An application has been made for a new premises
licence for Piazzo Lounge, 4-5 The Square, Wimborne.
The application has been out to public consultation and has attracted relevant
representations. A Licensing Sub-Committee must consider the application and
representations at a public hearing.
Minutes:
The Licensing
Officer outlined the application for a new Premises Licence for Piazzo Lounge, 4-5 The Square, Wimborne and the activities
and times being applied for - which were to permit the:
Supply and sale of alcohol
(on the premises only)
·
External areas Monday to Sunday - between
10:00 to 22:00 hours
·
Internal Areas Monday to Sunday - between
10:00 to 23:00 hours
·
New Year’s Eve/New Year’s Day – from the terminal hour for those activities on New Year's Eve through to
the commencement time for those activities on New Year's Day.
The application
being sought had been revised from the original application so
as to seek to address some of the issues raised in the representations
received to the formal consultation.
The Sub-Committee
was addressed by the Senior Licensing Officer who outlined her report. The
original application had sought a licence for the sale of alcohol on the
premises every day from 10:00 to midnight, together with late night refreshment
from 23:00 to 00:30 each day, with additional hours for New Year’s Eve and New
Year’s Day.
The Officer stated
that the Dorset Council Environmental Protection Team, as a Responsible
Authority, had submitted a representation relating to potential noise nuisance
due to the proximity of residential dwellings. The Licensing Officer explained
that following discussions between the applicant and the Environmental
Protection Team, the applicant proposed an amendment to their application to
reduce the alcohol sales to 23:00 rather than midnight each day, to remove late
night refreshment completely and to render all outside tables and chairs
unusable after 22:00 each day. The Operating Schedule was also slightly amended
to reflect this. However, the concerns of the Environmental Protection Team
regarding the use of the external areas were not alleviated and the
representation was not withdrawn.
The Sub-Committee
was advised that three representations were received from members of the
public, (including the Wimborne Residents’ Action Group) relating to noise and
anti-social behaviour. The representations referred to the use of the external
space, formerly parking spaces, as a beer garden and the external area to the
front of the premises and the potential for noise nuisance for the residents of
dwellings nearby. It was suggested that due to the nature of the area there was
no effective way of mitigating the nuisance and a request was made to reduce
the timings for the sale of alcohol to 23:00 and for the external space not to
be used.
The Sub-Committee
was addressed by an officer from the Dorset Council Environmental Protection
Team. He stated that a representation had been made in relation to the
licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance, relating to noise. Discussions
had been held with the Applicant, following which the hours had been reduced
and some concerns had been alleviated, but the main concern was the use of the
outside area at the rear of the premises. The officer felt that the noise from
customers using the outside area at the front of the premises would not be a
significant issue as the area was within the town square, which was already
noisy from people and traffic. The external area to the rear of the premises
however was very quiet and there was a risk that residents would be disturbed
by noise from people using this outside area. He stated that he had asked the
applicant to undertake a noise assessment for the external area to the rear of
the premises which would have shown the background levels, but this had not
been done.
In response to
questioning the officer stated that he had considered that 6pm might be a
suitable time for the rear external area to stop being used but on reflection
he was not sure that any time would be acceptable, given that thirty to forty
people could make a significant noise. The officer agreed that the town changed
at night and there were noise issues when people left the pubs on a Friday
night.
The Sub-Committee
heard from Mr Rodway who had submitted a representation relating to noise and
disturbance. Mr Rodway stated that the premises were the closest to his home
and forty people using the external area to the rear of the premises would
potentially cause a lot of noise. He explained that he already suffered noise disturbance
from the Weatherspoon’s premises at the back of his property and his side
windows overlooked the proposed beer garden. He needed to be able to open those
windows in the summer months. Mr Rodway stated that the premises had more rooms
upstairs that the company was proposing to mothball, but those rooms could be
used as additional space for customers instead of using the outside area. He
questioned why they needed to have two external areas. Mr Rodway said he was
not against the company or the concept of the premises to be used as a café, it
was simply the potential for noise disturbance from the use of the outside area
at the rear of the premises. Mr Rodway thought the addition of conditions
requiring customers to be quiet when using the external area was a good idea, but in reality, people wouldn’t read them.
The Sub-Committee
heard from Mr Kelly who had submitted a representation relating to noise and
disturbance. Mr Kelly explained that his home directly overlooked the external
area to the front of the premises, and he did not agree with the Environmental
Protection Officer that the external area at the front was any different to
that at the rear of the premises in terms of noise. Mr Kelly stated that during
the day they currently had no issues with noise, but in the evening the area
changed in character. From about 7pm, particularly on Friday and Saturday,
people started moving from pub to pub and noise levels rose. Mr Kelly stated
that the addition of another outside area would have a real impact on people
living overlooking the area, but if the use of the area was limited to up to
6pm each day he would be willing to withdraw his representation.
The Sub-Committee
was addressed by Mr Botkai solicitor for the
applicant. Mr Botkai stated that his client had 172
premises of a similar type around the country and was experienced at operating
them successfully without complaints from neighbours. The premises would be
food led (family dining) with background music only, the venue would not be a
pub and would not have vertical drinking. Mr Botkai
stated that whilst a customer could purchase alcohol on its own, the premises
would not be the cheapest venue for alcohol and would very much be a
restaurant/café with people having a meal with a drink.
Mr Botkai stated that, apart from Environmental Protection,
none of the other Responsible Authorities had made any representations. He
accepted that the main point of contention was the external area to the rear of
the premises, and he explained that in response to the representations his
client had completely removed late night refreshment from their application,
reduced the hours that the outside areas would be used, and customers would not
be able to exit the premises to West Borough. He explained that the use of the
outside area was critical to the success of the business as people wanted to be
able to eat outside. He believed that ceasing the use of the external areas at
10pm was reasonable and proportionate, but any earlier would be
have an adverse effect on the viability of the business, with customers
needing the opportunity to finish their meals. His client fully accepted that
they needed to be considerate to residents living nearby and they wanted to be
a positive addition to the Square. They
were very happy to provide a contact telephone number for residents and to meet
quarterly in the first twelve months of operation to discuss any issues.
In response to
questioning, Mr Botkai said his client had operated
premises in Bournemouth near to residential buildings for approximately 10
years, where the outside areas were not used after 10pm and no complaints had
been made. It was explained that the rear outside area was anticipated to
accommodate between 30 and 40 people and the space at the front about 20 to 30
people.
Mr Botkai stated that he did not consider that the area to the
rear of the premises was entirely silent, there was a pub further down the road
and outside dinning was already happening in the area. Mr Botkai
reiterated that the premises would not be a late-night venue and would be very
much food led. In his view, the rear outside area was still part of the town
centre and although it could potentially accommodate 40 people, it was unlikely
to be full all the time. He accepted that residents were concerned about what
might happen, but his client had not experienced issues elsewhere. As they were
investing considerable capital in the premises it was in their interests to
ensure all was done to make it work as well as it could and were aware that, if
noise did become a concern, local people could ask for the premises licence to
be reviewed.
The Sub-Committee carefully considered all the documents presented to it
and the oral and written representations made by the parties. They
considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, the Section 182
Statutory Guidance, and the Dorset Council Statement of Licensing Policy 2021.
The Sub-Committee was pleased to hear that the applicant had sought to
amend their application to address concerns raised by the Responsible Authority
and members of the public, however, it was clear that concerns remained in
relation to anticipated noise/anti-social behaviour from the use of the
external areas.
The Sub-Committee took full account of the points raised by the members
of the public and the Responsible Authority, together with the business
requirements of the applicant. The Sub-Committee recognised that town centres
had changed and there was more use being made of outside areas for dining. Its
considerations in coming to a decision were about:-
·
noise
and disturbance;
·
the
capacity of the venue;
·
waste
collection arrangements;
·
what the
operations and service of the establishment would be;
·
usage
of the outside areas – the purpose and need;
·
how
outside furniture would be managed to ensure it could not be used after the
stipulated time;
·
the
timings of the licence and what was reasonable and proportionate;
·
what
the business model was of the company in running such premises.
All parties were provided with the opportunity to sum up. The
Sub-Committee was keen to remind the parties that should any issues be
experienced it was possible to seek a review of a premises licence.
The Sub-Committee then retired to make their decision.
Resolved
That it was reasonable and proportionate to grant a Premises Licence,
but to restrict the use of both outside areas to 10pm and to apply conditions
to the licence to seek to address the potential for noise nuisance.
The Sub-Committee welcomed the offer by the applicant to make a telephone
number available for residents to use if any issues arose and to have quarterly
meetings with residents in the first 12 months of operation, and those matters
form part of the conditions.
The Sub-Committee felt that the applicant had a track record of running
successful premises, including those near dwellings, and they were fully aware
of the consequences for them if noise became an issue for their neighbours.
The Sub-Committee felt reassured that the applicant would be considerate
towards their neighbours and would seek to resolve any issues in a positive
manner, but this was reinforced by the imposition of relevant conditions.
The Sub-Committee felt that the quarterly meetings would be particularly
important and encouraged the applicant to work with the residents to consider
any further steps that could be taken.
Supporting documents: