Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The committee received a report from the Assistant Licensing
Officer, requesting consideration of an application for a premises licence for
Klub Polski Gawra, 231 Chesterton Road. The Assistant Licensing Officer
explained that a hearing was required due to 24 representations from interested
parties.
The Assistant Licensing Officer explained that the premises
had been granted a time limited licence from 17th March 2008 through
to 31st May 2012.
The committee asked the Assistant Licensing Officer the following
questions;
i.
Clarification on the reasons for the time limited
nature of the existing licence was requested. The Assistant Licensing Officer
explained that it would have been the decision of the committee on 17th
March 2008, based on the evidence received.
ii.
The Assistant Licensing Officer was asked about the
apparent contradiction in the licence, which permitted off sales, and then
restricted sales solely to individuals purchasing table meals. Following discussion it was established that
the off sales element was designed to allow the transfer of alcohol from the
main restaurant to the beer garden which involved leaving the licensed premises
(and travel through an unlicensed part of the building).
In response to an interjection from a member of the public,
the Chair explained the meaning and application of the cumulative impact
policy.
Applicant
Mr Sylwester Iwaniec addressed the committee in support of
the application and made the following points
i.
The reduced number of representations compared with
2008 was a reflection of the improved management of the premises.
ii.
Some of the representations focussed on issues outside
the control of premises such as parking.
iii.
The improved management of the premises was
highlighted. Mr Iwaniec explained that he had managed the premises for 5 years
and he had transformed the premises from an undesirable drinking establishment
serving predominantly cheap Polish vodka and beer, to a pleasant restaurant.
iv.
Mr Iwaniec questioned the noise impact of removing the
restrictions on the use of the beer garden. It was suggested that the noise
generated by Chesterton Road would be more significant.
The committee asked the following questions
.
i.
The applicant was asked whether he was willing to
accept the principle of the use of the beer garden being restricted to sunset. The applicant confirmed that he was willing
to accept the condition
ii.
The applicant was asked regarding his future plans for the
premises, specifically in relation to the provision of off sales other than use
of the garden. The applicant explained that it was his intention to import
Polish wine in the future, and sell it customers of the restaurant.
iii.
The applicant was questioned regarding the admission
policy for the venue. The applicant explained that the club operated a
membership policy. Following discussion it was established that it was not a
legal requirement for the club to operate this policy, because it was licensed
as a premises rather than a club. The applicant also confirmed that membership
was available on the same day, and that over the past four years membership had
been refused to a number of individuals. The applicant also confirmed that
there was no requirement to be Polish or of Polish origin to join the club.
iv.
Clarification was requested on the arrangements for
functions in the unlicensed hall. The applicant advised that a temporary events
notice was requested on each occasion.
v.
Clarification was also requested on the reasons for
requesting the removal of the restriction on the requirement to only sell
alcohol when supplied with a table meal. The applicant explained that this had
been requested, to allow the sale of alcohol to individuals attending community
events.
Interested parties
1. Peter Woodsford
Mr Woodsford addressed the committee and made the following
comments objecting to the application.
i.
The licensing arrangements had caused significant
concern when the original application was made in 2008.
ii.
The premises were located in a complex and sensitive
location, and that the conditions set in 2008 reflected the specific
circumstances of the location. Any
increase would make a bad situation worse.
iii.
The proposals would result in the impact of the premises
on the residential area increasing, and acquiring problems associated with
public houses.
iv.
The premises whilst having a Chesterton Road address
were accessed from Chesterton Hall Crescent, and also had a substantial impact
on Chantry Close. It was also highlighted that the premises were in the
vicinity of a major cycleway and routes to school.
v.
Concern was raised that if the licence was granted
without restriction, the existing management arrangements were not sufficient
to prevent an increase in crime and disorder issues arising from the premises.
vi.
The limited size of the car park was noted and it was
explained that it was often full, which meant that vehicles had to reverse out
of the car park onto a busy street. It was also suggested that customers believed
that they had a right to park, irrespective of whether it inconvenienced local
residents.
2. Lisbeth Hayward
Ms Hayward supported the representation of Mr Woodsford, and
added the following additional points
i.
Chesterton Hall Crescent is a cul-de-sac, so traffic
entering the crescent had to leave and enter via the same point.
ii.
The beer garden was next to the car park, and was very
small.
3. Barrie Fleet
Dr Fleet supported the previous representation and suggested
that any reduction in restrictions would not result in an improvement in the
situation. Dr Fleet strongly opposed any reduction in the restrictions on the
use of the facilities.
4. J Aubrey
Mr Aubrey explained that he lived opposite the premises and
made the following comments in objection to the application.
i.
Free membership was openly advertised outside of the
premises, and therefore the membership criteria voluntarily operated is
nullified.
ii.
Significant amount of time was invested in opposing
both the current and previous application.
iii.
Driveways in the vicinity of the premises were
regularly blocked causing significant inconvenience.
iv.
The noise generated from the beer garden amplified and
affected the sleeping arrangements for his children. Any further extension to
the time limit for use of the beer garden was opposed.
v.
Traffic safety issues, specifically the cycle route,
were highlighted due to the number of vehicles reversing out of the full car
park.
vi.
The limited numbers of public disorder incidents were
acknowledged, but it was explained that there had been issues. Specific issues
with people congregating outside of the premises were also highlighted.
vii.
Littering issues were highlighted including beer
bottles in hedges.
5. M Aubrey
Mrs Aubrey spoke in objection to the application and made
the following comments:
i.
The suggestion that the opposition was purely due to
the nationality of the applicant and the principal users was incorrect.
ii.
The rationale behind requesting certain revisions to
the existing licence was challenged, including the maximum numbers permitted to
use the restaurant and beer garden.
iii.
Driveways were regularly blocked, causing significant
inconvenience. Significant difficulties had been experienced in requesting
customers to move vehicles. Issues associated with anti-social use of the car
park, such as use of car horns late at night, were also highlighted.
iv.
The presence of people congregating in the vicinity of
the premises had an intimidating effect on children and women.
v.
Any extension to the existing terms of the licence was
strongly opposed, specifically allowing the premises to open on Monday. It was
noted that the previous Polish Club had never opened on Mondays.
6. PR Jelbert
Ms Jelbert spoke in objection and made the following
comments;
i.
Not against the existing premises, and had used the
restaurant but the location was not suitable for a pub.
ii.
The existing parking problems were already serious.
iii.
The presence of people congregating in the vicinity of
the premises had an intimidating effect on children, senior citizens and women.
It was acknowledged that these issues were not fully within the control of the
premises.
iv.
The need for additional premises serving alcohol in the
vicinity was questioned, due to the number of premises in the area, which had
closed.
v.
The negative effect that alcohol and alcoholism could
have was noted.
7. Mrs Mikolajcyzyk
Mrs Mikolajcyzyk spoke in objection to the application and
raised the following concerns;
i.
The existing use of the building was inconsistent with
the original intentions for the building.
ii.
Relationship issues between different elements in the
Polish community were highlighted.
The committee asked the interested parties the following
questions
i.
All the interested parties were invited to comment on
why in their view the relevant responsible authorities (Police and
Environmental Health) had chosen to not make a representation. The interested
parties expressed surprise that the relevant responsible authorities and local
councillors had not made representations, as the circumstances had not changed
significantly since 2008.
ii.
The interested parties were asked, whether they could
suggest any solutions to reduce the traffic problems. Following discussions the
interested parties suggested that the continuation of the existing restriction
on numbers using the premises would provide a degree of control. It was also
highlighted that whilst the restriction on numbers provided a degree of
control, the situation was still not ideal.
iii.
The committee asked the interested parties whether they
agreed the membership scheme provided a degree of control against the issues
raised. The interested parties expressed a view that the benefits of such a
scheme were nullified by openly advertising daily membership with limited
controls on eligibility.
iv.
The interested parties were asked whether they believed
the applicant to be a fit and proper person to run the premises. It was agreed
that this was not a fair question. The question was then revised to ask whether
they believed that the management arrangements were sufficient to mitigate
issues. The interested parties emphasised the difference between a restaurant
and a pub, and acknowledged that certain issues were beyond the control of the
applicant.
v.
Clarification was requested on whether the interested
parties had any concerns regarding the application for off-licence provisions.
The interested parties raised no objection to the principle of off sales where
they related to the transfer of drinks from the bar to the garden, but raised
concerns that if off sales were permitted it could make problems worse. It was
also noted that on occasions despite the efforts of the management, customers
had been witnessed removing drinks from the premises.
vi.
The interested parties were asked about the additional
impact of the three additional nights requested, and whether they would have a
significant impact. The interested parties explained that the application had
the ability to request temporary event notices for up 15 events per year, and
suggested these nights should continue to be managed through the temporary
event notice process. A distinction was drawn in relation to New Years Eve,
between the time limited nature of fireworks and ongoing noise to 2 a.m, and
the disruption that this created particularly to families with small children.
vii.
In response to a question from the panel, the
interested parties most strongly objected to the suggestion that the licence
could be extended to cover Mondays. The committee were advised that the
original provision had been included to give the residents a “break” following
three busy nights.
viii.
All parties were advised that a number of the issues
raised didn’t relate to licensable activities. Clarification was requested on
the reference to the activities of the club interfering with a route to school.
The interested parties acknowledged that the issues primarily related to the
journey home from school, but gave examples of how the club had affected the
journey to school, such as the presence of broken glass.
ix.
Clarification was requested on whether the obstruction
issues and other allegations had been reported to the police. The interested
parties expressed reservations about burdening the Police with seemingly
trivial issues. Concerns were also raised regarding the implications if
Chesterton Hall Cresent became residents only parking.
x.
The interested parties were asked whether they had any
evidence to suggest that the individuals highlighted as drinking outside the
premises had purchased their alcohol in the premises. It was acknowledged that
there were a number of premises in the area selling similar products.
xi.
The applicant confirmed that no beer was served in
bottles.
The applicant responded to a number of the issues raised by
the interested parties.
i.
The size of the premises limited the number of people
able to use the restaurant to 35.
ii.
A number of allegations regarding individuals
congregating in the vicinity of the premises were challenged, and specifically
further evidence was requested on how these related to the premises.
iii.
The beer garden couldn’t be extended due to the nature
of the surfacing, and there was no intention to extend. The number of tables in
the beer garden would soon be reduced to accommodate a refurbishment.
iv.
The sign outside the premises was to encourage
customers from outside the Polish community.
v.
Challenged the allegation regarding the management of
the premises, and the relationship with the Polish Society.
vi.
No intention to run a pub, as current sales were
currently ¾ food and ¼ drink, and the intention was to increase food sales, and
to be able to offer a drink to other users of the community facilities.
vii.
The community facilities were already open on a Monday,
so there was unlikely to be a significant impact of opening on Monday.
viii.
The car park was sufficient for the number of
customers. Following questioning it was established that people attending the
community activities also used the car park, but the applicant challenged the
assertion that the car park was regularly full.
Following a question from the committee, the applicant
agreed in principle to a condition restricting the sale of alcohol to customers
taking meals at the tables and those using the other community facilities in
the building.
The committee asked the applicant about the reasons for
applying for non-standard timings for certain days. The applicant advised that
the premises had run events on these evenings over the last four years, and the
purpose of this element of the application was to remove the need to apply for
temporary events notices on each occasion.
The interested parties requested that the three nights if granted, were
also deducted from the maximum permitted number of temporary event. The
Assistant Licensing Officer confirmed that the number of temporary events
permitted was a statutory figure and could not be amended. The applicant
confirmed that 6 notices had been used in 2011.
The applicant encouraged the committee to consider all the
issues presented, and consider the application in light of the difficult
economic environment.
The committee sought clarification on whether an off licence
was required to transfer alcohol from the bar to the beer garden. The Legal
Advisor indicated that it was unlikely that the legal position had yet been
tested, due to the un-usual circumstances.
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 and resumed 13:32.
Resolved
To grant the application without a time limit and increasing
the hours allowed for the sale of alcohol to include Mondays and the non
standard timings applied for, and incorporating the mandatory conditions and
all the conditions offered in the Applicant’s operating schedule and amending
the current licence conditions so that they appear as follows:
The Prevention of Crime and Disorder
1. Drinks for
consumption on the premises may only be served to persons seated in the
restaurant or in the garden, or standing in the bar area, for a meal or to
attend community functions.
2. No sales for
consumption off the licensed premises (this shall not prevent drinks from being
carried between the restaurant/bar area and the garden).
3. The Klub Polski
Gawra shall abide by its crime and disorder policy. All staff shall be trained
in their responsibilities regarding violence, disorder, drugs and explosive
devices.
4. A refusals log
shall be kept.
Public Safety
5. No more than 35
people shall be permitted inside the premises and 20 people outside in the beer
garden.
6. The club shall
abide by its public safety policy. All staff shall be trained in their
responsibilities with regard to fire, accidents and reporting potentially
dangerous situations.
7. An incident log
shall be maintained and audited by the Designated Premises Supervisor.
The Prevention of Public Nuisance
8. The use of the
beer garden shall stop at 20.00 hours or sunset if later every evening.
9. Prominent
clear and legible notices shall be displayed at the exit, requesting patrons
departing to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premises and
the area quietly.
10. The placing of
waste including bottles into receptacles outside the premises and the emptying
of premises waste receptacles by waste contractors shall only be permitted to
take place between the hours of 07.00 and 23.00 hours to minimise disturbance
to nearby properties.
11. Litter bins to
be provided outside the premises.
The Protection of Children from harm
12. On occasions
when the venue is open for the sale of alcohol the DPS or relevant person shall
actively operate a “Challenge 21” policy. This shall include a voluntary
agreement to only accept identity cards with a ‘pass’ accreditation passports
or photo ID driving licences, or any future identification card as approved by
central government, as bona fide recognised forms of identification.
13. All persons
below the age of 16 shall be accompanied by an adult.
It was also a condition of the licence that on the grant of
the new licence the existing licence should be surrendered because there should
not be two concurrent licences for the same premises.
The Sub Committee granted the application because they
believed that the conditions allow the licensing objectives to be met as
required in this case. The changes from the previous licence will not adversely
affect the promotion of the licensing objectives in these premises.
Supporting documents: