Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff un ei ysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion. Mae'r agenda a'r papurau isod.
Apologies for absence were received from D. Pugh (Environmental Health – Health and Safety), Sandra Lewis-Williams (Licensing Authority), PC Taylor (Gwent Police) and Mr M. Butler (Resident).
There were no declarations of interest made at the beginning or during the course of the meeting.
The Chairman opened the meeting and introductions were made. The Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee outlined the procedure for the meeting and reported that Members had previously familiarised themselves with the report of the Licensing Manager, the application and plan of the premises together with the written submissions from the responsible authorities and Residents who had objected to the application. The Chair invited the Licensing Manager to present the report. The Licensing Manager confirmed the apologies for absence from the Responsible Authorities and confirmed that the representations from the Licensing Authority would be delivered by the Environmental Health Pollution Officer. The Sub Committee would hear from all the other Responsible Authorities who would confirm their position during the meeting. The Committee were advised that the Environmental Health and Safety Officer had withdrawn their objection and that all parties had received notification last week. Confirmation was sought that the Committee and Applicant had received further representations from the Planning Officer which had been sent to all parties by email on the 23rd May 2025. It was confirmed that all parties had received the email. The Licensing Manager presented the report and outlined the application submitted for a Determination of Premises Licence Variation Application in respect of The Project Bar Ltd, 1 Lon Y Twyn, Caerphilly CF83 1NW. The application sought to permit the following Licensable Activities: · To extend the licensable area to include the roof terrace, to permit it being open Monday to Friday 12:00 – 22:00 · Saturday and Sunday 09:00 – 22:00 for consumption of alcohol purchased from the brewery bar The Licensing Manager referred to the plans at Appendix 1 to 3, the existing permissions detailed at paragraph 1.3.1 and the existing conditions listed in paragraph 1.3.2 and guided Members to condition 15, which resulted in the application being made. Members were referred to the Applicants submitted noise plan within the report at Appendix 3a and the proposed site plan at Appendix 3b. Following the public consultation there were representations received in relation to the application from Responsible Authorities that were set out in paragraph 1.5.1 and Residents objections at 1.5.2, copies of which were attached to the report circulated with the agenda. It was highlighted that the primary concern from Responsible Authorities and Residents was the potential for public nuisance due to noise from the proposed rooftop area. It was noted that the Applicant had not responded to any of the concerns of the Residents objections. Attention was drawn to the local policy considerations as set out in within the Licensing Officers report and to the way in which the Sub Committee should deal with the application. The Sub Committee were also referred to the recommendation set out in the report, which considered the position of the Responsible Authorities of the Applicant’s ability to promote the Licensing Objectives (particularly the promotion of the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective). Members were advised that the applicant had been appraised of the comments of the Responsible Authorities and responses to those comments which could be found between pages 9 and 10 of the report. The Chair thanked the Officer and all parties present, were invited to ask questions. The Applicant sought clarification from the Licensing Manager that the recommendations for refusal were not based on the findings of the Licensing Authority in its role as Responsible Authority as the Officer had not questioned the findings of the acoustic expert in the noise report and commented that the recommendations was based on the views of the Environmental Health Officers representations. The Officer confirmed that the recommendation was based on the collective position of the Responsible Authorities and also the resident’s objections. The Applicant was advised that the meeting today was his opportunity to bring anything further that was not included in the application to the attention of the committee. Clarification was sought by the applicant as to whether the noise assessment report had been taken into account when making the recommendation to refuse the application. It was confirmed that the noise assessment had been taken into account and that representations from the Responsible Authorities expressed concern in relation to the ability of the Applicant to promote the prevention of public nuisance objectives. The Chair reassured the Applicant that it was the Officers recommendation and that the decision now rested with the Sub Committee, who would take everything into account when making the final decision. Clarification was sought from the Chair in relation to the requested hours on page 1 at 1.3 being 22:00 and queried whether this application was seeking to reduce the hours as they are currently permitted to stay open until 23:00. The Officer confirmed that the 22:00 time would be the permitted hours for the use of the rooftop area only, if the application was to be approved, and that the 23:00 closing time would still apply to the premises. There were no further questions for Licensing and the Chair invited representations from the Applicant. The Applicant expressed disappointment with the process and felt there was bias against his business. It was emphasized that the positive impact of his business on the local community and the measures taken to mitigate noise and referred to the noise assessment report indicating that the impact would be barely perceptible. The Applicant argued that the business should be supported by the Council and questioned why Officers had not visited the premises, undertaken any modelling or inspections themselves and also questioned what qualifications the Officer had to enable them to question the experts report. Various questions were raised about the noise assessment, the management of the rooftop terrace, and the planning application. The applicant responded to concerns about noise mitigation and the clientele of the business. The Applicant clarified that the rooftop terrace would have 30 seats and be fully seated, with no standing allowed. The area would be used as a smoking area as well as a drinking area, in a controlled environment, there was also reference to CCTV observing the area and additionally there would be routine patrols by staff to monitor the area. This would all be subject to Building Control and Fire Regulations. Clarification was sought from the Applicant on why he had chosen not to obtain planning permission for the use of the roof top prior to requesting a licence for the sale of alcohol for the area, although it was pointed out that it was not a requirement that you have planning before you have a licence. The applicant advised that on a previous planning application for the yard area it took the planning department 53 weeks to make a decision. It was felt that there could be another lengthy wait for a decision to be made on a new application and again emphasised that there was bias from both planning and Environmental Health departments Discussions took place about the data contained within the noise report concerning the height of the structure based on 2.2 metres, it was confirmed by the Applicant that the noise expert had confirmed verbally that the report had been based on the model of the height being 2.2 metres however the report stated 3 metres. It was confirmed that the expert was not present to confirm the accuracy of the report. The Legal Adviser enquired about the methodology used in the noise assessment and the differences in the proposed measures. The applicant clarified that the noise assessment was based on a 2.2-metre-high acoustic barrier, and the monitoring was adjusted accordingly. It was also mentioned that the noise consultant confirmed the effectiveness of the measures. The Chair referred to the report and queried with the applicant as to why he had not responded to the residents or worked with them. The Applicant stated that historically the same 3 residents objects to everything the business does and that they had expressed previously that they did not want to work together with him and stated that is why he had not responded on this application. Mr Brown (Resident) brought to the attention of the committee an inaccuracy within the noise report. On page 42 it specified that the current yard was enclosed by a full height boundary screening with covered over pergola roofing on both sides, Members were informed that this was incorrect. The covered roof was on the one side and there were three panels on the other side one of which was already blown off and the other two panels were loose and were still blowing and creating noises such as banging and flapping. The Chair thanked Mr Brown and invited the Applicant to respond. There were no comments from the Applicant. There were no further questions for the Applicant and the Chair invited the Environmental Health Pollution Team Officer to present their representations. The Environmental Health Pollution Team Officer introduced herself and confirmed that objections to the proposed variation on the grounds that the noise from the use of the proposed external roof terrace from patrons would be significant and would undermine the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective, the objections were submitted at Appendix 7 of the report. The Officer in response to the Applicants statement regarding her qualifications. Confirmed all of her qualifications and referenced her 25 years of experience to represent the Council in her role as an Environmental Health Officer. Concerns were raised about the noise impact from the rooftop terrace. It was also stated that the noise report did not sufficiently consider worst-case scenarios like shouting and singing. It was emphasised the potential for significant noise disturbance to nearby residents. The Committee were provided with examples of how decibel levels worked and how it would be with potential increase in noise due to the rooftop terrace where 30 patrons and the impact that would have, the Officer questioned the effectiveness of the proposed noise mitigation measures and emphasised the importance of residential amenity and design considerations, there was also concerns that the monitoring of the area would not be adequately controlled. The Applicant questioned the Officers assumptions that that there would be shouting, singing etc from the rooftop without attending the venue. The Officer confirmed that the use of the premises generally had been taken into account, and it was commonly known that public nuisance and disorder associated with the consumption of alcohol where people tend to have less control and the volume increased whilst having a good time. The premises was located close to domestic properties out of the main thorough fare of the town centre and a roof terrace would not be suitable in that location. It was also confirmed that all official guidance had also been taken into account. The Applicant advised that the premises was different compared to other premises within the town and that their clientele was different to those and provided more context. Further discussions and questions were asked by Members about the premises and the type of clientele that go there. The Chair enquired as to whether the CCTV would pick up audio from the roof terrace. The Applicant stated that he thought that CCTV can pick up audio, however staff would monitor the area from both patrolling and monitoring the CCTV which would alert them to any issues. The Legal Adviser referred to a phrase used by the Environmental Officer which was the acoustic tonal change and requested further clarification on what that was. The Officer explained that acoustic tonal change refers to the variations in sound levels, such as normal conversation versus shouting, which can significantly affect the overall noise impact on nearby residents. The Legal Adviser queried about the potential for noise from the rooftop terrace and the effectiveness of the proposed noise mitigation measures. The Officer emphasised that the noise assessment did not sufficiently consider worst-case scenarios like shouting and singing and also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed measures in preventing noise disturbance to nearby residents. A Member sought clarification on whether the health and safety had been considered due to patrons having to go up and down the stairs carrying drinks to the rooftop terrace and also sought confirmation as to whether the Applicant had considered installing a bar on the roof terrace. The Applicant confirmed that they were fully aware of the safety precautions, and that safety was paramount to the business. Everything would be designed and fully approved with specifications of Building Control and confirmed that they would not consider adding a bar to the roof terrace. One Member questioned whether or not the applicant would turn a group of youngsters away if they wanted to go on the rooftop. The Applicant advised that they would, not turn them away however they would ensure to monitor the group more closely and if there were any issues they would refuse to serve the group. There were no further questions for Environmental Health Pollution Officer and the Chair invited the Officer to provide the representations on behalf of the Licensing Authority in its role as Responsible Authority to present their representations. The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the Licensing Authorities presented the representations on behalf of Mrs Sandra Lewis -Williams, they were regarding the application to vary the premise licence to extend the licensable area of the premises to include a roof terrace. The Licensing Authority raised concerns under the public safety licensing objective with regard to the safety of patrons and the ability to exit this area in the event of an emergency. Enquiries with the Building Control department had not satisfied the Licensing Authority that this area had been considered as part of a building control application. It was confirmed that Building Control and the Fire Service had subsequently visited the premises and confirmed that they were content with the plans proposed by the Applicant. Taken this into account the Licensing Authority still had concerns regarding the application in terms of public nuisance and would support the representations of Environmental Health, especially given the representations received from local residents and clarified that the Licensing Authority were not in agreement with the proposed mitigation measures and would not address the noise issues as they were not qualified to do so. The Chair thanked the Environmental Health Officer for providing the representations on behalf of the Licensing Authority and invited questions. The Applicant provided some context around the visit from Building Control. The Chair acknowledged that the Licensing Authority no longer had concerns as Building Control had confirmed that they were satisfied with the plans and also referenced the withdrawal of the objections from the Environmental Health Officer Dean Pugh as he was also satisfied with the plans. The Chair invited the Planning Authority Officer to present their representations. The Officer introduced himself to the Committee and highlighted discrepancies in the noise assessment report and the current planning application. Concerns were raised about the visual impact and the potential for noise disturbance. It was also mentioned that a previous planning application had not been granted and expressed doubts about the approval of the current application. The Committee were provided with a detailed explanation on the differences within the noise assessment methodology and the full visual impact of the proposed rooftop terrace would have and emphasised that the planning departments main duty was to consider the residential amenity and design. The Officer referred to the Applicants previous comment on planning not engaging with him and that the application process on their previous planning application had taken 53 weeks Members were informed of the reasons for the delay and the procedure followed in relation to that application and the current application submitted. The Officer also referred to the Applicants comments about bias and prejudice towards the applicant’s development and noted that he had previously dealt with the initial planning application submitted by the applicant five years ago and he had spoken in planning committee and that he supported the development as a perfectly acceptable business to have in the town centre. The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and invited questions The Chair sought confirmation on the objections from residents where it stated that there was some type of construction in place already and sought comments from the Planning Officer. It was confirmed that there was a dormer style roof and referred to his email of the 23rd May where the image could be seen. Members were advised that this was an unauthorised in terms of planning, this was subject to the planning application that had been refused. The Legal Adviser sought clarification on the discrepancies in the noise assessment and the planning application. The Officer highlighted the differences in the proposed heights of the noise mitigation screens and the visual impact of the rooftop terrace. Concerns were expressed about the effectiveness of the proposed measures and the likelihood of planning approval. A Member sought clarification on the height of the Screen fencing and requested more detail. There were further discussions around the screen fencing that was proposed, and Officers and applicant provided their comments and views. The Legal adviser clarified that the acoustic screening was set out on page 49 of the noise assessment report and that they would form a U shape with a 3-metre-high screen on the side and rear screens in the North and Southeast and a 1.1-metre-high solid balustrade to the Western elevation. The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and as there were no further questions The Chair invited Mr Brown to provide representations for himself, Mrs Jordan and Mr Butler. Mr Brown thanked the Chair and confirmed that he would be providing representations on behalf of himself, Mrs Jordan and Mr Butler as they were all of a similar nature. Concerns were raised about noise, light pollution and loss of privacy It was emphasised that the impact on residents’ quality of life and the potential for increased noise from the rooftop terrace. The Committee were provided with examples of noise issues and the impact of residents including the loss of privacy from the proposed rooftop terrace as people could see into residents’ windows, residents not being able to open their windows in hot weather due to noise, the inability to use gardens and the disturbance caused by the events at the bar. The Chair thanked Mr Brown and invited questions. A Member requested clarification as to how far Mr Brown’s property was from the premises. Mr Brown confirmed that his property was directly opposite the entrance to the premises and commented that there was constant noise from the door opening and closing, it was confirmed that his property was approximately 10 to 15 metres away. It was also confirmed that Mrs Jordan had submitted objections on behalf of Ms Tilley and her property was situated directly behind the brewery yard and was also impacted by the premises. The Chair queried the noise from the opening and closing of the door and sought clarification from the Licensing Manager that this was one of the conditions referred to within the application. The Licensing Manager confirmed that this was one of the conditions at number 25 and that an automatic door closure should be installed at the main entrance door from the public footpath into the building to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority by the 1st of March 2024. The Applicant confirmed that the door had been installed. The Applicant commented that the roof terrace would improve issues with noise as people would not be going outside the entrance and making noise as they would use the roof terrace. The Planning Officer sought clarification from the applicant on the noise assessment suggests that there would be a pergola roof to the roof terrace, but the elevations do not seem to indicate that. The Officer also commented that a smoking shelter must have two open sides and no roof; by having a roof it would not comply with smoking regulations. The Applicant confirmed that this would be looked at with Building Control. Mr Brown commented that prior to the Project Bar the premises was occupied by a business that operated from 9:00 until 5:00 Monday to Friday and on a Saturday from 9:00 until 11:00. This has significantly added to the noise levels, lack of privacy and light issues. The Chair highlighted that the committee were not revisiting previous licensing applications and that the focus was on the licensing of the potential roof terrace and the impacts from that, noise and light would not be an issue for this committee, this would be a matter for Planning. This was confirmed by the Planning Officer and the Environmental Health Officer. All parties were then afforded the opportunity to sum up before the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee retired to make its decision. In closing the Licensing Manager asked Members to consider all the representations before them, the evidence heard at the meeting, and all Licensing guidance when making their decision. The Sub Committee were reminded of the need to consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives particularly the prevention of public nuisance and whether the applicant would be able to meet the same. The Environmental Health Officer reiterated their objections, emphasising the potential impact and that there was nothing further to add. The Planning Officer reiterated their objections, emphasising the potential impact and planning concerns and that there was nothing further to add. Mr Brown resident objector on behalf of himself and Mrs Jordan and Mr Butler had nothing further to add other than to thank the Committee for listening to their objections. Mr White the Applicant expressed hope that the committee would consider the data presented and make a fair decision. He reiterated the businesses efforts to mitigate noise and be a responsible neighbour. The Chair thanked all parties for their submissions and handed over to the Legal Advisor to explain the procedure. The Legal Advisor informed all parties present that the Sub Committee would retire to consider the representations made at the meeting and they would be informed in writing of the decision in the next 5 days. The Sub Committee retired at 11:48am to make its decision and all other parties left the meeting. The decision of the Licensing and Gambling Sub Committee (“Sub-Committee”) regarding the hearing held on 29 May 2025 in respect of the Licensing Act 2003 – Determination of Premises Variation Application. After considering all of the evidence before them, the Sub-Committee has decided to refuse the Applicant’s application to vary its premises license for 1 Lon Y Twyn, Caerphilly, CF83 1NW, for the reasons as set out below. The Applicant’s variation application was to increase the area of licensed premises by including an as yet unbuilt roof-top terrace on the flat roof on the western elevation of the premises between the hours of 12:00-22:00 Monday to Friday, and 09:00-22:00 Saturday and Sundays. The Applicant advised that the roof-top terrace would be used by a maximum of 30 seated patrons. During the consultation period there were several issues raised by various Responsible Authorities, but by the time the matter reached the hearing all objections other than those relating to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance had been either mediated to resolution or confirmed not to be a continuing issue for the relevant Responsible Authority. The principal issue remaining under the prevention of public nuisance was the potential noise nuisance that could be caused to local residents residing in the locality from the use of the proposed roof top terrace. Secondary issues of potential light pollution and privacy concerns were also raised under the same licencing objective. The Applicant had unsuccessfully applied for planning permission to instal the roof-top terrace in late 2024. The application being refused in early 2025. The Sub-Committee were made aware that a second such planning application had been made in recent weeks – which has not as yet been determined. At present the Applicant has no planning permission to build the roof-top terrace. The Sub-Committee were aware that it is not a prerequisite for the Applicant to have planning permission prior to making the variation application. The Applicant principally relied on a noise assessment report of 19 February 2025 produced by Inacoustic. This will be referred to hereon in as the “noise report”. At paragraph 3.2 of the noise report, it describes the Applicant’s intention in terms of the construction of the roof top terrace as: “A similar approach will be adopted along the north and south sides of the roof terrace, with full- height (circa 2.6m) vertical screening also included along the boundary with the pitched roof, with covered over pergola roofing on both short sides (extending to a horizontal distance of 2 metres from the vertical element), such that sound propagation is minimised in the direction of the closest receptor areas.” and this intended configuration formed part of the basis of the methodology within the noise report (at paragraph 5.2): “The predictions have been carried out using the Cadna/A computer noise-modelling package, which employs the ISO9613 prediction methodology. In addition to the source noise levels used in the predictions, the prediction also considers the effects of acoustic screening from the 3-metre high side and rear screens (north, south and east) and 1.1-metre high solid balustrade, to the western elevation.” It was unclear whether the height of the vertical screening being referred to was inclusive, or exclusive, of the 600mm dwarf wall forming the existing outer perimeter of the existing flat roof on which the roof-top terrace intended to be constructed. The Sub-Committee determined that the dimensions included the dwarf wall. The noise report was predicated on the basis that the northern and southern ends of the roof-top terrace would have vertical screening (acoustic screening) and the eastern boundary would comprise part of the existing adjoining pitched roof structure and vertical (acoustic screening). The height of such vertical screen would be between 2.6 and 3 metres in height. The western boundary of the roof top terrace for the purposes of the noise report would be a 1.1 high solid balustrade. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the planning officer (as Responsible Authority) that the current planning application showed the northern, southern, western and relevant portion of the eastern boundary (such part not comprising the adjoining pitched roof structure of the existing building) of the roof top terrace having uniform vertical screens of 1.2m high atop of the dwarf wall (600mm) giving a combined height of 1.8 metres as opposed to 2.6-3 metres on which the noise report was based. The Applicant disputed planning officer’s evidence and maintained that rather than 1.8 metres it was 2.2 metres sought on the northern/southern/relevant part of the eastern boundary of the roof top terrace and the western boundary remained a 1.1metres. The Applicant further asserted that Inacoustic amended a latter version of the noise report, which was provided as part of the most recent planning application, based on 2.2m vertical screens and there being no alteration in the projected decibels or sound level map. No evidence was provided by the Applicant to corroborate this aspect. In the Sub-Committee’s judgement, the Applicant’s current planning application was as described by the planning officer and that rather than 2.6-3 metre acoustic vertical screening being part of the submitted plan – the acoustic vertical screening was 1.2 metres atop of the 600mm dwarf wall for all boundaries of the roof top terrace (save for the portion that incorporated the pitched roof portion), giving a vertical boundary of 1.8 metres. The planning officer was unlikely to mislead the Sub-Committee given the recent planning application would be on the public record. In contrast, the Applicant’s recall of details at times seemed vague (for instance it mistakenly indicated that the noise report was assessed based on 46 patrons using the roof top terrace as opposed to the correct figure of 30 patrons). The Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) submitted that the noise report was predicated on an overly artificial basis – in terms of the noise used to measure the projected sound map and noise levels was the level of noise of people speaking normally and simultaneously. The EHO indicated that the area would be used by patrons who had largely consumed alcohol. This often led to a decreasing awareness of the noise you make and the small gatherings on the roof top terrace would at times increase in volume from joviality and general noise from people having a good time and enjoying the company of others whilst drinking. She submitted that this would lead to acoustic tonal changes (such as the pitch of the noise and volume of the noise) to vary. This, coupled with the decreasing background ambient noise as the evenings progressed, gave rise to a real risk local residents living in close proximity to the roof top terrace would suffer from unacceptable levels of noise for extended periods of time. It was her view that there was a significant risk of noise nuisance arising as a result – given the proximity of residences to the premises, the elevation of the noise source (being raised a floor above ground level), expected number of patrons and the decreasing ambient noise towards the latter hours of use of an evening. The residents’ objections pertaining to noise essentially mirrored the concerns raised by the EHO. The Applicant submitted that CCTV would be used to assist in monitoring the numbers of patrons using the roof top terrace and the noise level but conceded that it was not sure if the CCTV had an audio function. The Applicant indicated that staff would regularly patrol the area much the same way as it currently does when its beer garden is in use on weekends. It was further submitted that it was hoped that the roof top terrace would be used as a smoking area which would reduce the instances of patrons smoking on the public footpath outside of the premises. The Sub-Committee were conscious that the Applicant’s planning application was yet to be considered, however, it heard evidence from the planning officer that the application in its current form was unlikely to receive officer recommendation before the planning committee due to the unacceptable visual impact of the proposed development. As such the planning officer advised that there was a significant degree of doubt as to whether the Applicant could install the acoustic vertical screening as proposed. The Sub-Committee took account of paragraphs 11.1, 11.4 and 11.6 of the council’s licensing policy. Whilst the Sub-Committee acknowledged the Applicant’s assertion that the premises is classed as being within Caerphilly town centre – this did not alter the fact that the premises is substantially neighboured by residential dwellings and is located in close proximity to some residences on East View (particularly the rear gardens of those dwellings). The Sub-Committee was obliged to consider the specific premises, which included its immediate surroundings/locality. Given the proximity of residential dwellings, the Sub-Committee reached the view that this was more of a noise sensitive area than the Applicant would accept. The variation sought to allow further licensed activity to take place externally in the open air, and furthermore for such activity to take place at a raised height (first floor level) atop of part of the roof of the building. This inherently brings distinct risks that excessive noise will disturb neighbours and as such the Sub-Committee expected clear evidence of how this would be mitigated/controlled. In the Sub-Committee’s judgement, whilst the noise report is to a degree helpful, it was not accepted to be incontrovertible evidence that noise nuisance would not arise to local residents living in close proximity to the roof-top terrace. The Sub-Committee accepted that whilst the sound map may give an estimate of noise levels within the local area – it preferred the evidence of the EHO. It seemed common sense to the Sub-Committee that there would be an ever-present risk that the volume of patrons voices using the terrace would increase towards the later hours of the evening when effected by alcohol. Jokes are shared, laughter ensues, mock arguments with raised voices are made in jest, perhaps conversations compete to be heard if the terrace is in heavy use at particular times. Patrons were likely to stand rather than sit at busier times, and smokers may use the area despite seats not being available. This seemed more likely than seated patrons speaking normally which was the basis of the noise report. The elevation of this noise to the first floor of the building, which is not enclosed by a roof, increases that risk of unacceptable noise at quiet hours of the evening. Whereas noise in the beer garden may naturally be dampened by the existing walls, established vegetation, the front and rear gardens of the neighbours – in this case where the noise is being elevated to a first floor level then a degree of the existing street scape that may naturally assist in the dampening of the noise is less effective. The Sub-Committee accepted that the application gave rise to an increased risk of noise nuisance to residents. In the Sub-Committee’s judgement, there was a lack of sufficient certainty from the Applicant as to how that significant risk would be adequately managed. The dimensions of the intended acoustic vertical screening varied significantly between the noise report, and the competing interpretations of the current planning application. This was not a case where the Sub-Committee had the advantage of having a planning consent before them that solidified what the intended structure would comprise and make its assessment based on that more certain position. There appeared to be a risk that the planning application may be rejected or require amendment. If amended – there was a risk that changes could increase the risk of noise nuisance notwithstanding that the variation application to the premises licence may have already been granted. There was no evidence before the Sub-Committee of a noise report that is based on the current planning application and on the less extensive acoustic screening than as described within the noise report that was provided by the Applicant. The Sub-Committee considered whether there were conditions that could be placed on the premises licence that could adequately promote the licencing objective of preventing public nuisance – notwithstanding the uncertainties detailed above. In the Sub-Committee’s judgement there was not a workable option to do so. The significant uncertainty as to what planning may or may not approve and how this may impact on the intended noise mitigation measures the Applicant seeks to put in place led the Sub-Committee, on the balance of probabilities, to determine that the relevant licensing objective could not adequately be promoted at this point in time. The risk of residents suffering from noise nuisance, particularly during the evening hours when seeking to relax and prepare for bed was simply too great, particularly in warmer months where the use of the terrace would be increasing and residents may wish to leave windows open for comfort. Potential light pollution from the roof top terrace was included as part of the objections based on the prevention of public nuisance. Given the roof top terrace has not been granted planning consent or been built – then the evidence either way on this aspect was scant. For this reason, the Sub-Committee did not place any emphasis on light pollution in its decision. Whilst the roof top terrace would not require floodlighting, it is not intended to be roofed and whether or not a pergola type structure is intended to be built is another aspect that is not currently clear. It was not clear to the Sub-Committee how the terrace was intended to be lit and what prospect this could have in terms of polluting the neighbouring residential properties. In any event, the Sub-Committee determined that the application on the unacceptable risk of noise nuisance. The Applicant has 21 days from receiving written notification of this decision to appeal to the Gwent Magistrates Court.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.