) such people are “ill informed” and (absurdly) nearly all live in Chipping Close. They were informed by the gob smacking obvious lack of veracity in the proposal documents and the equally obvious consequences of its claims inevitably falling by the wayside.

    What we have lost is the Marketplace and instead bought at best the bricks and mortar of a 100 room motel without a car park and at worst a large rival–slaying pub and 100 HMO sized rooms.

    It has to also be said long–running residents’ groups principlay represent the views of their leadership. They only represent the views of residents when that happens to be the same thing. In this case those involved struggled, and by any objective judgement completely failed, to prove they represented a majority. If they had chosen to oppose the application they would have had no such trouble whatsoever.

    Such bodies are indeed born with genuine mass support and common purpose when someone gathers a group to fight for a particular issue. However decades down the line leaders are chosen at AGM’s usually attended by less than ten percent of their membership. Positions are almost always filled unopposed and by nominations from the committee. Yes, a rival group could turn up en masse and capture enough votes to impose a new leadership. But would that really represent the membership as a whole? Would that really be any more democratic?

    Surely development should be directed at the acres of empty commercial floor space? This is more than enough to fulfil the commercial needs generated by local residents and the number of visitors limited by restricted vehicle parking and tortuous if extensive public transport.

  • Comment Link Wednesday, 28 November 2018 23:21 posted by Nick Saul

    Sadly no residents' groups were represented at the alcohol licence hearing for the Marketplace hotel this morning.

    The licence granted is basically that for a large pub or bar with a clause added to allow 24 hour drinking for hotel residents and their guests.

    I spoke on a number of issues I felt were important. I felt someone had to.

    I did not think it was appropriate that a restaurant and bar described as ancillary to a hotel should offer off sales to the general public, or indeed the 24 hour bar for residents which can be used to allow parties late into the night at the discretion of the some future management.

    I did not think it was appropriate that such a large restaurant and bar should open in a residential and conservation area just 10 metres from neighbouring homes and with walls of glass facing the windows of neighbouring cottages.

    But what do I know, I am just one apparently ill-informed, person that unreasonably insists I actually live some distance from the Marketplace – apparently everyone knows the tiny majority of of us who aren't strongly and overwhelmingly in love with the hotel all live miraculously squeezed into Chipping Close.

    Residents's groups can rest assured – nothing was changed as a result of my comments, the licence application was left as it was when they walked away from it.

    I did hear that the expected place for smokers to gather is the entrance of our shiny new service sector infrastructure project hotel. Perhaps it is not so shiny after all?

    I do have to say the Licensing Committee carried out its job with due diligence and the applicant's representatives acted with integrity, I think mistakes were made but if so they were honest mistakes. I simply can not say the same about other people in other proceedings connected to the proposal.

  • Comment Link Thursday, 28 March 2019 14:39 posted by Nick Woodeson

    Dory's cafe

    I've just discovered that Dory's cafe, one of the oldest cafes in Barnet, and long associated with the market, has been fined reputedly £100 for placing a single metal table and 2 chairs outside their cafe on the corner of the side road that the cafe adjoins on St.Albans road.

    The council had attempted to charge them a not insignificant yearly sum - which is too expensive for them.

    The outside table at Dory's has been quietly and unobtrusively enjoyed by many over the years, although of course being a single table is not a major income earner for them.

    Meanwhile supermarkets, as one example, are apparently not charged for their trolley's being outside stores, and there are numerous other uses of the street by major retailers that go unnoticed - or so it would seem.

    The council seem as usual determined to limit the successful operation of small businesses in High barnet, and place all their favour on major companies. So is the premier inn a good idea? Not if it does yet more to impact small business - why on earth don't the council pursue a policy to assist small and independent businesses as well?

  • Comment Link Friday, 07 June 2019 14:02 posted by Nick Saul

    Beefeater will operate the bar restaurant space in the proposed Marketplace Premier Inn, revised plans submitted to Barnet Council reveal. Beefeater are described in the industry as a traditional pub restaurant with a steak and grill menu. This will replace the anticipated Thistle brand, similarly described as a Whitbread hotel restaurant offering a contemporary British menu.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published
All comments are moderated so there is a delay before you see them on the site
The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Barnet Society