Comments

• I'm sure like myself other readers of this website don't want it used as a battlefield between individuals or organisations, it's boring and isn't really what I think this website is about. But just to dot the 'i' and cross the 't' - here's what I wrote to the magistrates court when we complained about the granting of the licence.

  "At the onset of the Licensing Committee meeting the Chairman announced that he would only consider written and verbal objections to the application, from parties who lived within a radius of 150 metres of the premises. He then invited the applicants' representative to speak. Almost immediately the representative handed a map to the Chairman indicating the homes of the objectors that fell within and outside, this 150 metre boundary. The Chairman referred to a list he had of names and addresses of the objectors, and announced he would only accept representations from 22 of the 89 objectors based upon this 150 metre boundary. He also immediately dismissed one objection from a resident within the boundary but who is currently working abroad. A local Councillor (objecting on behalf of residents) asked the Chairman why he had decided on this apparently arbitrary figure, given community concerns over the possible individual and cumulative effects of a successful application. The explanation was that he based his figure on a distance set by a Licensing Committee in respect of a totally unrelated case in the North of England, regarding a Wetherspoon pub.

  Having read the 2003 Act and its guidelines, whilst the use of the word 'vicinity' is not defined in terms of distance for those persons entitled to make a representation against an application, its intent is clear. Each application should be considered on its own merit - and certainly not pre-decided by an unrelated application. My understanding of the 2003 Act is, that it put licensing decisions into the hands of local authorities on the basis that members of their licensing committee would have better 'local' knowledge of how an application might affect a particular area or community. The intent also being, that local Authorities should reach its definition of 'vicinity' with "common sense and in relation to the individuals living and working in the neighbourhood, or the area immediately surrounding the premises".

  My other concern is, that it was perfectly obvious the applicants' representative had previously known about, or played a part in suggesting this 150 metre boundary, as they produced a map showing the homes of the objectors in relation to this boundary and the Chairman already had a list of people that fell within that boundary.

  My intention in making this Appeal is that at the very least the Court asks the Local Authority to reconvene the Licensing Committee who should follow the procedure intended in the Act. In my view over 60 residents (who met all the stipulated requirements in their written objections) were disenfranchised from their right to object in the manner intended by the 2003 Act. 'Common sense' was not shown by the Licensing Committee by initiating a 487ft boundary for complaints about a venue destined to support 180 patrons. With one exception all those residents live within 1500ft of the venue. Given that the contentious nature of this application was such that it attracted more written objections than any other licensing application has ever done in St Margarets, it seems incongruous that nearly two thirds of objections were dismissed in such a cavalier fashion that went against both the spirit and intent of the 2003 Licensing Act.

  Whether the Council or the Magistrates Court were to reach the same decision again is immaterial, what is more important is how that decision is reached."

  From that you'll see that I was misquoted in the second paragraph of the letter sent to me by Neil Macdonald. Whilst I can accept a misquote in a private letter, I find it harder to accept a misquote in public correspondence, so I would appreciate an apology from Neil please.

  I might as well make this contribution even longer by re-iterating my own personal objections to the enterprise. When this project was first proposed the entrance to the wine bar would have been in the mews in Broadway Avenue. This was recognised by the Council as being unacceptable and the applicants withdrew these plans, and as probably most of you know by now the current plans are for the entrance to be beside Street's the greengrocers, and be based under Tescos - with a capacity for 180 people. And that's my problem, it's too big. If it was 40,50 or even 60 people - I might not like it there, but I'd find it difficult to object. If you're open 7 days a week 365 days a year, you cannot sustain a venue of this size and proposed quality without a large amount of business coming from corporate hospitality - that's an economic fact. It will not primarily be "an appropriate social amenity for the needs of the local community". And I've got my quote right.

  Harry Jacobs on 2006-12-09 11:15:44 +0000

• Anyone who takes the time to read Harry's application above can see that he has been misquoted in the solicitors letter. I too think he deserves an apology.

  Louise on 2006-12-10 19:40:52 +0000

• I see that Parvinu have submitted a planning application for their/the new Streets fascia, though full details are not yet available on the LB Richmond site.

  David bertram on 2006-12-14 10:39:38 +0000