Agenda and draft minutes

To report any changes to the Membership of the Sub Committee.

The membership of the sub-committee consisted of Councillors Andrew Scarth (Chair), Tony Humphreys and Narinder Sian.

To receive declarations by Members and Officers of the existence of any pecuniary interests or any other significant interest in matters on this Agenda.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To consider the application for a new premises licence for 3-5 Station Approach, Chorleywood, WD3 5ND.

The Chair asked the applicant to put their case to the Sub-Committee.

Stephen Ross representing the applicant, thanked the Sub-Committee for reconvening the Hearing and that the applicant could not be present due to work commitments. Stephen Ross explained that the new restaurant would primarily be a premium restaurant with a calm ambience. The long hours applied for was to maximise trade and appeal to the commuters from the train station opposite the premises. Customers would be reminded to keep noise to a minimum and encouraged to pre-order taxis from the taxi office opposite the premises. The staff would all be trained to a high, professional level.

Stephen Ross informed the Sub-Committee that the applicant was withdrawing the request to play live/recorded music at the premises. The Sub-Committee’s legal representative confirmed that the request to play music was being withdrawn and it was confirmed that it was.

The Chair asked Interested Parties to put their case to the Sub-Committee.

Parish Councillor Debbie Rosario, Interested Party, objecting, put the case forward on behalf of the Chorleywood Parish Council. She was reminded that she could only refer to the 5 points made of Chorleywood Parish Councils valid objections.

The points that were put forward included the following:

·       The Parish Council were pleased to hear that the applicant was withdrawing the request for live/recoded music.

·       The requested opening hours were very long.

·       The premises was a bank and was now an office. An application for a nursery had been refused.

·       Concerns were raised by residents about the noise that would be created as the premises had requested hours from 9am to 1am.

·       There were 40 residential properties around the premises, and these would be affected by the noise pollution.

·       The premises windows were single glazed.

The following questions were asked to the Applicant by the Interested Party:

·       Was a noise assessment carried out? The applicant responded that the venue would be a high-end restaurant, not a nightclub. The late timings were for attracting commuters from the train station and private events. A noise assessment had been carried out as had been requested by environmental team for the extraction from the premises. This was completed and high-quality equipment will be installed to omit smells.

·       There was a concern that the noise exiting the building had not been examined when full, but the applicant pointed out that the building was a bank, so had thick walls. The nearest neighbour was 7m away with no windows on that side, only a stairwell.

·       Had the applicant considered the air pollution with smoking outside the restaurant? The applicant clarified that there was no reason to go near the residences, there would be a smoking area to the front of the restaurant and a host to manage the area.

·       Were the long hours necessary? The applicant commented that the hours had been requested to cater for a takeaway service, a lunchtime service, commuters and maybe a breakfast option.

The following questions were asked to the Applicant by the Members:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.