Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure.

There were none.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officeror a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Councillor Symonds noted that he was quoted in the Bath Chronicle of 17 March 2014 as saying that the Undercroft scheme was “brilliant”. He explained that he had made this remark after a presentation on the scheme at the Resources Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel and was referring to the benefits to the people of Bath of the redevelopment of the area. He felt that notwithstanding this remark he was still able to judge the two applications before the Committee today on their merits without prejudice.

There was none.

The Minutes of the 20 May 2014 were approved as a correct record, subject to the deletion of inadvertently repeated paragraphs in item 22 (Wunder Bar). The Minutes for the two meetings of 3 June 2014 were also approved as a correct record.

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for the next two items of business.

Applicant: Bath and North East Somerset Council, represented by Piers Warne (TLT Solicitors), Marie Percival (Senior Development Surveyor, B&NES), Kevin Conibear (Fleurets)

Other Persons: Ian Perkins (The Abbey Residents Association), Ann Robins (The Empire Owners’ Association)

The parties confirmed that they had understood the licensing procedure.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the application. She referred to the additional documents that had been exchanged by the parties, which had been circulated to Members. These documents are attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

The Chair reminded the applicant’s representatives that because the premises were located in the Cumulative Impact Area, the presumption was that the application would be refused, therefore the Sub-Committee would expect them to address this specifically.

Mr Warne stated the case for the applicant. He said that it had been considered that if the Council was the licensee, it would have greater control over the premises. There had been a great deal of interest from prospective lessees. The restaurant would have 80-120 covers. The scheme for the Undercroft was a key element in the Redevelopment Zone Core Strategy. It was expected that the planning application for the scheme would be submitted in October 2014. Mr Warne said that there had been extensive public consultation about the redevelopment scheme, and the Statement of Community Engagement was part of the consultation. Page 4 of the Statement listed “noise breakout from the restaurants” as one of the key themes that the project team had addressed during the design development. He hoped that the operating schedule had struck a balance between the interests of the residents and those of the businesses. The lessees would pay high rents and it was felt that expressions of interest should not be deterred by excessively onerous conditions. There had been exchanges between the parties which had centred on four key areas:

1. Closure of the outside areas. The applicant had agreed that outside areas should be closed at 23.00 and cleared by 23.30.

2. Sundays. The applicant had agreed that licensable activities should cease at 23.00 on Sundays, apart from the 7 Sundays preceding a Bank Holiday.

3. A condition to deal with vertical drinking. This presented problems, because many restaurants nowadays have some kind of bar area, and the applicant did not want to restrict this unnecessarily.

4. A noise condition. This also presented problems, because there were many noise sources in the area and would be difficult to attribute noise specifically to the premises.

Mr Warne then addressed the cumulative impact issues. He referred to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. He noted that Paragraph 14 of the Policy deals with the integration of strategies and submitted that this applies to the Undercroft scheme, since it is a key part of the Bath local strategy. Paragraph 16, which deals specifically with cumulative impact, states that different types of premises have different impacts, that applications should be considered on their individual merits, and that an application should only be refused if the licensing objectives could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Applicant: Bath and North East Somerset Council, represented by Piers Warne (TLT Solicitors), Marie Percival (Senior Development Survey, B&NES), Kevin Conibear (Fleurets)

Other Persons: Ian Perkins (The Abbey Residents Association), Ann Robins (The Empire Owners’ Association)

The Chair said that as there was great deal in common between this and the previous application, she would be grateful if the parties focussed on what was specific to this application.

Mr Warne stated the case for the applicant. He said that it was expected that this restaurant would have 150-180 covers. There was a prospective lessee who had expressed great interest and was happy with the conditions proposed.

Mr Perkins stated his case. He urged the imposition of a noise condition. He said that the noise condition proposed by the Other Persons was common on premises licences in Bath, so had at one time been thought enforceable.

Ms Robins supported the imposition of a noise condition. A nearby licensed premises had such a condition on its licence.

The parties were invited to sum up.

Mr Perkins said that he would be concerned if there was no effective means of controlling noise from the premises. The Senior Public Protection Officer said that the obstacle to such a condition is noise attribution. Environmental Health, however, would be able to intervene, if it could be shown that the premises was a source of noise at nuisance levels. Mr Perkins responded that his view the Environmental Protection Act had proved very ineffective for dealing with noise. The Sub-Committee had the power to impose a more effective form of noise control and he urged them to use it.

Mr Warne said that he was unable to agree that procedures under the Environmental Protection Act were ineffective. In conclusion he submitted that it would be appropriate for the Sub-Committee to impose all the conditions that it had imposed on the previous application.

Following an adjournment the application was granted with conditions, as set out in the decision below.

Decision and reasons

Members have determined an application for a new premises licence at Empire Undercroft, Grand Parade, Bath, BA2 4AN. In doing so they took account of the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Human Rights Act 1998.

Members are aware that the proper approach under the Licensing Act is to be reluctant to regulate in the absence of evidence and that they must only do what is appropriate and proportionate in the promotion of the licensing objectives based on the information before them. In this case, however, Members noted that the premises are situated in the Cumulative Impact Area and accordingly as the council has a Cumulative Impact Policy a rebuttable presumption is raised that such applications should be refused unless the applicant demonstrates that the application if granted will not undermine the licensing objective and add to the Cumulative Impact being experienced.

In reaching a decision Members took account of all relevant oral and written representations,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.