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 Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

The Chair announced that she had been copied into email correspondence received from the parties since the agenda had been published, but had had no conversations with any of them and had an open mind.

There was none.

These were approved and signed by the Chair.

The Chair drew attention to the licensing procedure, copies of which had been made available to those attending the meeting.

Applicant: Hector Main (applicant and proposed DPS), accompanied by Giles Thomas (Owner) and Simon Dehany (Group Events and Marketing Manager)

Other Persons: Ian Perkins (The Abbey Residents Association), Mr and Mrs Davies, Henry Brown, Mr and Mrs Dougall

The parties confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

The Licensing Officer summarised the application, which was for a new premises licence as detailed in section 4 of the report. Representations had been received from local residents’ associations and from local residents relating to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. She explained that although the applicant was currently trading under a valid premises licence, this application had been made so that the second floor could be included within the licensed area. She invited the Sub-Committee to determine the application.

Mr Thomas stated the case for the applicant. He introduced himself as owner of the building and a director of the business. He explained that the aim was to include two areas on the second floor within the licensed area, which would be used for conferences and private dining. He said that he understood the problems that residents had had from the premises under the previous owners, so the application sought a terminal hour of 02:00 instead of the current licence’s 03:00. The building had been in a poor state of repair, so he had completed an extensive programme of refurbishment. The premises had previously been targeted at the student market, with an emphasis on cheap alcohol and bass-heavy music. £12,000 had been spent on additional sound proofing and the maximum volume of the sound system had been reduced. These measures had been introduced to prevent noise from the basement disturbing customers who were dining on the second floor or people in the serviced apartments next door. They would also reduce the likelihood of noise nuisance to local residents. It was true that the Porter had become synonymous with unruly youth, drunkenness, noise and vomit on the streets. He understood the apprehensions of local residents – his own mother lived on Gay Street.  However, the premises were now aimed at a more sophisticated clientele. It was hoped that the Porter would become a hub for business people. Cultural events had been held there. He noted that all the representations had been submitted before the Porter had reopened and hoped that local residents could now see the improvement in the management of the business. Since reopening there had been no complaints about litter or anti-social behaviour. He submitted that most of the previous problems with the Porter arose from the nature of the clientele, but it was no longer an establishment aimed at students. A reduction in trading hours had been proposed; the refurbishment of the basement had made it more like a lounge area than a nightclub; there had been a reduction in the number of public bars and beer was mostly served in half pints. He submitted that the contribution of the premises to cumulative impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.