Mrs Boxall presented her case. She explained that she lived next door to the premises with her 82 year old Aunt. Mr Bellamy, who lived the other side of the premises had also objected to the application, but was elderly and too poorly to attend the Hearing.
Mrs Boxall explained that there was only one exit proposed, which led directly onto the street. She felt that this would be dangerous as people could exit the premises onto oncoming vehicles, or do damage to parked vehicles. She explained that there was no parking associated with the premises and there was no public car park in the vicinity. The increase in cars would make it difficult for residents to park their vehicles close to their houses.
Mrs Boxall also raised concerns relating to people outside the front of the premises smoking, congregating and causing noise nuisance. She also referred to noise caused by collecting bottles and glasses outside, when disposing of waste and alarms and noxious cooking smells.
Mrs Boxall also commented that the premises shared drains with residents and the additional use of the drains could cause problems.
Mrs Boxall raised concerns relating to litter, broken bottles on the street, how damage could be caused to neighbouring homes and gardens, light pollution and potential anti-social behaviour all of which would have an adverse effect on the neighbours. People leaving the premises could be noisy and this would be increased when events were held.
Mrs Boxall stated that residents should not have to close their windows. She was worried that noise and crime would be increased and this would result in stress to the residents, many of which were elderly. She was concerned that residents would not be able to enjoy their gardens. She stated that the premises was not designed to contain modern noise and the application had not been thought through.
She stated that people’s homes were a safe place and their sanctuary and the proposals would be an invasion into their lives and the quiet area they lived in.
The Chairman thanked Mrs Boxall for her presentation and invited questions from all parties.
In response to a question from the Senior Licensing Officer, Mrs Boxall explained that an email from the applicant had indicated that background music would be played from a laptop, but this did not provide detail of music levels.
The Senior Licensing Officer referred to a nearby shop which was licensed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises until 11pm and she asked Mrs Boxall if there was any disturbance from this premises. Mrs Boxall explained that she could hear shutters closing, there was sometimes noise and damage had been caused to vehicles from users of the Village Hall.
Jo Reed asked where the neighbour’s bedrooms were in relation to the premises. Mrs Boxall explained that her bedroom was to the front and her Aunts bedroom was to the rear. She believed that Mr Bellamy’s bedroom was to the rear and he had said it was only three feet away from the rear proposed smoking area.
Jo Reed asked if there was a residents parking permit scheme in place. Mrs Boxall stated that there was not and parking was already difficult in the area. She explained that sometimes she was unable to park outside her property.
In response to a further question from Jo Reed, Mrs Boxall commented that the street was very quiet at night; sometimes she could hear people leaving the Village Hall. There had also been some problems with anti-social behaviour and some cars had been damaged, but generally late at night the area was very quiet. Mrs Boxall explained that when the Butchers Shop had been open there was some noise associated with deliveries and customers. She explained that deliveries had sometimes meant that her vehicle had been blocked in, but vehicles had moved when she needed to get out. She commented that business at the Butchers had decreased, so had not had too much of an impact.