Agenda item

81 The Prom, 81 Promenade, Cheltenham

Councillor Adam Lillywhite declared an interest in this item as he knew the applicant personally and left the room for the duration of this item.

The Senior Licensing Officer, Andy Fox, introduced the report regarding an application that had been received from Rajinder Singh Boyal in respect of 81 The Prom, 81 Promenade, Cheltenham GL50 1PJ. The applicant was seeking permission to place 3 tables and 5 chairs on the highway outside the premises from 08:00 to 22:00 hrs, every day. Appendix A showed photographs of the furniture and a plan showing how the tables and chairs will be positioned and Appendix B showed the location of the premises.

The officer circulated a late amendment which he had received from the applicant which responded to some of the objections and reduced the request to 2 tables and 4 chairs and suggested there could be flexibility on the types of chairs. Members were given a few minutes to read the details. The officer confirmed that the objectors had not been advised of the amended proposals as it had been received too late.

The chair invited questions to the officer from members. One member referred to examples in the document circulated where the space between the barrier and the pavement is less than 1.8m and asked whether these premises had been given exempt status. The officer referred members to paragraph 6.2 in the report which highlighted that there was not a minimum distance specified in the policy. The committee would normally expect a minimum of 1.8 m but sometimes would accept less depending on the circumstances.

The officer confirmed that the enforcement officers went out on a regular basis to check that the limits agreed were being adhered to.

The chair invited the applicant to speak in support of their application.

Mr Boyal highlighted that Montpellier had very similar architectural features in common with the Promenade and in the light of the objections to his application he had made a study of other properties and taken photographs which he had included in the document circulated to members today.  He had found a great variety of the types of chairs and barriers used. He explained to Members that he had spent a considerable amount of money improving the property and restoring many of the original features inside with the advice of the council's conservation officers. In his opinion barriers were important but if the committee didn't want them he would be happy to leave them out. It was his understanding that there had been tables and chairs outside the property before so they must have been given permission at some stage. The applicant suggested that because of the location of his business he needed more help than businesses in Montpellier to promote his business to passers by. He had already received compliments and prizes  for the floral displays he had put up outside the building.

In response to questions from Members he confirmed that staff would be coming up the stairs with hot food and therefore if barriers were there, there was no risk of the staff coming into contact with the public.

In the discussion that followed a member suggested that the council should be encouraging cafe culture and generally diners now expected to see outside facilities. Cars parked in the inner promenade spoilt the view much more so they would prefer to get rid of them if possible. Another member supported the view that the committee should be as supportive as possible to businesses but they felt that Montpelier was totally different to the Promenade. The Promenade with its clean lines was an essential tourist attraction to the town and nothing should be done which could detract from this view.

A member suggested it would be difficult to make a decision because the objectors had had no opportunity to make a response to the amendments circulated. The chair suggested that the objections had been related to the principles of tables and chairs on the pavement in this location and therefore they would not be likely to change their view. Similarly the Highways Authority had made no objections to the original application and therefore would be unlikely to make any objections to this revised plan.

The chair advised members that he intended to take a straw poll of members to establish who was in favour of the principle of tables and chairs in this location. A vote established that the committee were split 4:4.

The chair then proposed an amendment that a barrier at 1.8 M was inserted at a low height in front of the tables as opposed to only having barriers at the end of the tables:

Upon a vote this was LOST

Voting (For 2, Against 5 with 1 abstention)

The chair proposed an amendment that the no of chairs was reduced to two tables and four chairs as opposed to the original application of three tables and five chairs.

Upon a vote this was CARRIED

Voting (For 6, Against 1 with 1 abstention)

Members agreed that if they supported the application, they would be happy to delegate discussions on the choice of furniture type with the applicant to officers.

Members  then voted on the substantive motion as amended set out in 1.4.1 of the report. Upon a vote it was 4 for, 4 against and with the Chair’s casting vote it was

RESOLVED THAT, the application in respect of 81 The Prom, 81 Promenade, Cheltenham, for 2 tables and 4 chairs to be on the highway outside the premises with no barrier in front of the tables but only at each end from 08:00 to 22.00 every day be approved, as members felt the application was compatible with the current Street Scene Policy.