Agenda item

The Sub-Committee considered the report which sought permission to provide facilities on the highway for recreation/refreshment at the Porter Public House, 2 Miles's Buildings.

The applicant was present.  He confirmed he had read and understood the procedure for the meeting.  There were several objectors present.

The Licensing Officer presented the report and confirmed the application was for 21 tables and a number of chairs, every day from 10am – 11pm and the usual consultation had taken place.  Several objections had been received to the application.  He also informed Members that one objector Gillian Ryan, had requested that a witness speak in support.  Following discussion Members agreed to allow the witness, Ian Perkins.

The applicant put his case, he highlighted that the Porter would soon be closing for refurbishment and there would be a significant change in the operation and he was aiming for a different clientele.  He had met with local residents to see if there could be some agreement on his plans.  He added that thought there was an increase in the numbers of tables and chairs there was no increase to the area.  Following questions the applicant stated that he was willing to remove the tables and chairs at the front of the building and one at the far end in Miles’s Buildings and reduce the number of tables to 16.  He showed Members, Officers and Objectors on the plan.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that the current permission had expired on 31^st March 2013 but the area applied for was the same with an increase in tables and chairs.

The objectors put their case as follows:- 

Robin Davies: highlighted that Miles’s buildings was a beautiful part of the city and the tables and chairs blocked the view.  He stated that in 2009 planning permission had been refused so there had been a contravention in planning terms.  With an increase in the number of tables the smokers could be pushed further up into Miles’s Buildings.  There did not seem to be enough room for tables at the front of the building. Where would the tables and chairs be stored?  The applicant had engaged with the residents but if he reduced the hours they would believe him to be more genuine.

Henry Brown: his concern was the encroachment on the highway as the area applied for was over half of the width of Miles’s Buildings and he suggested the stone channel in the middle of the highway was a more suitable boundary.  He believed that to have tables and chairs at the front of the building would restrict the area for pedestrians.  In respect of the increase in numbers of tables and chairs, he commented that if the second rank of tables on Miles’s Buildings was taken out of the application there would still be twice as many tables and chairs as previously permitted.

Gillian Ryan (spoke for the Dougalls in their absence): her objection was the encroachment which seemed to be increasing into Miles’s Buildings leaving less space for smokers and drinkers who did not stay within the boundary.  In the past she stated that it was very hard for her to pass with a wheelchair.  She commented on the management of the area and stated that it got harder to control as the night wore on.  In conclusion she stated there were issues of noise and music.

Kim de Morgan: she stated that she was regularly disturbed by noise and music from the Porter which reverbed from Miles’s Buildings up to the Circus.  She had spoken to the applicant about acoustic curtains to stop the noise from people outside the Porter.  In conclusion she supported that change of operation to a restaurant and away from a pub that attracted young adults.

Ian Perkins (witness for Gillian Ryan): he stated that local residents were disappointed as they had anticipated changes since the new manager had taken over but there had had been none and the outside area continued to be badly managed and left unsupervised with little or no intervention from staff.

The applicant went on to make a closing statement and stated that he had inherited the staff and the operation and management would change following the refurbishment.  He concluded by stating he was not increasing the area, had offered to reduce the number of tables and chairs, there was no highway objection, tables and chairs would be stored in the vaults, he would not be selling cigarettes and the outside area would be better managed and supervised.

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that a permit be granted for 4 tables on George Street, as applied for, and 12 tables along the length of Miles’s Buildings as indicated on the application but not to extend beyond 2.3 metres towards the centre of the highway, for recreation/refreshment at the Porter Public House, 2 Miles’s Buildings, Bath, subject to the standard terms and conditions.

Reasons for decision

Members took account of the Highways Act, the Council’s Policy, the applicant’s representations and those made by the objectors.

Members granted a permit for 4 tables on George Street as applied for and 12 tables along the length of Miles Buildings as indicated on the application but not to extend beyond 2.3 metres in width towards the centre of the passage, as Members considered it unreasonable in highway terms, to extend the use of the highway beyond half its available width in all the circumstances and on the basis of the representations made.