Agenda item

To consider the application for a full variation of a Premises Licence at Chater’s General Store, Café and Aperitivo Bar, 17 Church Street, Saffron Walden.

The Licensing Support Officer presented their report which asked the Panel to determine an application for a full variation of a Premises Licence at Chater’s General Store, Café and Aperitivo Bar, 17 Church Street, Saffron Walden.

The variations sought were as follows:

·         To remove condition Annexe 2 Condition 3 (At all times no persons shall be permitted to take bottles, glasses or drinking vessels from the premises into the outside area and conspicuous signage (of a minimum size of 200mm x 148mm) shall be displayed, at each ingress/egress point explain this policy)

·         To remove condition Annexe 2 Condition 4 (No tables, chairs or furniture in the outside area)

·         To remove condition Annexe 2 Condition 5 (The outside area to the side of the premises is only to be used as a smoking area)

·         To expand the current licensed area to incorporate the area detailed in the new proposed floor plan.

In response to questions from the Panel, the Licensing Support Officer clarified the following:

·         The proposal included tables and chairs which would be placed on private land located outside of the premises doors. The Licensable area would remain the same, but customers would be permitted to use the outside space to enjoy their refreshments.  

·         The alleyway to the premises was not used to access the neighbouring residential properties.

·         There had been several noise complaints about the operation of the premises which had all been made by one of the objectors.

The Environmental Health Officer addressed the Panel to raise their objections on the grounds of public nuisance.

In response to questions for the Panel, he clarified that his concerns were around the impact which drinking outside would have on generating a noise nuisance for residents, especially if done up to 11pm.

Mr McManus addressed panel, on behalf of Essex Police, and raised his objections on the grounds of public nuisance.

He said that his immediate concern was the impact of an outside area. Under the applicant’s initial proposal, expanding the licensable area would allow the service of alcohol and deregulated music outside.

He had undertaken negotiations with the applicant and had requested that the outside area not be licensable. As the consumption of alcohol itself was not a licensable activity, and the premises was on private land, the applicant would still be permitted to place table and chairs outside for customers and a compromise had been reached for a 9pm cut-off.

He concluded that there was nothing to bring under crime and disorder as there were no reported issues at the premises.

Mr Ulph, owner of 17 Church Street, addressed the Panel and raised his objections on the grounds of public nuisance.

He said that the premises were located in a lightly clad, steel-framed industrial unit which had previously been used as a warehouse. Since the business had opened, the occupiers of the nearby flats had made noise complaints to the Council and the matter was being investigated by the Environmental Health Officer.

He explained that the restrictions imposed on the current Licence were applied to reduce the risk of a noise nuisance, however residents have continued to be affected by noise. By allowing customers to seat outside until potentially 11pm, there would have no way of controlling the noise which would be amplified from the three walls which enclosed the area.

Mr Riley, a neighbouring resident, addressed the Panel and raised his objections on the grounds of public nuisance.

He explained that he had lived at his property for three and a half years, before the premises had opened, and had chosen the flat as it was central but quiet for his three children.

He said that the warehouse was attached to his property and there was no soundproofing which meant that they were frequently affected by the noise. This included, but not limited to, a constant bass from the music, footfall through the alleyway, customers talking and doors closing. They were particularly affected between Thursday to Saturday when the business operated into the night.

In addition, his family were affected by the bin collection between 5.30 and 6.15am.

He was concerned with the introduction of an outside area, and the impact on additional sound. He outlined an occasion when he was able to hear just one person’s conversation clearly from his property.

He concluded that he was particularly passionate on the matter as it affected his children and their enjoyment of the property.

In response to questions, the objectors raised the following:

·         The entrance to the flats was beside the alleyway which was used to access Chater’s.

·         There were two flats at 17A Church Street and only one was directly adjoined to the premises; but the other was at a limited distance. The back of the lounge was attached to the distillery and the bedrooms were attached to the warehouse.

·         The entrance to the alleyway to Chater’s was secured by a gate which was locked at the end of each night.

·         The property was originally used for Ford distribution before being converted to flats and shops in the 1980s. The premises itself was an industrial unit attached to the brick structure which was never intended for public gatherings.

·         The Landlord did not, and had never, owned any part of the warehouse in which the premises was located.

The Applicant, Mr Chater, addressed the Panel and raised the following points:

·         The complaints referenced at the hearing were made by only one complainant. It was highlighted that the complainant’s flat was located in the middle of the town centre, surrounded by other businesses and on a street where there often were disturbances on the peak evenings.

·         The complainant’s flat was above the distillery and not the café.

·         The applicant had recently had discussions with the police on the use of outdoor seating and agreed to a 9pm cut-off time, however the current licensing hours were up until 11pm.

·         The intention of the outside area was for earlier use, such as lunches, and not for late night drinking.

·         The warehouse had been insulated with the installation of internal walls and suspended ceilings. Other measures had been taken to reduce noise including lifting the speakers to cancel out the bass and placing them away from the adjoining walls.

·         The applicant had been consulting with an urban designer around noise insulation in the alleyway outside.

·         The conditions imposed on the current license were due to issues around access, and not noise disturbance. However, they had put in additional measures to reduce the risk of public nuisance to residents. This included no smoking at the premise, no glassware outside, asking customers to leave quietly and not permitting parties over 8.

·         Saffron Walden had a culture of independent businesses, and the external furniture was a reflection of the restaurant scene.

·         An objector of the initial application, whose property directly overlooks the business, was now a keen customer.

·         The applicant had asked their contractor to amend the waste collection time, but they were unable to offer a later route.

In response to member questions, the applicant clarified that:

·         One member of staff started work at approximately 6.30am to do food preparation for the day.

·         The warehouse had been fitted with fire boarding and internal insulating walls as a soundproofing measure.

·         They had investigated noise reducing measures for the alleyway, including using plants to absorb sound, but they had not currently invested anything.

·         They were willing to work alongside the freeholders of the residential property to control the sound, if there were solutions identified.

·         The noise investigation was still ongoing, however the Environmental Health Officer had visited on one of the busiest nights on record and had not reported an issue with the sound.

·         The applicant was unable to control the level of noise in the morning, as the waste collectors were not able to offer a later route. However, they were able to control the noise in the evening; for example, by ending their service at 10pm and not allowing large groups to leave at once.

·         The outside furniture would be bistro style which could be easily packed away at the curfew time to stop customers from lingering.

·         The gates to the alleyway were locked after the premise had closed and the staff were leaving.

Meeting adjourned at 13:50 for the Panel to retire to make their decision.

The meeting was reconvened at 14:51

The meeting ended 14:56