Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
Mr King presented his case and advised that he was an immediate neighbour to the Café and shared a driveway. He stated that his points were outlined in his letter of objection which had been included in the Agenda.
Mr King stated that he had had no prior consultation on the proposal nor had been contacted by the Applicant.
Mr King stated that his family home was on Railway Road.
Mr King referred to his objections in relation to the Licensing Objectives. He stated that the Café was located in a residential setting and parties in the Courtyard would increase noise levels. He also advised that he shared a wall with the Café and provided information on how noise travelled in the area.
Mr King reiterated that his main concern was in relation to noise levels and he had a young daughter. He stated that providing a four hour window to drink alcohol would result in a rise of swearing and unsavoury behaviour in the Courtyard.
Mr King referred to the prevention of crime and disorder and stated that the area was poorly lit, including the driveway. He noted that there was CCTV, but this was often not a deterrent for public nuisance.
Mr King explained that the driveway was gravelled and noise was produced by vehicles which used it for pick up, drop off and to turn around.
Mr King stated that he would have discussed issues with the Applicant prior to this Hearing, but the Applicant had not approached him. He commented that the Hearing had been helpful for hearing the plan for the Café and that if he had been consulted by the Applicant, the Hearing may have not been necessary.
The Chair thanked Mr King and invited questions from all parties.
The Licensing Service Manager asked if Mr King felt that had he been consulted more would he have not objected to the application. Mr King stated he still had concerns about additional noise being generated by parties. He explained that the only notice he had of the application was the notice displayed at the premises. The Licensing Service Manager explained that she had tried to contact him when she received his letter of objection.
The Applicant’s Representative referred to Mr King’s comments relating to the safety of children in that they were playing in the driveway and he asked when this had happened. Mr King commented that the Applicant’s son played on the driveway. The Applicant’s Representative stated that he did not normally play there, and if he did, he would be removed.
Mr King stated that his daughter used the front of his property and he was worried about the additional noise generated from the café and bad language.
Councillor Sandell asked if Mr King was disrupted by parking on the shared driveway and Mr King commented that there was noise from vehicles turning round in the driveway.
In response to a question from Councillor Crofts, Mr King confirmed that there were three properties that used the shared driveway.