Agenda item

Councillors C Hampson, P Atkinson and D Brown

The Committee considered the report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services regarding an application for the Grant of a premises licence for Spice Island, 9 Market Place, Barnard Castle (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

A copy of the application and supporting documents had been circulated to Members together with copies of the representations received and responses from responsible authorities.

The Senior Licensing Officer presented the report and advised Members that there was already a Premises Licence in force at the premises, but a new application had been submitted so that the second floor of the building could also be utilised for the provision of licensable activities. The application was for the Sale of Alcohol for consumption on the premises, the provision of Indoor Recorded Music and the provision of Indoor Late Night Refreshments. Following mediation with Durham Constabulary the applicant agreed to amend the timings which were now from 07:00 hrs until 00:00 hrs Monday to Sunday, Bank Holidays and Sundays before a Bank Holiday with an extension of hours on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve until 02:00 hrs.

Following Mediation with the Durham Safeguarding Children Partnership and Durham Constabulary, the applicant added additional conditions to the application, details of which were provided in the report.

One letter of support had been received from Barnard Castle Town Council and four objections to the application were received, one from a responsible authority namely Environmental Health and three from ‘Other Persons’.

The Licensing Authority received comments not amounting to a representation from the Planning Authority.

Mr M Anslow, representing Environmental Health indicated that they did not have particular concerns in the granting of the premises licence it was the details of the ingress and egress through an external staircase which was in close proximity to residential properties. Even though the timings had been reduced people would be using the alleyway to access the external staircase. There was no proposal for a lobby at the top of the staircase so there would be a breakout of music, with the nature of the alleyway raised voices would be heard and people would be smoking in the alleyway which also served residential properties. Environmental Health felt that the application did not meet the licensing objective for public nuisance.

Ms E Rowell, other person indicated that she was the leaseholder of the book shop which was adjacent to the premises and she had two stalls in the shared court yard which she was wanting to develop. She had not objected to the planning permission as she supported the business, but if the business was going to be used in the way the applicant wished it would be to a detriment to her business. She would not be able to extend her business as customers would need to walk through the alleyway which would become a smoking area. She was currently concerned by the level of rubbish associated with the premises which was left after service for her to clear up as her premises opened at 9.00 am. They also had to clear up vomit and they were concerned that this was going to increase. During construction she had to cancel some events due to noise and she had asked about some form of sound proofing as the property was a metre and a half from her bookshop. Music had been played by the contractors and she was worried if music was played in the area it would curtail her business. Her main concerns were noise, smoking and rubbish.

She then spoke on behalf of Mr Brummitt and Ms Henderson who shared a party wall and were worried about music and more noise as their bedroom adjoined the property.

Councillor Brown indicated that he understood there was a noise problem, but Barnard Castle was a vibrant market town and he could not see how noise was going to interfere with their business.

Ms Rowell indicated that only some of the residents made formal objections but people in the town were dissatisfied with the increase in noise. A meeting had recently taking place that Councillor Rowlandson was invited, and the concerns raised at the meeting were noise and rubbish which was a problem and would increase.

Members asked if the alleyway was shared.

Ms Rowell responded that the alleyway was 1.2m wide and was a shared area with mixed use. There was a stair case covering the alleyway and there was already a pot washing area in the alleyway.

Councillor Brown asked where the rubbish was stored.

Ms Rowell responded that rubbish was stored at the front of the property outside her shop and was there until the workers took it back inside at 5.00 pm. The rubbish was mostly food which meant that she was unable to use the seating area outside her shop due to the smells from the bins. Her staff also had to deal with detritus from smoking, she had spoken to the street cleaners, but this had made little impact.

Councillor Atkinson referred to other businesses also being responsible for litter.

Ms Rowell indicated that over the road from the Spice Island was residential properties and holiday cottages who had complained previously in relation to the extraction noise and some had decided to sell their properties. The area was small and was medieval yards.

Mr S Ahmed the Applicant indicated that he had recently had a meeting with the planning department, and they were revising the application to remove the external staircase as an access for customers due to how it could affect neighbours. He had been in business for 25 years and he wanted to make sure everyone had a decent living. They were planning on using the existing fire exit so the external staircase would not be required for customers so the alleyway would not be used by their customers.

The Council’s Solicitor asked the Environmental Health Officer if the removal of the external staircase would change their opinion on the application.

The Environmental Health Officer responded that if the external escape was removed from the application then they would withdraw their representations.

The Applicant confirmed that the revised plans should be ready and submitted by Friday.

Ms Rowell responded that the area would still be used for smoking and an external seating area.

The Applicant indicated that they had no plans for a smoking area or external seating.

Councillor Ali gave a character reference for Mr Ahmed and indicated that the business had just won an award. The bins were left outside on the front as advised by the Council. The business had been established for 25 years and was a cocktail lounge and she often had charity events at the premises and never had any issues. If the license was granted for the revised times this would resolve the issues as staff would be in the premises earlier.

The Restaurant Manager indicated that they were trying to develop a new Indian concept with cocktails in a relaxed atmosphere. The premises would be a central kitchen to supply food and would employ 10 people.

The Applicant presented his case and indicated that he had been a DPS since the age of 20. He commented that it had been said that he would not be able to handle a late-night establishment, but he had managed bars and restaurants for 17 years, so was well equipped to handle the licensing hours. It was not a nightclub or pub but a restaurant with 40 or 50 seats with a lounge upstairs where people could wait for their table to be ready downstairs and have a cocktail or a coffee. It would be a relaxed atmosphere with no rowdiness as this was not their concept. There were several restaurants in the area with 3 floors and indicated that the problems in the vicinity were caused be late night clubs which they weren’t, they were just asking for the opening times to be extended.

They wanted to extend their licence to midnight, and they were no complaints about their current licence or harm to children. They had a good record and were a responsible business. They wanted to give back to the community and wanted to employ more people which would be beneficial to the town. They bought local produce and the setting up of a hub would benefit everybody. They were trying to address as many concerns as they could as they did not want anyone to be affected. There was always going to be noise, but they had tried to reduce the impact and were sound proofing in excess of the expectations to ensure that everyone was happy.

Councillor Brown referred to the letter of support from the Town Council and asked what connection they had with the Town Council.

The Applicant responded that if they had any concerns, they would go to the town council. They had advised the Town Council of their proposal and asked their opinion and in this case, they supported their proposal.

Councillor Atkinson asked what provisions they had in place for smokers.

The Applicant indicated that they did not have a designated area for smoking so they could no control this.

The Council’s Solicitor sought confirmation on the external staircase.

The Applicant responded that the initial plans had an external staircase, but new plans were to be submitted that removed the use of the external staircase which would be submitted on Friday.

At 11.45 am, the Council’s Solicitor asked for the meeting to adjourn to allow Members to consider if they should proceed with the hearing in view of the revised plans.

The meeting re-convened at 11.55 am and the Chairman confirmed that they needed to determine the application on the revised plans.

Resolved: That the meeting be adjourned until the revised plans were submitted by the Applicant.