Agenda item

Report of the Licensing Officer

The Licensing Officer, Phil Cooper, introduced the report concerning an application received from Mr Brynn Macek of Fusion Design and Architecture in respect of Turtle Bay (a new bar and restaurant), 20-26 Pittville Street, seeking permission to place 10 tables and 30 chairs on the highway outside the premises from 11.30 am to midnight Sunday to Thursday and 11.30 am to 1 am on Friday and Saturday.  He informed members that the applicants had sent their apologies and that they knew the application would be determined in their absence.

Appendix A to the report showed photographs of the furniture, Appendix B showed a plan of how the tables and chairs would be positioned and Appendix C showed the location of the premises.

The Officer informed members that no objections had been received from nearby businesses or members of the public.  However, objections had been received from the council’s planning enforcement officer, health and safety officer and environmental health (noise control) officer.  Their objections related to the amount of space available at the location and the potential for noise disturbance if the tables and chairs were being used after 11pm.

The Officer advised that members having considered all the relevant matters needed to decide whether to approve the application, to refuse the application or to modify the quantity of furniture and / or the times applied for.

In answer to a question from a member, the Officer re-confirmed that the time the chairs stayed out till could be altered.  In view of this Councillor Thornton proposed that the tables and chairs stayed out until 11pm Sunday to Thursday and 11.30pm on Friday and Saturday.  Councillor Walklett seconded this.  Another councillor proposed midnight on Friday and Saturday.

A Councillor asked the Officer whether there were plans for more trees to be planted in the tree pit outside the premises. The Officer said he was not aware of any such plans, but as Highways had been consulted on the application and did not comment, he assumed there were no such plans.

Members expressed concern about the distances between the tables and chairs and the various obstacles on the paved area and the lack of information on the canvas barriers or planters that would be used.  Many felt the distance measured should be from the barrier to the obstacles and not from the tables and also felt it was unclear whether the barriers would fence off all the tables and chairs.  The chairman advised that the applicant was not proposing barriers along the whole length, as this would make the entire width too narrow.  The Officer confirmed that details about the canvas barriers had not been specified as yet, but would have to conform to the standard policy.  One member proposed refusing the application on lack of information on the barriers and tables and chairs. 

Concern was expressed by many members on the layout of the tables and chairs and the impact it would have on other street users and several combinations on the number of tables and chairs were suggested, including no tables at all opposite obstacles.    It was felt that chairs would be moved from the tables of four to the tables of two, thus reducing the minimum prescribed clearance distance of 1.8m, especially on the paved areas near the obstacles. One member commented that there was no service walkway and thus waiting staff would be on the pavement and also creating more footfall through the main entrance.  There was concern also about the volume of footfall near the dropped kerb on the corner of a busy road by the entrance to the premises and thus felt that a table for 4 was not appropriate at this point either.

The Chairman reminded members that the recommended 1.8m minimum clearance distance was advised as good practice to ensure safety and physical space for passing, but that local variations of 1.5m could be acceptable.

In general, members welcomed this relaxed café culture addition on the edge of the shopping area and its added value to this part of the town and the night time economy.  However they were mindful of how busy this street was with traffic and footfall and the noise impact to local residents.

It was agreed that 30 chairs was too many and that 2 chairs to a table the entire length of the proposed area was reasonable. 

An amendment was therefore proposed by Councillor Whyborn and seconded by Councillor Seacome to allow 10 tables with 2 chairs per table in a single row width along the side of the premises, subject to the canvas barriers being inspected and approved by Officers.

Upon a vote on this amendment, it was 7 for, 2 against.

A vote was then taken on an amendment to the times that the tables and chairs could be placed on the highway outside the premises, with the proposal that they be there from 11.30am to 11pm Sunday to Thursday and 11.30am to 11.30pm on Friday and Saturday.

Upon a vote on this further amendment, it was 8 for, 1 against.

The Chairman then referred to the recommendation in the report, subject to the above amendments, and

Upon a vote it was 6 for, 3 against.

RESOLVED, that the application be approved subject to the amendments just passed, because the members felt the application was compatible with the current Street Scene Policy.