Hi! Well I went to the pub earlier tonight and spoke to the landlord etc. I also had the opportunity to read the letter the Council had actually sent banning smoking in that outside but covered area. The phrase they use is 'substantially enclosed'. I don't know at this point how specific the guidelines are in the Act they quote - but will look into that. At the same time will write to Haringey Council to ask their precision around 'substantially enclosed'. If they are within the letter and spirit of the new Act - then it will be a matter of the pub working with the Council to try and make an acceptable adaptation. The pub have clearly spent quite a lot of money and effort to create a decent exterior for smokers. I am sure local residents are pleased that the Pub has made such arrangements - thus stopping the smokers just having to hang outside the pub. Richard Wilson and Ed Butcher - both local LibDem Stroud Green councillors came with me - and whilst we were there - we had a very nice drink too!
I'd say I like some impacts of the smoking ban (in clubs and concert venues for instance), but also think that some happy medium needs to be reached - smokers get enough grief as it is, without being completely ostracised from every social venue. They'll be coming for our beer next...
Is there ever any point working to have laws such as this revoked or reworked? It seems a good number of 'right thinking folk' consider it draconian that politicians and unelected medical people get to decide what's best for us, rather than just running services for us?
I will tell you what is really sad here in Salt Lake City, is that they sell 2.3 beer here. You can get the real thing in a restaurant, but you have to order food after the first drink. Bars are alittle different...but the 2.3 beer reall sucks. Oh yeah and there is no smoking in any restaurants but u can in some bars.
Firstly, I should state I don't smoke. But isn't this saga so sadly predictable? If the council wants to enforce it, then the Fullback is probably a long way from the letter of the law, ie three walls, percentage of open roof etc.
However, it has spent a considerable amount of money, time and imagination in coming up with something that means it can comply with the law to stop people smoking in the pub, while still offering many of its customers what they want - the chance to go to the pub and have a cigarette.
The Fullback is a proper pub. Whether it's your cup of tea or not, there's no denying it has a regular local clientele and does well for itself. Pre-ban I seem to remember an awful lot of those people smoking. Post ban, I don't see any more people rushing in to take advantage of the smoke free atmosphere.
Non smokers now have the whole pub and the upstairs bit which is properly outside, the only bit they could want to avoid is the downstairs bit of the garden. I'm sure anyone wanting to avoid smoke that badly could just choose another area.
But nope, that's not enough for Haringey council. It has already stopped people doing the classic London pub thing and standing out on the street in the sunshine with a pint since the smoking ban, as they used to be able to.
I'm impressed by Lynne looking at this, please consider the spirit of the pub's alterations rather than the letter of the law.
Taff, you're letting the Park Tavern is great secret out
As I understand it the drinking on the pavement / in the street outside a pub thing, which always seems a particular London characteristic, is tolerated but not legal.
Pubs will have a certain agreed boundary with the council, or not. Theoretically you should stay within this. Typically it spills over and is generally tolerated but the council can crack down and threaten the pub.
I always recall quite a few people standing out in Perth / Ennis Road with a pint in the evening sunshine and have done it myself. Round about the time the smoking ban came in, and maybe when the garden was turned into an ewok village, the pub stopped people doing this and I was told it was because the council had told them it was no longer allowed.
Presumable the Fullback has no front outside permitted area, as the pavement is narrow, although as it's on the meeting point of two quiet roads, I didn't ever see how this was a problem.
Stop harassing Lynne. She's on her summer vacation. She's got only six weeks of her twelve week break remaining. Leave her to enjoy her time away from the office.
ferg932 - Hi - it took a while to get a response and it's not a response that will bring much joy to the pub.
Anyway - here is the text of their response to me. Given we are dealing with planning law - don't think there is much to be done other than the pub arguing its case when the retrospective planning application comes up for decision. Best Lynne
Dear Lynne Featherstone MP
Re: Size regulations for outside covered smoking areas for public houses: The Faltering Fullback, Stroud Green Road
Thank you for your email dated 08 September 2009 regarding the above premises.
The Enforcement officer involved in this public house’s case has confirmed that the “outside covered area” on the ground floor of the garden does not comply with the smoke free legislation.
The officer visited the premises and a letter was sent confirming the actions that were required to be taken by the proprietors of the premises. In the letter the officer confirmed that the area was deemed to be “substantially enclosed”.
The guidelines state that premises are “substantially enclosed” if they have a ceiling or roof, but there are permanent openings in the walls which are less than half of the total areas of walls, including other structures which serve the purpose of walls and constitute the perimeter of the premises. This is known as the 50% rule, put simply:
If more than 50% of the walls are present then it is illegal to smoke in the area.
A roof includes any fixed or moveable structure such as a canvas awning.
In the officer’s opinion, the area on the ground floor cannot be altered to be compliant as the roof acts as the flooring of the mezzanine level. If the proprietor believes that the area can be altered then we would suggest he provides the officer with a scaled plan of the area showing the changes / alterations to be made.
In regards to your query concerning the planning application, our Planning Service confirms that a retrospective planning application was received on 26 August 2009 which is receiving attention. As part of the planning consultation, we would be advising that the structure as drawn is not compliant with the legislation and guidance under the Health Act 2006.
I trust the above is of assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks for posting that Lynne.
I do hate this sort of legislation, regardless of whether it's to the letter or not. The smoking ban was to my mind about getting smoke out of the pubs. The fullback worked hard to keep in business by accommodating smokers outside. This area is now considered inside by a technicality. The pub is entirely smokeless inside now and this sort of nitpicking really _grinds my gears_. The ban achieved what it set out to do but then proceeds to encroach further where it can simply because it can.
The signs and copies of the council letter seem to have vanished too, so maybe someone pointed out what arses the council were being, or maybe it's just civil disobedience. Either way, good work.
It's not the original "village", only the extension up and over the roof that went up last year. It was actually the extension that I think caused the smoking ban problem, because it made the old decking so covered over that it became an indoors area.
Why not just ban smoking in all public places and get this minefield over with? Everyone's jumping through hoops to please council and residents, yet cannot please anyone.
Comments
I'd say I like some impacts of the smoking ban (in clubs and concert venues for instance), but also think that some happy medium needs to be reached - smokers get enough grief as it is, without being completely ostracised from every social venue. They'll be coming for our beer next...
Is there ever any point working to have laws such as this revoked or reworked? It seems a good number of 'right thinking folk' consider it draconian that politicians and unelected medical people get to decide what's best for us, rather than just running services for us?
*impressed*
However, it has spent a considerable amount of money, time and imagination in coming up with something that means it can comply with the law to stop people smoking in the pub, while still offering many of its customers what they want - the chance to go to the pub and have a cigarette.
The Fullback is a proper pub. Whether it's your cup of tea or not, there's no denying it has a regular local clientele and does well for itself. Pre-ban I seem to remember an awful lot of those people smoking. Post ban, I don't see any more people rushing in to take advantage of the smoke free atmosphere.
Non smokers now have the whole pub and the upstairs bit which is properly outside, the only bit they could want to avoid is the downstairs bit of the garden. I'm sure anyone wanting to avoid smoke that badly could just choose another area.
But nope, that's not enough for Haringey council. It has already stopped people doing the classic London pub thing and standing out on the street in the sunshine with a pint since the smoking ban, as they used to be able to.
I'm impressed by Lynne looking at this, please consider the spirit of the pub's alterations rather than the letter of the law.
Taff, you're letting the Park Tavern is great secret out
Pubs will have a certain agreed boundary with the council, or not. Theoretically you should stay within this. Typically it spills over and is generally tolerated but the council can crack down and threaten the pub.
I always recall quite a few people standing out in Perth / Ennis Road with a pint in the evening sunshine and have done it myself. Round about the time the smoking ban came in, and maybe when the garden was turned into an ewok village, the pub stopped people doing this and I was told it was because the council had told them it was no longer allowed.
Presumable the Fullback has no front outside permitted area, as the pavement is narrow, although as it's on the meeting point of two quiet roads, I didn't ever see how this was a problem.
Anyway - here is the text of their response to me. Given we are dealing with planning law - don't think there is much to be done other than the pub arguing its case when the retrospective planning application comes up for decision.
Best
Lynne
Dear Lynne Featherstone MP
Re: Size regulations for outside covered smoking areas for public houses: The Faltering Fullback, Stroud Green Road
Thank you for your email dated 08 September 2009 regarding the above premises.
The Enforcement officer involved in this public house’s case has confirmed that the “outside covered area” on the ground floor of the garden does not comply with the smoke free legislation.
The officer visited the premises and a letter was sent confirming the actions that were required to be taken by the proprietors of the premises. In the letter the officer confirmed that the area was deemed to be “substantially enclosed”.
The guidelines state that premises are “substantially enclosed” if they have a ceiling or roof, but there are permanent openings in the walls which are less than half of the total areas of walls, including other structures which serve the purpose of walls and constitute the perimeter of the premises. This is known as the 50% rule, put simply:
If more than 50% of the walls are present then it is illegal to smoke in the area.
A roof includes any fixed or moveable structure such as a canvas awning.
In the officer’s opinion, the area on the ground floor cannot be altered to be compliant as the roof acts as the flooring of the mezzanine level. If the proprietor believes that the area can be altered then we would suggest he provides the officer with a scaled plan of the area showing the changes / alterations to be made.
In regards to your query concerning the planning application, our Planning Service confirms that a retrospective planning application was received on 26 August 2009 which is receiving attention. As part of the planning consultation, we would be advising that the structure as drawn is not compliant with the legislation and guidance under the Health Act 2006.
I trust the above is of assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Regards
Robin Payne
Head of Enforcement
Haringey Council
<img src="http://freakytrigger.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ewok.jpg" width=200>
There are people under 30 who barely remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.
<img src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/scary.png" width=425>