Minutes:
Mr Cartwright presented his case. He stated that his wall abutted the north boundary of the premises and faced the Orangery. He informed the Sub-Committee that there were currently builders working at No Twenty 9 and he could hear their radio, even when his windows and doors were shut. Mr Cartwright explained that he was concerned about the disturbance and noise which would be caused by the Premises and he disagreed with Mr Robert’s statement that there were not any permanent residents surrounding the Premises. He explained that retired residents surrounded the premises on the north, east and west boundary.
Mr Cartwright was concerned about live music and dance and referred to the original application which had this added onto it, but was subsequently withdrawn. He explained that he was a permanent resident and he and his wife were retired. They felt that Burnham Market was a quiet village, especially after 6pm and the car park was often empty in the evening. He stated that the venue was surrounded by residential neighbours and he was concerned about noise disturbance.
Mr Cartwright explained that he was objecting to the application under the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective.
He stated that he felt that the modifications to the building and the new Orangery extension, would not abate noise and instead would amplify it out onto the Courtyard. He explained that the Planning Permission was based on a restaurant and bar which would provide a small and intimate dining experience and there was no indication that music and dancing would be provided. He explained that by originally applying for regulated entertainment and then withdrawing the application, as it was no longer required to be applied for, the Applicant was showing intent on using the venue for regulated entertainment.
Mr Cartwright referred to the amendment to the Planning Permission, which had been applied for to extend opening hours to match those applied for on the Premises Licence. He felt that neighbours should have been consulted on this, before the planning application was submitted.
Mr Cartwright referred to his objection letter, which had been included in the Licensing Managers report. He referred to the conditions which he suggested be attached to the Licence, should it be granted. These included:
· Live music must not be allowed
· Dancing must absolutely not be allowed
· Recorded music to be background music for quiet dining only
· Music to be indoors only
· Music to be allowed only between the hours of midday and 9.30pm
· Alcohol to be served indoors only between the hours of 12pm and 9.30pm Monday to Saturday.
· No alcohol to be served outdoors
· Use of outdoor area to cease at 8pm
· No trading on a Sunday
Mr Cartwright responded to questions from the Licensing Manager and confirmed that he believed his suggested conditions would be appropriate to attach to the licence.
The Licensing Manager advised that the Sub-Committee did not have to power to impose conditions regulating live and recorded music.
Mr Roberts asked Mr Cartwright why he felt that the venue would be primarily used as a music and dancing venue. He stated that it would be an intimate dining venue and private areas would be available. Mr Cartwright explained that this was included in the Applicant’s original application.
Mr Roberts asked which residents Mr Cartwright was referring to, who surrounded the Premises as he was only aware of two permanent residents. Mr Cartwright explained that there were three that shared a boundary wall with No Twenty 9, Market Place.
In response to a question from Councillor Bambridge, Mr Cartwright explained that the music coming from the builders’ radio was positioned inside the premises and he could still hear it in his house.
Councillor Crofts asked if there was ever a disturbance from live and recorded music at the other licensed premises in the village. Mr Cartwright explained that sometimes he could hear it, but it was much further away.