- Falafel King (Cotham Hill) have been awarded a licence for on-site alcohol sales, but only with food and for people seated. Along with local residents, I opposed this on the basis that the premises is within the Cumulative Impact Zone and it would create a new location for alcohol sales - I don't believe that Falafel King itself will be problematic, but our loony licensing system means that the permission sticks with the premises and not the operator. Sadly the committee didn't see it our way in a rather stunning piece of arbitrarily ignoring Council policy!
- The people behind Burritos (Cotham Hill - formerly the greengrocers and currently empty) have put in an appeal against the planning committee's decision not to permit a change of use from a shop to a restaurant and take away. Planning appeals are always risky affairs as the Inspector doesn't have the democratic oversight that planning committee do and their decisions are often, in my opinion, arbitrary or even ill-informed. Closing date for appeal representations is 21st December.
- The application for Derbyshires newsagents (Whiteladies Road, opposite Sainsbury's) to become a coffee shop has been withdrawn - I don't know why. I was opposing this as it would be the loss of another local shop and would undermine the retail 'offer' of the area.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Licensing and planning snippets
A few bits of planning and licensing news to pass on:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
"I don't believe that Falafel King itself will be problematic".
So why object to the application then?
Because in our daft licensing system, the permission goes on the premises and not the operator. So, once 14 Cotham Hill gets an alcohol licence, it basically keeps it forever. So, while a current operator might be fine and responsible, it doesn't stop them selling up to someone who runs an operation that is not. Effectively, once you 'lose' a premises to alcohol sales, you rarely get it back.
That is the most pathetic argument I've ever heard.
Essentially you are saying "if my sister was a boy, she'd be my brother".
Someone else isn't running the business. The current owner is. You can't object to everything (which is what you currently do) on the basis that one day someone else may take over and this person may do that.
It's a nonsense.
You have no valid reason to object to the application. You've said it yourself.
If the licensing department had some balls they'd throw your representation out as being frivolous and vexatious.
You are simply doing it to be obstructive.
(and in response to you basing everything on the "daft licensing system" it makes sense for a licence to be premises specific and not specific to a person. What if it is a family business and someone dies? Should the business then fail?
You need to spend more time around local government and I can assure you that you'd hear a lot less sensible ones!
My objection was part of a collection of objections from all three local residents associations - they clearly don't agree with you! We did have ample grounds to object on the basis that the addition of a new licensed premises in a Cumulative Impact Area is not in line with the Council's Licensing Statement.
If you disagreed, you could have submitted your own statement - there were no 'yes' statements as I recall, so it looks like you would have been a lonely voice. Encouraging people to contribute is one of the reasons why I post the details on this blog. Go for it!
Anyway, I'm afraid that I've now had too much experience with the licensing system to give your views on this one much credence.
One final question for you to think about: is it sensible that noise abatement orders are made on individuals, whereas entertainment licences are granted to premises?
Have I missed something? A noise abatement notice is served on the person creating the nuisance. A Premises Licence is granted for a business. Is this not the most logical way of doing it?
Should a number plate be registered to a driver and not the car? Should telecoms licences be awarded to the chief executive of a mobile telephone company and not the company?
Going back to the issue I don't support or object to Falafel King, quite frankly I couldn't care less whether they get their licence or not.
What I object to is councillors abusing their position by making a representation against an application to which they openly admit they have no issue.
You say "I don't believe that Falafel King itself will be problematic" but then you object. Is this not a complete and utter nonsense?
It is a waste of taxpayers money holding committee hearings over pointless and ill conceived representations like the ones you make.
In this case a premises wanted to be able to serve alcohol to those taking a table meal. They didn't want to become the Ministry of Sound, Cream or Gatecrasher.
Do you not think that you should look at each application on it's own merits instead of this blanket objecting to anything and everything that comes across your doorstep?
Knowing how daft your representations are I presume you will of course have made representation against Jamie's Italian on the top of Park Street?
First up, if you really think I'm abusing my position, then you can make a complaint to the Standards Committee. Believe me, I'd love to see that one!
You seem have a very strange view of democracy, where the role of the local councillor is not to represent the interests of local people. Three residents associations objected to the Falafel King application, along with a number of 'ordinary' people.
I think part of the reason that you don't 'get it' is that you don't understand licensing law or procedure. Let me clear a few things up:
1. I don't object to every application. I probably object to about 50% of licensing applications and 25% of planning applications. I only post up details of what I think are contentious ones as it would get very tedious otherwise.
2. An objection is, anyway, a bit of a misnomer. You have to 'object' in order to make comments or recommendations about changing what is proposed. In the Falafel King case, a number of sensible conditions were placed on the licence - e.g. alcohol only seated and with food, entertainment in the basement only. This sort of compromise is part of the system and it is common for this to be the outcome.
3. You've missed my point about noise abatement and licences. I was meaning noise abatement for licensed premises. So, if you have a problem premises, the order is slapped on an individual (the owner/manager), yet it is the premises that has the licence. I think the two should be the other way around: it is an operator that should have the permission to sell alcohol, but a premises that is acted against if it is problematic (to avoid simple name changes). If things worked this way, I probably wouldn't have had to object to Falafel King.
4. I don't actually have very much 'power' in licensing law. My objections formally carry no more weight than a member of the public - informally they perhaps have a little more as I have taken the time to get involved. I have some influence - that is all.
5. The hearing would have been held whether or not I have objected. There were ample other objections and it only needs one to trigger a hearing. One of the objections was from one of the Council's own pollution control officers. I have never been the sole objector on any licensing application, so I have not caused any to occur.
6. The hearing had a positive outcome anyway. The conditions placed on the licence would not have happened if the residents and I had not objected and these prevent Falafel King from morphing into something more problematic. It is specifically due to these conditions that I believe that it won't now be a problem.
Jamie's Kitchen is not in Cotham (and nowhere near it) and so I don't really have an opinion, beyond being sad to see a bookshop go.
I look forwards to receiving my summons to the Standards Committee...
Why have you deleted my last two posts?
Is this because you are politician, don't like the answers you were given and have to get the last word?
No, I didn't - actually, I presumed that you had. I got the e-mail notifications, but when I looked they weren't there. I've only ever deleted two posts on this blog and that was because they were actively defamatory. Feel free to repost.
Mr Harrison,
Unless i have you all wrong, it is sad and quite alarming how little an understanding you have of what makes the world tick; business. Businesses pay your salary at your University post and funds everything that you do, so why are you constantly fighting them and why don’t you get on-board and make Cotham a better place by supporting and encouraging. Just because you don’t like something is not a consideration, the landlords are controlling who becomes the next tenant of their shop. They dictate the rent and terms and decide quite ruthlessly whether the organisation applying for a lease has the financial backbone. I know for a fact that there are NO queues of people fighting to take on shops in Cotham, KFC has gone bust in less than a year with nearly £500k in loss, Maskys is now gone and in less than 12 months the impact of the recession is going to empty many, many shops in our area. You should be on your knees saying thank you to any business that opens sensible hours (not late nights) and preferably does not sell alcohol (the route of 90% of Cotham/the worlds problems). You should be saying, thank you for coming and what can we do to help make your business work so that you can hire more local staff, pay more taxes and make people feel better about where we live, oh and by the way what do you intend to do to help the local community? I BET you would be very, very surprised at the generosity of new local businesses that want to come to Cotham if you were prepared to stop, talk and support them instead of just filing your objections like your input is actually being constructive. Much of Bristol is an utter disgrace, fact. Why, because real businesses have abandoned areas because well meaning but out of touch politicians have distorted natural logic and common sense such that real businesses simply don’t want the aggravation or risk, so everyone loses. Mr Harrison be part of the solution. Support businesses, large, small, franchises, brands, independents, chains, local, family, it does not matter as long as they want to come to Cotham and create jobs. Regards, Prospective Business Owner in Cotham.
Not only do you have me wrong, but plenty of other things too!
I am very much in favour of business where it is sustainable, in harmony with the community and not rapacious. I do not believe in an unconstrained free market - especially where it damages the long-term viability of business in the area.
I have worked with reputable traders on Whitelaides Road, Gloucester Road, Chandos Road and Cotham Hill on a range of issues including tidying up the areas, trying to set up community safety schemes, improving shopper parking and so on. More widely, I am very actively involved in supporting the environmental industries in the city, including leading on the £23m investment that was signed off in September, the majority of which will go into Bristol businesses. (Incidentally, I also used to teach marketing and operations management, so I do know plenty about business even though I chose never to practice.)
Based on solid science, the Council has sensible policies to ensure that shopping areas continue to prosper, even in bad times. A completely free market has failed many areas of Bristol and I (and local residents) are adamant that Cotham should not go the same way. I am merely working to ensure that these policies are implemented.
KFC was always going to fail, in my opinion, just like the McDonalds that was on that stretch for a while - the market is wrong for this type of outlet. This is part of the problem - the majority of failing businesses are food and drink ones, because the marketplace is too crowded and demand is strictly seasonal. Too much food and drink use leads to instability and decline, especially if it is focused on the night-time economy.
Maskreys closed due to the retirement of Mr Maskrey himself. We will have to wait and see what happens there instead, but there are new retail outlets opening all the time on Whiteladies Road and Cotham Hill - e.g. the new beauty place by Sainsburys or the Better Food Company or the Cook shop. I don't believe that there is currently a shortage of retail operators looking for premises - in fact, most of the currently vacant units are food and drink ones!
My objective is simple - maintain the retail heart of the community and avoid turning what is left of our local shops into a multi-outlet cafe/restauarant/bar area. That's good economics and good politics.
And most importantly, Bristol is not a disgrace. I am very proud of my adopted city and I believe that the main thing that holds it back from even greater achievements are those people who take any opportunity to run it down.
Sir, you’re a teacher(debatable given your area of speciality)/politician that never created a job in your life, you have no right whatsoever to interfere with businesses in the area. If you had any wherewithal and a backbone you would be out doing it, not bashing it. I am sad you did not spend time reading my words carefully as you have missed an opportunity to make a solid friend and benefit the community. I wish you all the best.
Actually, I have created jobs and I have run my own business in the past. I did read your words carefully, but I just didn't agree with them or with your thesis that business should be able do what it likes without the local community having an informed say.
Post a Comment