Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer advised the meeting of 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.

Members declared that they had received emails about the applications to be heard today. They affirmed that their determination of the applications would not be influenced by the content of those emails.

There was none.

The minutes of the meeting of 6^th December 2018 were approved subject to one amendment:

at the end of the second bullet point on page 71 (agenda page 11) to add: “However, there was nothing to indicate where the vomit had come from.”

The minutes of the meeting of the 20^th December were approved as a correct and both sets of minutes were signed by the Chair.

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

Applicant: MiniV Limited, represented by Luke Hasell (Premises Licence Holder &DPS), Chris Tarren (Production Manager), Harad Smith (Production Manager)

Responsible Authority: Education and Enforcement B&NES Council, represented by Suzanne McCutcheon (Team Manager Safety and Standards)

The parties confirmed that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. Additional information had been submitted by the objector and the applicant, which had been circulated before the hearing. Members noted that the representation related only to the proposed variation in the capacity limit for the site, and not to any other part of the application.

Mr Tarren stated the case for the applicant. He said that Valley Fest had been going for some years, and had grown as a community event. The currently permitted maximum capacity was 4999 people. The purpose of applying for a capacity of 9999 was to allow the festival to grow over a period of years without the need for repeated variation applications. People who attend the festival are a mix of those coming from local villages for a day and those who like to stay for the weekend.  There is a mix of space available to the applicant on fields owned by Mr Hasell’s uncle and on land rented from two neighbouring farmers. Discussions are in progress with the two farmers about the renting of additional space in future on land that will be returned to grass. There were areas that could be used for either car parking or camping space, depending on how the festival developed in the future. There had been a review of the camping space available. If the same field was used for camping, then there would be the same number of camping spaces as last year, but on the other hand the number of spaces for camper vans might be increased, as they seem to be becoming more popular than tents. It was likely that a headline act would be booked for one day, probably the Saturday, next year, which would draw a bigger attendance while the attendances for Friday and Sunday remained similar to this year. The applicant had preferred to deal with the variation application before beginning the detailed planning for next year’s event, to ensure greater clarity about the framework within which planning could take place. Booking an artist can take two years. He believed that the additional information submitted over Christmas had demonstrated that there was sufficient space available for what was planned this year, while he was aware of the need to demonstrate that there was sufficient space for later years.

Mr Hasell said that the applicant had a long-term agreement with Bristol Water allowing the use of their private road to provide access to the parking spaces. There was also land owned by Bristol Water on which additional parking could be provided in future, mainly for day visitors, but this had not been included in the applicant’s current plans. Bristol Water could become a sponsor of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Applicant: The Lilliput Court Café Limited, represented by Harald Bret (Director)

Other Persons: Emma Leith (representing Carol Hollis), Nici and Alan Jones, Catherine and Michael Booth, Mr and Mrs Mike Snowden, Martin Perry, Philip and Belinda Dahan-Bouchard, Marin Mackenzie, Ian Perkins (Abbey Residents’ Association)

The parties indicated that they understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report. Members noted that the premises were located in the Cumulative Impact Area, and that there was therefore a rebuttable presumption that the application would be refused.

Mr Bret stated that he wished to withdraw the application to allow him to have further discussions with his neighbours, with whom he wished to remain on good terms. He would therefore not make a statement in support of the application.

The Team Leader (Legal) advised Members that they had to determine the application before them, which they could grant, grant with modifications, or refuse.

Representors made brief statements in support of their written representations.

RESOLVED that the application be refused.

Reasons

Whilst noting the applicant wished to withdraw the application to vary the premises licence at the Courtyard Café, Lilliput Court, Bath it was nevertheless a matter for Members to determine the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, Statutory Guidance and Council’s Policy.

The Applicant

The applicant did not offer any evidence in support the application. He stated he wished to negotiate with his neighbours and find a way forward with a future application.

Interested Parties

The objectors outlined their objections and noted the applicant wished to negotiate on a possible future application.

Members

Members noted the applicant did not put any information forward in support of the application in the face of the objections. Accordingly, given the presumption of refusal under the Cumulative Impact policy Members refuse the application.