Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. One is written once the council publishes the minutes. The agenda and papers are below.
No declarations of interest
Present Applicants: Keith and Caroline Munro Responsible Authorities: Claire Dewhurst, South Wales Police Rhys Morgan, Pollution Control Other Persons: Robert Chapman, Simon Doherty, Sue McGuire and Steve Beyer Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence was received from Keith Munro in respect of Unit 6A, 183a Kings Road, Pontcanna, Cardiff. The applicant applied for the following: In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “This application is for a shadow licence of the existing premises licence held by The Artisan Brewing Co, Unit 6A, 183a Kings Road Yard, Cardiff CF11 9DF. As landlords we seek a shadow premises licence for the premises solely to maintain continuity of the existing licensed operation at Kings Road Yard. The licence is intended to mirror the current activities already established at the premises, ensuring that if the present artisan brewery operator were to leave, substantially the same licensable activities continue in keeping with the established character and community-focused atmosphere of the site. Therefore, we intend to keep the drinks point of sale the same as it is now in Unit 6A in front of the main building in the middle of the courtyard. This point of sale is set back at the end of Kings Road Yard alley in front of the main building and brewery equipment 100 yards off main road. Again, we would like to emphasize that the intention of this shadow licence is not to expand, intensity, or materially alter the nature of those activities but simply ensure that substantially the same operation can continue should the existing operator cease trading or vacate the premises. Kings Road Yard is a small creative courtyard and mixed-use workspace located in the Pontcanna district. It sits just off Kings Road. The Yard is an independent creative hub with a mix of artisan businesses, art studios, cafes, pizzeria, microbrewery, craft and farmers markets.” (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 22:00 hours New Years Eve: 10:00 to 01:00 hours To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises: Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 22:00 hours New Years Eve: 10:00 to 01:00 hours Copies of the site map and a plan of the premises were attached as Appendix A to the report. Applicant Representations Mr Keith Munro presented the application. Members were advised that the application was a shadow licence application which sought to secure continuity of the operation of the venue should the current licence holder decide to vacate or not renew their tenancy. Mr Munro stated that he was suffering from a terminal illness and the shadow licence would provide a ‘safety net’. He was not intending for the licence to be used whilst the current licence holder’s brewery business was operating. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, Mr Munro stated that the intention of the application was that it should mirror the existing Artisan Brewing Co. premises licence exactly. Members noted that the application, as originally submitted, did not fully reflect the existing premises licence. However, the Sub Committee also noted that prior to the hearing Mr Munro had confirmed his willingness to amend the application so that it mirrored the existing licence, including the hours, conditions and approved plan, and Members considered the application on that basis. Mr Munro stated that he has attempted to speak with the existing licence holder and a meeting was arranged which was subsequently cancelled. It was confirmed that there was a verbal contract in place, though the tenant has been asked to sign a formal contract. Furthermore, Mr Munro confirmed that the landlord/tenant agreement was covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Responsible Authority Representations PC Claire Dewhurst addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of South Wales Police. PC Dewhurst stated that South Wales Police objected to the granting of this application outright and referred to the evidence submitted to support this view. Members were asked to refer to a number of photographs in the supporting evidence circulated to the Sub Committee. Members were asked to note that there is currently a noise abatement notice in place at the premises which has been breached on a number of occasions. PC Dewhurst felt that the application as submitted demonstrated that there was no intention to mirror or shadow the existing licence. The application was an attempting to establish an entirely new premises. South Wales Police considered that should the application be granted the public nuisance licensing objective would not be promoted and which would lead to further public nuisance. Responding to a question from Mr Munro, PC Dewhurst confirmed that there were no issues involving South Wales Police reported in the 16 years that the site has been operating. However, Cardiff Council was responsible for noise nuisance complaints. Rhys Morgan of Cardiff Council Pollution Control Team addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the Council objected to the granting of a licence under the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. There was a history of noise nuisance complaints at Kings Road Yard and some complaints were ongoing. A noise abatement notice was issued in May of 2025. That notice has been breached on 5 separate occasions, and the applicant had recently pleaded guilty when the matter was before the court. Mr Morgan considered that this demonstrated sustained management failures complying with statutory regulatory requirements and that the applicant was unable to manage the premises or implement the necessary noise nuisance controls that would lead to compliance. Members were asked to note that the noise abatement notice was still in place and it would be naïve to expect the abatement notice to control noise nuisance. Responding to a question Mr Morgan confirmed that the abatement notice was served on the licence holder for Kings Road Yard and not the tenant. Mr Morgan was unable to confirm whether any further breaches of the abatement notice have been identified. Mr Morgan was unaware of any mitigations put in place by the applicant but he was aware that discussions regarding this were ongoing. Other Persons Sue McGuire and Steve Beyer stated that the applicant has never attempted to open any dialogue or communicate with local residents. Noise from the Kings Road Yard could be heard in their home every day and was very intrusive. Mr Robert Chapman stated that his objections were set out in his written representation and he had nothing to add. He added that local residents have had to deal with ongoing noise nuisance issues from the premises and the application seemed ‘mischievous’ and there would be a negative impact on local residents should the application be granted. Mr Chapman considered that the representations received previously from the responsible authorities were pertinent and he believed that further breaches of the abatement notice were pending. Simon Doherty stated that he was the commercial tenant at Unit 6A, Kings Road Yard and the director of Artisan Brewing Co. Ltd. which holds the licence for Pipes Brewery. Mr Doherty confirmed he was also the Designated Premises Supervisor. Mr Doherty stated that he has spent 20 years building his business and has the security of an open-ended tenure. He had no intention of vacating the premises and the existing licence was an asset of the business which has its value tied to the continuity of the operation. The licence was untarnished and would be sold as part of the business if he decided to sell. Mr Doherty further explained that, whilst the premises licence permits trading until 22:00 hours, the brewery typically closes by approximately 21:30 hours and customers, staff and visitors are usually off-site by 22:00 hours. Mr Doherty considered that the addition of a shadow licence for the premises would introduce an unnecessary regulatory risk and that operating two licences in tandem was deeply flawed. Members were advised that Mr Doherty was recently forced to close his business. A wedding party was held at Kings Road Yard which included a ‘fire pit’ within 3 meters of his business. Mr Doherty was concerned for the safety of his staff and customers because smoke from the fire was entering his premises. Therefore, he decided to close early. The stock held on the premises was tainted by the smoke. Furthermore, Mr Doherty advised Members that it would not be possible for the applicant to trade from the premises if he decided to vacate. Operating a brewery requires a complex regulatory structure as it is an industrial manufacturing environment. Also, HRMC rules strictly forbid the transferring of the regulatory permissions and any parallel application will be instantly rejected. Mr Doherty raised further concerns relating to the public safety licensing objective. Members were advised that a fire exit at Kings Road Yard was bolted shut. Members were urged to reject the application which would amount to an unmanageable enforcement overlap Summing Up Mr Chapman invited Member to consider the impact of the application on residents. Rhys Morgan asked Members to note his earlier comments in relation to the management of the premise. PC Dewhurst reminded Members that the licensing objectives are to be promoted and granting the licence was likely to lead to further public nuisance. Keith Munro stated that the site was a former industrial unit and noise levels had actually decreased since his was operating at the site. Decision The Sub-Committee resolved to reject the application for a premises licence. Reasons for the decision The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant, the responsible authorities and other persons, and considered all of the oral and written evidence presented at the hearing. In reaching its decision the Sub-Committee had regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy. Members were advised that, relevant representations having been received, the Sub-Committee was required under section 18 of the Act to take such of the steps set out in section 18(4) as it considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted that the application was made as a "shadow licence", intended to preserve continuity of authorisation should the existing premises licence cease to be available, and that there was a dispute between the applicant and the current premises licence holder as to the necessity and value of such an arrangement. Members were advised that shadow licences are lawful and that the protection of a property or commercial interest is a legitimate reason for making such an application. However, the reasons for which a shadow licence is sought are not themselves a licensing consideration. The Sub-Committee therefore attached no weight to the competing commercial, property and tenancy arguments advanced by the parties and determined the application solely by reference to the licensing objectives. Members noted the concern raised by South Wales Police that the application as originally submitted did not mirror the existing premises licence. The applicant confirmed a willingness to amend the application so that it mirrored the existing licence in terms of hours, conditions and plan. The Sub-Committee therefore considered the application on the basis that it sought authorisation for activities equivalent to the licence held by Artisan Brewing Co. Ltd. The Sub-Committee's primary consideration was the prevention of public nuisance objective. In considering that issue, Members attached significant weight to the representations of the Council's Pollution Control team acting in its capacity as a responsible authority. Members attached significant weight to the evidence that a Noise Abatement Notice had been served in respect of Kings Road Yard, that the notice had been breached on five separate occasions, and that the applicant had pleaded guilty to offences arising from those breaches. The Sub-Committee considered that repeated breaches of a formal enforcement notice, resulting in conviction, demonstrated a sustained failure to control noise arising from the applicant's activities and a failure to respond effectively to regulatory intervention. The Sub-Committee also attached considerable weight to the fact that the Noise Abatement Notice remains in force. Members considered that the continued existence of the notice indicated that concerns regarding noise nuisance at Kings Road Yard had not been resolved. The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of Pollution Control that concerns regarding noise disturbance persist and that the history of enforcement action reflected shortcomings in the management of the activities in question. Members found the evidence of local residents to be credible and consistent with the concerns raised by Pollution Control. The Sub-Committee considered it significant that a number of residents independently described ongoing noise disturbance and its impact on their ability to enjoy their homes and gardens. Members considered that this evidence provided direct support for the responsible authority's concerns that nuisance issues remain unresolved. The Sub-Committee took into account the evidence of South Wales Police that there had been no history of police involvement or concerns relating to crime and disorder associated with the existing operation at Kings Road Yard. Members accepted that evidence and identified no concerns under the prevention of crime and disorder or public safety objectives which would, in themselves, justify rejection of the application. Members considered the applicant's submission that, because the licence sought would mirror the existing premises licence, its grant would authorise nothing that was not already permitted and would therefore create no additional risk of public nuisance. The Sub-Committee did not accept that submission. A shadow licence has practical effect only in circumstances where the existing licence has ceased to be available and the applicant itself operates the premises under the licence granted to it. The relevant question was therefore how the premises would be managed in those circumstances, and the best available evidence of that was the applicant's own record of managing licensable and associated activities at the site. That record is one of repeated breach of a Noise Abatement Notice and of conviction for the resulting offences. Members concluded that the grant of the licence would create a real prospect of authorised activity continuing at the premises under management which has already demonstrated an inability to control noise to the standard required. Members considered whether modified conditions or the exclusion of specified licensable activities would be sufficient. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that any condition could be framed in which it could have confidence. Rejection was therefore the proportionate step to promote the licensing objectives. Having considered all of the evidence before it, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would undermine the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. Members concluded that the combination of repeated breaches of statutory enforcement action, the applicant's guilty plea in respect of those breaches, the continuing force of the Noise Abatement Notice, the persisting concerns of the responsible authority and the corroborating evidence of local residents together demonstrated an ongoing risk of public nuisance arising from activities at Kings Road Yard. Accordingly, and pursuant to section 18(4)(d) of the Licensing Act 2003, the Sub-Committee resolved to reject the application. Right of appeal The applicant may appeal against this decision to the Magistrates' Court, in accordance with Schedule 5 to the Licensing Act 2003. Any appeal must be commenced by giving notice of appeal to the designated officer for the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which the premises are situated within a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified of this decision. Any other person who made relevant representations in relation to the application may also appeal against this decision within the same period.
No urgent items
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.