Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.
Mr Heval
Mr Heval presented his case and referred to the fire exits on the first floor of the premises, the difficulties in splitting the premises into two sections and that the back garden was the only area that should be used for Shisha.
Mr Heval stated that he had been threatened and blackmailed by the Applicant and had seen the Applicant sell alcohol without permission.
Mr Heval referred to a gas pipe in the garden, which he felt was unsafe if Shisha was being smoked outside and he had been so stressed about the Insurance coverage of the premises that he had been unable to sleep and had been to see a solicitor. He also stated that the structure in the garden was unstable and he was worried that it could cause injury.
Mr Heval stated that there was inadequate ventilation at the premises. There was air conditioning, but no air circulation upstairs and if the upstairs windows were open they acted like an amplifier for music.
Mr Heval stated that he would not allow the Applicant to use his DPS Licence and the Applicant did not have a Personal Licence. He explained that the Applicant had not asked his permission to use the premises even though he owned half of the building. He also stated that he was getting invoices from contractors and that the Applicant had no public liability insurance, no electric safety insurance, the building was unsuitable and that there had been children on the premises.
The Licensing Officer asked Mr Heval if his main concern was safety and fire issues and Mr Heval stated that he was unsure if the building was properly insured and there was no gas or electric certificate in place.
The Licensing Officer referred to the civil matter relating to ownership of the building and Mr Heval stated that he had been threatened and blackmailed and had been working with a solicitor. He stated that he had tried to report the crime to the Police, but did not have a crime number. He stated that his Solicitor had advised him not to allow the Applicant use of his licence.
Councillor Parish asked Mr Heval what his original ambition for the premises was. He stated that he wanted it to be a family restaurant.
Councillor Parish asked Mr Heval about the condition of the building. Mr Heval referred to the structure in the garden and he felt that it was unstable.
Councillor Bhondi asked about the use of the upstairs for playing music. Mr Heval stated that it was not appropriate as there was no ventilation and when windows were opened the noise leaked out. There was no sound proofing at the premises.
Mr Freitas
Mr Freitas presented his case and stated that he couldn’t sleep when there was music playing at night and his main concern was public nuisance as set out in his representation which had been included in the Agenda.
In response to a question from Councillor Bhondi, Mr Freitas stated that he could not sleep when music was being played and that the premises needed to be sound proofed.
Mrs Howe
Mrs Howe read out a letter from Mr Weedon which outlined how he had been subjected to mental stress and noise pollution. It stated that the area was predominately residential and that if the licence was granted the Council should enforce that the windows upstairs were triple glazed and the building was sound proofed by installing a double door entrance to stop noise leakage. Conditions should also be imposed to ensure that no smokers or noise were outside the front of the property and that patrons did not congregate on the street. The letter from Mr Weedon stated that the Applicant was untrustworthy and had already broken the law.
Mrs Howe then presented her case and stated that she had serious concerns about the application as she felt that the Applicant had so far had complete disregard for the licensing objectives. She referred to the screening of live sport and explained that this could cause disruption during the day to retailers and residents. She reminded the Sub-Committee that the premises was located within a Conservation Area. She felt that the Applicant had claimed they would be responsible, but had previously disrespected guidance. Mrs Howe was also concerned about public safety, especially if the relevant insurance and safety certificates were not in place. She also stated that the structure in the garden was attached to her property which was concerning.
The Applicants noted that Mrs Howe had obtained a previous licence on the premises and they asked Mrs Howe why she had applied for that licence to allow alcohol until 1am. Mrs Howe said her licence was so that patrons could have the odd glass of wine with a meal and she mainly shut at 5pm. She stated that she had applied for 1am for possible future opportunities, but she would be responsible.
Councillor Parish asked Mrs Howe about her business and she explained that it was a restaurant/café.
Councillor Parish asked Mrs Howe how her quality of life would be affected should the application be granted and she stated that it would deteriorate.
Councillor Bhondi asked Mrs Howe about her experience of living next door to the premises and she stated that there had been very loud music, most of the business took place in the garden and there were signs at the front of the premises directing patrons to the rear garden. She referred to a facebook post which said ‘follow the music to the back’.
The Licensing Officer referred to the comments made about showing live sports events and confirmed that this was not a licensable activity. She also referred to activity in the garden after 10pm and stated that restrictions could only be imposed on licensable activity. Shisha was not a licensable activity.
Mrs Carnell
Mrs Carnell stated that she was representing herself and residents from the Bridge Street Conservation Area. She explained that she lived in a Listed Building and there were many independent traders in the area. She stated that this area gets the run through from people leaving the night time economy in King’s Lynn she commented that windows had been broken and cars had been damaged in the area.
Mrs Carnell commented that this area needed be kept free from activity in the night time and Norfolk Street was a more appropriate area for this sort of offer. Mrs Carnell referred to the structure in the garden and how it was not appropriate for a Conservation Area.