Agenda item

The Sub-Committee considered a report which sought permission to provide facilities on the highway in respect of The Porter.

The applicant was present and the objectors Sally Rothwell, Ian Perkins and Councillor Brian Webber were also present.

The Public Protection Officer presented the report and explained that permission was sought for 16 tables with appropriate seating (the same number as last year) and three planters outside the basement entrance.

The applicant put his case and confirmed the only change was the three planters by the basement entrance.  The numbers of tables had been reduced last year and he had received no further complaints.  His employees started work each day with a checklist of things to do and further problems had been eradicated.  The lower pavement tended to be used for wheelie bins.  There had been no objection from highways.

Questions followed and the applicant confirmed that the lower entrance was very crowded on Thursday/Friday/Saturday.  There were barriers in front of the entrance and a doorman.  They encouraged smokers to use the upper pavement.  The number of tables applied for was confirmed as 16.  With regard to affecting residential amenity the applicant stated that there were no residents above the premises.  He ensured the area was kept tidy and they were very child friendly.

Objectors case

Sally Rothwell stated that the Ported had improved greatly since the new owner.  However the tables were sometimes put out earlier and left out later.  the pavement was very narrow and there was an A board so sometimes people had to step into the road which was busy.  The tables and chairs at the front of the premises caused a real problem and the planters would cause a problem on the lower pavement due to the large numbers using the lower entrance and it was an accident waiting to happen.

Ian Perkins confirmed that the Porter was better run than previously.  He had been pleased when Moles had stopped using the lower entrance which was opposite his property.  The traffic came round very fast at that point and to have planters would reduce the space which was already limited, as there were already problems there.

Councillor Brian Webber stated that he objected to the tables and chairs on the upper pavement at the front of the premises.  He liked the 'cafe society' however the owners had to consider the pedestrian traffic.  He was aware there was no highways objection.  George Street was very busy with little space to move and at that point there was also the restriction by the railings.

Summing up

The objectors briefly summed up their cases.

The applicant stated that the tables and chairs were stacked ready to put out at the appointed times.  He was aware that Moles had changed the entrance but since he had taken over barriers were now used to help the situation.  the planters did not take up much room and there had been no highways objection.

The Legal Adviser stated that the Sub-Committee should consider the application in highway terms and whether there was an obstruction, hazard or nuisance caused.  Amenity was a planning issue.

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that the application for permission to provide facilities on the highway in respect of The Porter - be granted in respect of the tables and chairs and be refused in respect of the three planters.

Reasons for decision

Members have determined an application to place 16 tables with appropriate seating, boundary markers and 3 planters on the highway.  In doing so they took account of the Highways Act and balanced the representations from objectors against the application and its background.

Members noted the application was a renewal of the tables, chairs and boundary markers to the front and side of the premises together with 3 planters on the highway outside the premises’ basement entrance.  In reaching a determination members had to decide whether the application was likely to obstruct the free passage of pedestrians, cause a public nuisance in highway terms or be a hazard in its real sense.

Objectors accepted the premises were an improvement in the area.  However, they stated the pavement was narrow and the use of the tables caused noise and nuisance issues.  Members noted that the use of the existing permit had not been subject of complaint or incident and no objection to the application had been made by the Highways Authority.

In all the circumstances therefore members considered that, as there had been no material change in the table, chair and boundary marker application this would be granted.  The matter therefore falls to be decided on 3 planters. Members considered that the planters in this area, whilst they might tidy up the look of the area, were likely to be hazardous in highway terms as people might have cause to step into a live carriage way at busy periods.  Accordingly this part of the application was refused.