Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Licensing Team Leader.

The Committee considered an application by Mr Robin Norris for a Street Furniture permit to allow the placement of 22 tables and 88 chairs at the front of the premises at the Port of Call, 18-19 Market Square, Dover. The application stated the furniture would be cast iron tables and chairs and would be placed between 10:00hrs to 22:00hrs every day between 1 April to 1 October. The applicant advised the tables and chairs were actually lightweight aluminium rather than cast iron as stated.

The application had been considered at a meeting of the Committee on 18 July 2017 but was deferred to the next meeting due to insufficient information and several questions from the Members going unanswered in the absence of the applicant. The next scheduled meeting in September had fallen inquorate and it was decided that as the application was to site the street furniture between 1 April and 1 October and it was unlikely that a meeting could be convened before 1 October, that with the agreement of the applicant, the application be deferred to the next scheduled meeting of the Committee on 21 November 2017.

The Licensing department had received reports that tables and chairs had been sited throughout the summer, and also on 2 November 2017, without the necessary permissions. The applicant advised that an area outside the premises (which could be identified in the photo in the agenda by different paving) did not require permission as it was within the boundary of the premises and not on the public highway and he believed that this was where seating had been seen. The Licensing Team Leader stated that furniture was in the area for which the permit was being sought. She also stated that she had spoken with the tenant (managing director) when the application notice was put up, and had told him that tables and chairs were out when there was no permit in place and they should not be.

In response the applicant advised the Committee that the premises and tenant were audited quarterly and no issues, and in particular with regard to the placing of furniture, had been identified. The tenant was an experienced bar manager from a food and beverage background and had previously been a Designated Premises Supervisor. The permission being sought was identical to the previous permission and it was possible that the auditor may not have known the permit had expired and therefore failed to notice the incorrectly placed furniture. The tenant of the premises had been advised by Mr Norris that the permit had lapsed and no tables and chairs were to be sited beyond that point and Mr Norris would investigate the matter with the tenant. Mr Norris was satisfied the premises was well run by the tenant and stressed that tenants, whilst required to fulfil obligations within their lease, were responsible for the day to day operation of the premises was their responsibility.

Members discussed the photos and diagrams provided and the proposed placing of the furniture. Members identified some inconsistencies in the diagrams and required clarification from the applicant as to the exact boundary, planter locations and the exact area being requested to permit. Members were concerned that there was insufficient room for the public to pass through safely and the implications of that as vehicles were able to access that area of the Market Square. The two representations received during the 28 day consultation also raised the same concerns.

Mr Norris concluded that the premises was a well-managed unit and had not received any complaints regarding the running of the business nor any issues identified within the quarterly audits. The area being requested for permission was identical to the previous permit and the withdrawal would have an effect on the business and the tenant would not want to proceed without the tables and chairs in place.

In accordance with the approved procedure the Committee requested the Contentious and Regulatory Lawyer and the Licensing Team Leader to retire with the Committee to assist in providing details of the previous permit and the siting of the tables and chairs in that permit. Upon returning it was

RESOLVED:     (a)       That, having considered the application, the objections and the legal advice in relation to section 115E of the Highways Act 1980 and the Council’s Procedure the Permit be REFUSED by reason that:

(i)           the Committee is not satisfied that the management process is robust enough to ensure compliance with a permit given the tenant was informed at the time of this application that no tables and chairs were permitted in the area of the application until the application was determined;

(ii)         the committee is not satisfied that the current plan in the application clarifies what area is to be used and identifies insufficient area for pedestrians, wheelchair and pram users to pass  through the area without obstruction.

(b)       The committee accept that the siting of tables and chairs would be a benefit to the business and community and would be a positive contribution for the area. Hence in the Committees view any future application should address the concerns in points (i) and (ii) and also consider who is in a position to ensure that any permit which may be granted is adhered to.