Agenda item

Committee to determine an application for a new premises licence report ENV906 from the Licensing Officer.

Decision

That the Premise Licence for the Riverside, Wharf Road, Stamford be granted as applied for subject to an additional condition being added in respect of not playing any type of music on the outside platform.

The Chairman introduced those present and confirmed who would be speaking in respect of the application before the Committee. In respect of the Premises Licence for The Riverside,  Paul Warren-Cox spoke on behalf of Inga Bliumina and her partner Dmitrij who were the applicants. Interested parties were Carly Guppy and Aaron Mildren.

One Member questioned whether the application should be deferred due to the Planning Permission to be determined and it was confirmed that the Premises Licence was completely separate to a Planning application and there was no reason for the Committee not to determine the Premise licence application before them.

The Licensing Officer presented report ENV906 which concerned an application for a new premises licence for The Riverside, Wharf Road, Stamford.  The application was for the following:

•         Live Music Indoors; Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 00:00

•         Recorded Music Indoors; Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 00:00 and outdoors; Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 22:00

•         Provision of Late Night Refreshment Indoors; Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 23:59

•         Supply of alcohol on the Premise only; Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 00:00

•         Opening hours;  Monday to Sunday 10:00 to 00:30

•         Extension of hours for activities for New Years Eve into New Years Day

The premises had previously been licensed as a nightclub and although had been the subject of a review instigated by Lincolnshire Police, this had been in respect of a failed test purchase taking place and not down to noise disturbance. 

During the consultation period the authority received a number of representations and comments on behalf of members of the public and these were appended at Appendix 2.  The reasons for the representations included concerns regarding noise disturbance travelling from across the river to the residential houses or nearby residents and the potential use of the balcony area and safety concerns for the sale and consumption of alcohol located by the river. No representations had been received from any of the responsible authorities.

A location plan and correspondence between the applicant’s representative and the residents was appended to the report at Appendix 3. A further representation had been made but was not accepted, as it was outside of the timeframe for making representations.

Licensing Officers have delegated authority to decide whether a representation is relevant, vexatious, or frivolous however, Section 9 of the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 states:

9.9 It is recommended that, in borderline cases, the benefit of the doubt about any aspect of a representation should be given to the person making that representation. The Subsequent hearing would then provide an opportunity for the person or body making the representation to amplify and clarify it.

It was felt that the representations at Appendix 2 did not fall within the delegation to Licensing Officers and that the application was referred to Committee. The Licensing Officer then read out paragraph 3.7 and 4.2 of the report. The statutory consultation period had taken place between 17 April – 16 May 2025.

A comment was made by Mr Aaron Mildren, one of the interested parties, in respect of confusion of the timings stated on different documents that he had seen and it was felt that the consultation period had not been sufficient for the general public to make representation. The Licensing Officer made reference to an initial premises licence application which had since been amended with revised timings. Information had been sent in an email to Carly Guppy which had inadvertently not contained the revised timings. Further discussion followed on how incorrect information had been circulated to residents. The Legal Advisor asked for clarity from the Licensing Officer in respect of the statutory notice published and the timings shown. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the statutory notice had shown the correct timings as per the premise licence before the Committee.

The Applicants representative Mr Warren-Cox then spoke in support of the application and referred to how he had been involved with the licence and the restrictions in respect of the planning permission issued in 2017 in respect of the building which was a Grade II listed building. The premises had previously been a nightclub and it was reiterated that no representations had been made from the responsible authorities in respect of noise pollution. The premise licence was for a restaurant and the applicants wished to work with residents not against them.

Questions were asked of Mr Warren-Cox in respect of the building layout and also the playing of outside amplified music on the platform and the Planning Permission issued in 2017.  The Licensing Officer responded in respect of what was classed as amplified music which required a licence and what was classed as background music.

Further comments were made about communication between Mr Warren-Cox and the residents in the area following which Mr Warren-Cox stated that the applicants were happy to include an additional condition which excluded any music being played on the platform.

More comments were made by Members in respect of the premises location and the doors of the premise to which Mr Warren-Cox responded.

Mr Aaron Mildren, an interested party then made his representation and stated that they were disappointed that no consultation had taken place with the residents by the applicants. He expressed concern about the platform and although he had no issues with the premise being run as a restaurant he did have concerns in relation to the number of diners that would be on the platform and the noise that would be generated by having 36 diners which due to the location would travel over the water and be amplified.  Why would 36 covers be necessary. Mr Mildren also referred to the 2017 Planning Permission in respect of the platform and felt that further control was required in respect of the noise pollution that would be generated.

Carly Guppy then made representation on behalf of Jane Parry who could not be present at the meeting. Reference was made to the timings applied for when the restaurant would be open and the noise that would be generated, the impact on the wildlife on the river due to noise pollution from the restaurant which the river amplified and the potential noise from speakers being put on the platform.

Mr Mildren referred to the use of the platform with concern being expressed that it would be used for drinking, smoking, and wanted assurance that it would only be used for dining and he felt that alcohol should be ancillary to the food being bought. He referred to the Pizza Express restaurant which only had two people per table and was close to his residence and that this generated less noise and felt 36 diners were too many and should be reduced to two per table and that any type of music should not be allowed to be played on the platform.

Mr Warren-Cox made reference to noise pollution and reverse transmission of noise and although his clients would like to place barriers to help with noise, no permanent structures were allowed due to the building being listed.

A Member of the Committee asked if the interested parties present would be happy if no music was played on the platform. The interested parties felt that the number of people and the noise generated from them would cause noise pollution and felt that tables of two would be more relevant.

The Licensing Officer gave their closing statement. Each application was to be determined on its own merits. Having regard to the representations made the Committee take such steps that are appropriate to promote the four licensing objectives. The options available to the Committee were:

-        Grant the application subject to conditions that are consistent with the operating schedule modified to the extent that the committee considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and any mandatory conditions that must be included under the Licensing Act 2003

-        Exclude from the scope of the licence a licensable activity to which the application relates.

-        Refuse to specify a person in the licence as a Premises Supervisor (DPS)

-        Reject the whole or part of the application.

Mr Warren-Cox then gave their closing statement and stated that they were happy to work with the residents in the area but reducing the covers per table to two would be prohibitive and would stop families attending the premise. Also as it was a Grade II listed building, this did limit what could be done in respect of any acoustic work. Mr Warren-Cox also stated that no smoking or drinking would take place on the platform it would only be used by those dining.

Mr Mildren, one of the interested parties, stated that they were not against the Premises Licence but were concerned about the noise generated by the number of diners on the platform which would be amplified by the water and asked that tables on the platform be reduce to two diners rather than four.

(11:00am the Licensing Officers, applicants and interested parties left the meeting)

The Committee considered the new premise licence for The Riverside having regard to all relevant guidance under the Licensing Act 2003 and policies including the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy together with the representations made. The Committee noted the concerns of the interested parties in respect of noise but felt the offered additional condition by the applicants in respect of not playing music outside on the platform would help mitigate noise and it was noted that no responsible authority had submitted any representation in respect of the premise. Members felt that reducing the number of covers to two per table was not reasonable as it would exclude families from dinning at the premise. Further discussion followed in respect of the location of the premise and dining out on the platform and it was stated that the Planning Permission issued in June 2017 had a condition which stopped the platform being used after 10pm at night and this overrode anything within a premise licence. It was proposed, seconded and agreed to grant the premise licence subject to the additional condition being added in respect of not playing any type of music on the platform.

(11:15 the Licensing Officers, applicant and interested parties returned to the meeting)

The Legal Advisor ready out the Committee’s decision.

The Committee had taken into consideration the report made by the Licensing Officer, the appendices and the representations made by the objectors and applicant together with the Licensing Act 2003 and Regulations made under it, the Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Councils Statement of Licensing Policy.

The applicant presented their application and during the presentation agreed to the total exclusion of music on the balcony. The applicant advised that the building was listed and there were restrictions on what could be done with the building. The balcony would not be used for smoking or drinking and you could only be out there if you were dining out there. In respect of tables the applicants wished to retain tables of 4 to allow families to dine. The applicants also advised that the windows were fixed and did not open with the only access being through a door.

The Committee heard from the objectors who expressed concerns regarding noise from the premises, such noise being amplified over water. Further concerns were raised that the balcony/platform would be used as a smoking area or drinking area causing noise nuisance, and that the suggestion of 36 diners on tables of 4 on the balcony would cause noise nuisance. The objectors advised that they currently could hear people across the water

The Committee considered all options available to them. The Committee decided to grant the licence with the inclusion of  a condition to exclude all music from the outside balcony. The Committee were of the view that the conditions would alleviate any potential issues regarding noise nuisance and they were satisfied that the licence, considering the conditions offered, promoted the licensing objectives. 

There was a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the licence decision being received.