Forum topic: Planning permission denied for local cafe

There is some confusion here. What follows is my understanding of the situation, which I have to say is difficult to disentangle. So if anyone knows better, please comment accordingly.

Planning permission and licensing are strangely enough separate matters with separate rules and can be in conflict.

Planning permission is about the built or natural environment. In this case there were three aspects to the planning application, only one was about changes to the building. The others were about use of the pavement in Lakeside Road, and the proximity to other cafes, which is limited under a basic planning policy adopted by Enfield in 2014. All aspects were refused in July 2016. I don’t know what will happen next about this; so far as I can see it is up to the applicant to appeal. This has to be directly related to the grounds for the refusal. Neither do I know what would happen if there is no appeal or an appeal fails.

Licensing is about hours and conditions of operating. Starfish have applied for a significant extension of opening hours which currently end at 10pm, to end at midnight on four nights week, half-past midnight on one night and 1.30 am on two nights. The proposal is that the alcohol licence starts at 10 am rather than as now noon (11 am at weekends). This will end 30 minutes before these proposed later closing times rather than 9.30pm as now. That is not to say that these hours will inevitably be used, just that they could be. The licence condition says that the tables and chairs have to be cleared from the pavement by 8pm. These are the ones for which there is no planning permission…..

Comments on the licence application are due by 10 November according to the LBE website, though the press notice says 28 days from the date of the (undated) notice which appeared in the press on 26 October. Make of that what you can.

However, whatever happens about the licence application, it won’t change the planning situation. If the extended hours are agreed by the licensing authority, the planning permission will still be lacking pending a successful appeal, and submissions to the licensing authority can't change that.

At least that's my interpretation.

Can I point out that the fundamental problem is caused by the 2014 Development Management Document which is against the change of use. The other issues don't prevent Starfish operating as now so conservation is not the main problem. And since it seems to be being reported that "local conservation" has been defeated in a court case, can I say yet again that there was no court case (there was a licensing committee hearing) and that the Lakes Conservation Group had nothing to say about the licensing application.