Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police.
Dan Cook, Licensing Officer, declared a personal interest in the second item (Halfway Hotel) and was replaced for the duration of that item by the Senior Licensing Officer.
Present: Applicant: Robert Collingborn Responsible Authorities: PC Jason Jones (South Wales Police) Rhys Morgan (Licensing Enforcement) The Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from Robert James Collingborn in respect of 8 The Friary, Cardiff, CF10 3FA. The applicant applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the premises. (ii) The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of live music (indoors) and recorded music (indoors). (iii) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors). (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “Pedestrian fronting unit, Cardiff City Centre, on the Friary next to The Live Lounge, self contained unit with no external areas save for access to a rear enclosed smoking area”. (3) Unless otherwise indicated the premises may be open to the public during the following hours and for any hours consequential to the non-standard timings: Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 03:00 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 03:00 hours (ii) The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of live music (indoors) and recorded music (indoors): Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 03:00 hours (iii) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors): Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 03:00 hours Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he owned and managed Live Lounge next door, which would make it easier to manage the new premises effectively. His intention was to provide somewhere in the city centre for an older audience (specifically over 30s) who weren’t necessarily catered to in Cardiff to have a drink and a dance. He had noticed that older people sometimes felt pushed out later at night when the students arrived in town for their night out, and wanted to offer them an alternative nearby. He understood the importance of the cumulative impact zones but felt it was a positive application in the city centre’s interest, and was happy to answer any questions on it. He acknowledged the concern from the Licensing Authority that it might become another Live Lounge, with hundreds of young people partying into the early hours, but reassured the Sub Committee that this was not his intention. Responsible Authority Representations PC Jason Jones addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of South Wales Police, noting that he had met with the applicant at the premises in May and discussed his plans. He was hoping to carry through music and atmosphere from Live Lounge next door, with open windows between the two, which was a concern from a policing perspective as items could be passed back and forth between the premises, and people could climb through from one to the other. PC Jones explained that the premises fell within the red category of Cardiff Council’s cumulative impact policy (CIP), and in these cases the onus was on the applicant to show that their application was exceptional and would differ from other late night premises. The over 30s aspect was unique, but the applicant had said that if an older crowd didn’t show up then they would allow younger people in. Live Lounge next door was very busy, and it seemed likely that people queuing to get in there would just go next door if it were too busy. He could not fault the applicant as an operator, having worked closely with him before, but an increase in capacity of up to 150 intoxicated patrons in a red CIP area was a significant concern. He had discussed potential conditions with the applicant alongside the licensing authority, but they had not yet been able to finalise the specifics. Applicants were expected to provide positive proposals to show why their applications would not negatively contribute to the area, and he didn’t feel that this one had. PC Jones referred to an analysis of incidents and offences in this part of the city centre over an 18 month period, which found a high volume of offences compared to other areas. For example, Circuit (formerly Pryzm) had a much higher capacity than Live Lounge but fewer offences recorded. The applicant responded that this might be more to do with the general area rather than his premises: the street was a thoroughfare for people leaving the city centre, heading towards Cathays or going to the taxi rank or McDonalds. He actively helped to manage this area and reported any incidents to police. PC Jones acknowledged that the evidence did not solely attribute disorder to Live Lounge but clarified that it did refer to it as one of the key premises in the area. Rhys Morgan addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of Licensing Enforcement, noting that the applicant already managed the premises next door. The premises under consideration today used to be a wedding dress shop, and it was proposed that this be converted into a standalone premises with a slightly different offering for an older clientele, with a food offering extended from next door and a terminal hour of 3am, earlier than the neighbouring premises. He highlighted that the cumulative impact assessment put this premises in its current form in the red category. In such cases, they looked to the applicant to put forward additional measures to elevate the application in its current form. As the applicant already ran the premises next door, it should be relatively straightforward to deploy sufficient SIA and camera requirements, but these had not yet been agreed. The question for Members to consider was whether the application could be balanced with suitable, effective conditions that made it appropriate for the red CIP area. These might relate to floor space, opening hours and age-related entry. Discussion Members queried how the entrance policy would work in practice. The applicant explained that they wouldn’t ask people to leave but expected it to be a natural move. He found that older patrons of Live Lounge tended to leave later in the evening when the younger patrons arrived, and he felt that offering them a different kind of establishment next door would mean they went there instead. Door staff would make sure those entering were around the age they were looking for. They would always follow a Challenge 25 policy anyway but in this case could ensure people were 30. Members queried whether that was allowed under the Equality Act, and the applicant responded that he had always been advised that it was. Summing Up In summing up, the applicant suggested there may have been a misunderstanding regarding dropping the age limit at busy times. He had meant that at less busy times, for example during the week, anyone would be welcome to come in for a cocktail and some food. The premises would keep a stricter age policy at busy times. Decision The Sub Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter. The Sub Committee accepted that there are issues of crime and disorder within the area as outlined by the South Wales Police evidence and the Council’s Cumulative Impact Assessment which applied to this application. The Sub Committee carefully considered the applicant’s representation in relation to the premises being intended for an over 30 year old demographic. However, they felt that the proposed operating schedule provided insufficient detail that the premises would not be an extension of the operator’s current premises next door, and felt that this would add to the negative cumulative impact in the area. After considering all the relevant information, the Sub-Committee resolved to REFUSE the application.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police.
Present: Applicant: Jade Jackson (Designated Premises Supervisor) Michelle Hazlewood (Solicitor) Other Persons: Cllr Caro Wild (Ward Member) Ian Banks (Local Resident) Miriam Barry (Local Resident) The Application An application to vary a Premises Licence had been received from Marston’s Plc in respect of Halfway Hotel, 247 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9PP. The applicant applied for the following: (i) To amend the plan to incorporate within the licensed area an additional external area to the side of the premises. (ii) To amend condition 20 to remove reference to a ‘No Smoking at the Bar’ policy. (iii) To add permission for regulated entertainment in the form of the performance of dance during the following hours: Sunday to Thursday: 10:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 10:00 to 00:30 hours (iv) To remove the hours specified restricting the sale of alcohol on Christmas Day. Applicant Representations Michelle Hazlewood addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of the applicant, explaining that Marston’s Plc had bought the SA Brains estate a few years ago and was gradually working through different sites. There was some work to be done at the Halfway, principally to the external area, but this application did not fundamentally change the nature of the premises at all. It was a traditional public house, an established institution at the heart of the community which was regularly used by the rugby club and for parties. It had a good food offer which it was expanding to bring in more families and even out the split between wet and dry sales. Outlining the application, she noted that it could be split into four parts, only one of which people seemed to have any objection to. The first restriction they were asking to have lifted was regarding to Christmas Day, specifically removing some antiquated wording which related to a piece of legislation from 1964. The second change was to remove a condition which prohibited smoking in front of the bar, which was of course banned in this country anyway. The applicant’s third request was around the licensable activity of performance of dance. She noted that the premises had always had a regular live music offer which naturally involved dance at various points, but they wanted that licensable activity to be specifically added to aid clarity. This would not impact the hours of operation, and they would continue to follow the current permissions for other items of regulated entertainment. She noted that the residents’ objections related entirely to the fourth part of the application, which was the plan to bring a small existing external area into the licenced area, between the skittle alley and outbuildings. This new area sat alongside the premises and had historically been used for parking and as a bin store, and they had identified an opportunity to create another small external space to use on nice days. The space would fit four traditional pub benches, with an occupancy of 16 to 20 people. She added that South Wales Police had raised concerns about this when they first applied, although there was no record of crime or disorder there. SWP didn’t want the space to become a pop-up bar location which could become an easy access point for alcohol for people passing on the street. In response to this, they had agreed a condition confirming that they would not put a pop-up bar there. She acknowledged concerns from residents about the smell of cigarette smoke and emphasised that it would be a no smoking area. They intended to create a slightly different environment to the courtyard, which was a more traditional pub operation, and also add some low lighting and plants, which would both add to the atmosphere and stop people leaning against the walls. The DPS had put real thought into this application to ensure it was a nice space which wouldn’t have an adverse impact on local residents. She added that this additional external area would close at 11pm, earlier than the rest of the premises, and appropriate signage would be provided to make this clear. She acknowledged objections from local residents but stressed that there was no plan to change the overall operation of the premises. The Halfway had a good track record of responding to what residents wanted and needed, and this was a controlled, contained space which would benefit the operation of the premises without negatively impacting residents in the immediate vicinity She also responded to a number of videos which had been provided by residents. Regarding a video of the day-to-day functioning of the pub, she suggested that the noise levels were within normal parameters for a premises with an external area, and noted that no objection had been received from Environmental Health. Another video recorded around 11pm had virtually no noise at all, which showed they were complying with their conditions. Another video from the June bank holiday included audible music but well within the cutoff time of 9pm. Finally, she noted that Marston’s had not necessarily needed to make a formal application for a small additional external place, but felt it was good practice to bring it within the red line of the licensed area. The conditions proposed would contribute to good governance of the area. Responsible Authority Representations There were none. Interested Other Representations Speaking as the Ward Member, Cllr Wild emphasised that he was a big supporter of the Halfway, having been there many times and found it to be a well-run establishment. However, pubs needed to be very carefully managed in heavily residential areas, and the new outdoor area was problematic. The additional space was barely a few feet away from several bedroom windows, and anyone would struggle to sleep with a beer garden open until 11pm right next to them. He noted that the council had a clear policy on vertical establishments in residential areas, and highlighted the nature of the entertainment, the proximity of nearby houses and noise reduction as key concerns. In his view, 9pm would also be a reasonable cutoff for live music rather than 11pm. Speaking as a local resident, Ian Banks explained that he had lived next to the pub for 38 years. Over that time it had changed a lot but had always got on relatively well with the residents. His main objection was on the grounds of preventing public nuisance. The external area was extremely close to residential properties, including bedroom windows, and there was only a wooden fence separating them. If the noise increased further it would cause disturbance and noise for residents. Limiting the operating hours wouldn’t solve the core noise issue, and lighting up the space would cause further adverse effects for those living close by. He also disagreed that it was a small extension – 20 guests was a considerable number, and there would likely be more in there during busy events. Speaking as a local resident, Miriam Barry echoed the representations made by Cllr Wild and Mr Banks. She explained that she lived especially close to the premises and the proposed external area, and it was extremely loud and she often heard bottles breaking early in the morning. More noise late at night would be a real disturbance to her. Discussion The Sub Committee asked whether, under the current licensing conditions, a patron could buy a drink at the bar and then go outside to the external area and drink it there. The applicant’s solicitor responded that they could, as the licence allowed on and off sales. There was a prohibition on taking drinks outside of the designated area, but this meant the highway rather than the existing external areas. The Halfway could effectively use the external area anyway, but Marston’s had a policy of always seeking licences for external areas as it was the right way to operate. Members asked the local residents whether any of the houses close to the premises had back gardens, and whether children would regularly be using them. Mr Banks confirmed that there was at least one where children played regularly. Summing Up The applicant’s solicitor summarised that it was an application in four parts, only one of which was opposed by residents. They had considered how best to operate it, taking the interests of residents into account, and felt the provision of a family-friendly space would improve the amenity of the area. She cautioned against segmentation, reminding Members that this was not a review of the hotel itself or any previous ownership. All the Committee was considering was a small external area with up to four traditional pub benches, and they would be willing to accept a reduction in hours (e.g. 10pm) in line with it being intended as a family-friendly space. She did not feel that limiting the capacity of the area would contribute to the licensing objectives, and emphasised that they had done everything possible to allay neighbours’ concerns about noise and smoking. Nuisance was a difficult and subjective thing to quantify, unlike crime or public health, and this site had been a major part of the community for many years. The benefits it would bring when operated well would well outweigh any impact. Decision RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police.
Present: The Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from Parkside (Lakeside) Limited in respect of Parkside (Lakeside), Ground Floor Commercial Unit 1, Amber Vista, Clearwater Way, Cardiff, CF23 6DZ. The applicant applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises. (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “Ground floor A3 site that is part of a mixed use commercial/resident block. Approx 80 internal plus 40 external good weather covers located within walled development. Site located in Lakeside area between Cyncoed Road and Roath Park Lake. On and off licence requested”. (3) Unless otherwise indicated the premises may be open to the public during the following hours and for any hours consequential to the non-standard timings: Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 23:00 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 12:00 to 23:00 hours Applicant Representations In the absence of the applicant, Dan Cook (Licensing Officer) outlined the application, which was for the grant of a premises licence in respect of on and off sales. The proposed operating schedule was for the premises to be open between 9am and 11pm and to sell alcohol between midday and 11pm. The applicant proposed a number of conditions should the licence be granted, and following the agreement of these, the objections received from South Wales Police, Environmental Health and Pollution Control had been withdrawn. A number of representations had been received from local residents and the Ward Members, which had been circulated to the Sub Committee. Responsible Authority Representations There were none. Interested Other Representations There were none. Decision The Sub Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee noted that the applicant agreed the proposed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control prior to the hearing and as a result their objections were withdrawn. The Sub Committee considered the written objections from local residents. They noted that issues relating to the cumulative impact of the number of premises did not apply as this premises was not located within a cumulative impact area, and that issues relating to parking were not a consideration for this Sub Committee. The Sub Committee did not feel that the objections satisfactorily evidenced how the application, if granted, would undermine the licensing objectives as they were too general in nature and did not evidence specifically how the premises would undermine the licensing objectives. Therefore, the Sub Committee resolved to GRANT the application, subject to adoption of the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control.
There were none.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.