Over five months ago Cheshire East Council (CEC) vowed to get tough on two village restaurants that have built outdoor seating areas on land that belongs to the Council, without obtaining their permission.
In May Cheshire East Council issued Yara and Konak with 30 days notice to remove the outdoor seating areas from the public highway, otherwise they would remove it for them - but no action has been taken as yet.
Speaking in June Councillor Rod Menlove, Cabinet member in charge of the environment, told alderleyedge.com "The owners of Konak were given 30 days notice to remove the seating area as it is considered to be an obstruction of the highway, contrary to the Highways Act 1980.
"Furthermore, they do not have planning permission and they have not applied for a licence in accordance with the Council's alfresco policy. The paved area outside these premises is public highway.
"If the seating area is not removed, the Council will arrange to remove it and recharge the cost. We have also written to Yara for the same reasons."
The issue of these two unlawful alfresco seating areas was raised at this week's Parish Council meeting by Cllr Mary Maczkowiak.
She said "The two restaurants in the village were given 30 days to take them down, they then tried to get planning permission. It's a restrictive pavement there, where's the enforcement?"
Cllr Mike Williamson told fellow councillors "I have an email trail going back 4 months with the officer concerned, their final decision was that they won't take enforcement action as they haven't agreed the alfresco policy and until they have done that and established a council policy they think if they go to court they'll lose."
Cllr Frank Keegan responded "That is an incredibly stupid thing for Cheshire East to say because for one of the issues for one of restaurants is there is no DDA access and DDA has been agreed by all councils for many years so to say they haven't agreed a policy is nonsense."
Cllr Joseph Bergin said "It raises questions of integrity because why are those officers not prepared to do what they should be doing. It raises question marks, are there other alternative factors?"
He added "A disability group can prosecute, it is clear breach, they can be fined, they can be taken to court, that is against the law they are discriminating against disabled people it is absolutely wrong."
I have requested an update from Cheshire East Council regarding these outdoor seating areas.
What do you think of the seating areas outside Konak and Yara? Should they be removed by Cheshire East Council or be kept?
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
I agree that it's also unfair to other businesses that have adhered to the law.
Why don't diners at the restaurants complain to the owners and give them the message?
At the end of the day, it's up to the Council to enforce their own rules as it's absolutely no use for the Council to send out 30 day Notices, then do nothing about it when it's not done.
Once again, a pretty useless and inefficient load of Councillors. We empower the Councillors to work on our behalf, so why are they not doing so ?
Either the restaurants are legally entitled to use this space, or they are not. If they are, why would you issue a threat? If they are not, why don't you act when they cock a snook at your threat?
If so, why are they required to be authorised by the Council to put seats there in the first place if, as you say, they own that particular area ? .......... Doesn't make sense.
Whatever the reason, these businesses have a damned cheek in extending their area onto a public footpath, without any thought for passers-by and without agreement from the Council.
Various buildings along London Rd. have a curtilage over a part of the pavement i.e. the building 'owns' a part of the pavement. There is no consistent single amount; it seems to vary from building to building.So some buildings/shops do have a right to build on the pavement whilst others do not.The shops between Clifton St. and Stevens St. have the narrowest curtilage, especially numbers 27a to 35 London Rd. Those between Stevens St. and Chapel Rd. have the widest/deepest.
One tale I was told is that the curtilage is from when the buildings were inhabited houses and the curtilage represents what was the old small front garden (not sure I believe that, but there y' go).
Perhaps one of you lawyers might explain further?
http://bit.ly/QiifPP
The file is 5mb so might take a little while to load.