I would like to totally agree with what your reader Chris Harwin said about the off-licence at 2 Bourne Road.
As one of the local councillors for the Bourne Road area, on behalf of many residents who raised their concerns, I lodged an objection to the proposals and attended the Licensing Panel meeting on January 20, 2015.
I am not against a convenience store in my ward in a safe location, and if this application had been 50 yards one way or 100 yards another, away from this extremely busy, and often unsighted ‘T’ junction, I might not have been so concerned, although I don’t believe a licence to sell alcohol from 6am to 10pm was necessary.
I was advised by the licensing officer that all representations had to be relevant to the licensing objectives set out at the beginning of the 2003 Licensing Act namely:
public safety
the prevention of public nuisance and
the protection of children from harm
the prevention of crime and disorder.
So, those of us living and travelling in this area would think, without too much difficulty, that this application appeared to breach three of the four licensing objectives.
I assumed, wrongly, that the local police might make some observations regarding the fourth point relating to the prevention of crime and disorder.
Following a request to the local inspector, I was pointed in the direction of a site where I could extract information for myself relating to crime and anti-social behaviour in the area.
Just as a snapshot, 43 cases of anti-social behaviour were reported in November 2014 in the near area.
Also, a portable speed sign, situated a short distance from the ‘T’ junction recorded that in one half hour survey, nearly half the vehicles exceeded the speed limit.
Also, I would have thought that the police officer reporting to the licensing panel would have drawn their attention to the safety aspect regarding lack of parking for commercial vehicles that would need to stop to deliver supplies.
Wrong again.
I believe I made three very reasoned points which I append below:
This property is a small lock up unit, directly opposite the end of Hawthorn Bank, with little off road parking.
The site also adjoins a zebra crossing so on road parking ought not to be permissible at any time.
I feel this application breaches three of the four licensing objectives namely:
Public safety – the site is at the head of a busy ‘T’ junction on the A151 directly opposite Hawthorn Bank. There would be inadequate off road parking.
The site adjoins a zebra crossing and is bordered by zigzag lines prohibiting parking.
The adjoining site on the corner has permission for a convenience shop.
When planning permission was sought, county highways insisted that there was no vehicular access from Winsover Road because of safety reasons.
They insisted a barrier be erected at the frontage to Winsover Road to prevent youngsters running onto the highway.
A previous application on this site in 2006 for a hot food takeaway was refused following recommendation from county highways because of its location to staggered crossroads on a class 1 road A151.
They said the proposed use would interfere with other traffic and pedestrians on the road to the extent that would be contrary to the interests of highway safety and the local planning authority said ‘the proposed use will result in serious detriment to the residential amenities of nearby dwellings as a consequence of noise and disturbance caused by people and vehicles calling at, leaving and possibly congregating at the site.
‘Such disturbance would be particularly noticeable in the evenings and at night times and as a result the proposal would be contrary to Policy E1 of the adopted South Holland District Local Plan 1998 and Policy EC10 of the South Holland Re-deposit Local Plan 2005 which seeks to protect nearby residential amenity from issues of noise and smell.’
The planning office said of the application to trade from 6am to 10pm did not need a comment from them because the premises already had A1 use.
Apparently the highway authority are not consultees in licensing application.
So the very reasons just mentioned were not material considerations for the licensing panel.
In fact, the chairman refused to allow me to tell the panel about them, even though the solicitor acting for the council told him he could allow me to give the information if he wished.
Do you sometimes get the feeling that someone has already made up their mind?
The Prevention of Public Nuisance – if a licence was granted for the hours requested, people could congregate outside the premises drinking and engaging in noisy behaviour and disturb local residents.
The area could be subject to more litter.
Coun Aley and myself have just provided another four litter bins for this area to deal with beer cans and empty vodka bottles discarded whenever the drinker finishes their drink.
The Protection of children from harm – on the route of several local primary and secondary schools.
If irresponsible drivers ignore the zigzag lines and park partially on the footpath near the store and pop in for something, it could cause obstructions and hazards to children.
Parking along this stretch of road is horrendous now.
Mr Harwin is correct in saying that when the Winsover Road gates are closed, traffic can stack back here.
This is primarily a residential area.
Shops that have traded in this area in the past, have operated around the normal hours of 9am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, half day on Saturday 9-1pm and not traded on a Sunday.
Is there is a lesson to be learnt perhaps the planning dept now ought to put time restrictions on A1 consents so that if a previous operating time was 9am-5.30pm and someone wanted to change to 6am-10pm, planning permission would be required?
I am sure that if county highways needed to be consulted they would object and recommend refusal as they did in 2006, or recommend conditions. Traffic has got worse since then – not better.
So without doubt, it is obvious to me, that if the application failed to meet the first three licensing objectives, and I requested that the application should be refused.
Unfortunately two of the panel were from Holbeach and were not familiar with the location.
I pointed out that when I sat as a JP, and Justices dealt with licensing applications, we would have adjourned and inspected the site if we were unfamiliar with the site.
One member also said she was deaf so I am not sure how much of the proceedings she heard.
The third member of the panel was Coun Graham Dark BEM.
He asked that it be recorded that he totally disagreed with the panel decision.
Why? Because he knows the area and was very worried about the repercussions relating to safety of children if, through no fault of the proprietor of the shop, customers park irresponsibly near the zebra crossing.
If there are other people out there who are as equally disturbed as Mr Harwin, and perhaps feel it is time for some new and younger blood on the council, please contact me on 07939 559764.
Coun Angela Newton
Independent member for Spalding Monks House and county councillor for Spalding West
