Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
RESOLVED – The Sub?Committee heard from the applicant, considered all evidence, submissions, and written material, and reviewed the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the National Licensing Policy Framework, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub?Committee also heard the oral representations made by the local ward member on behalf of a local resident. The Sub?Committee noted that the premises had been trading for a significant number of years and had established a positive track record of management. It also noted that no representations had been received from either South Wales Police or Environmental Health, and the Sub?Committee attached appropriate weight to the absence of objections from the responsible authorities. The Sub?Committee considered the explanation provided on behalf of the applicant that the current door restriction was imposed more than two decades ago in different regulatory circumstances, and that subsequent planning decisions had permitted later use of the Westgate Street entrance. The Sub?Committee also acknowledged the applicant’s position that extending the operational hours of that entrance would improve customer flow and support effective management, particularly during peak times, without undermining the licensing objectives. However, the Sub?Committee also acknowledged the concerns raised by the local ward member on behalf of residents, particularly in relation to the unique characteristics of Westgate Street, its proximity to the Principality Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park, and the limitations faced by some residents due to conservation area restrictions preventing the installation of double glazing. The Sub?Committee accepted that residents regularly experience elevated levels of disturbance during major events and that the reopening of an additional access/egress point could potentially increase the risk of public nuisance if not carefully managed. The Sub?Committee had regard to the fact that the objections centred primarily on the prevention of public nuisance and considered whether the proposed variation, if granted, would adversely impact that licensing objective. In doing so, the Sub?Committee took account of the applicant’s assurances regarding continued responsible operation, the existing use of door staff, and the willingness of the applicant to adopt additional controls through a formal management plan. Balancing all the evidence, the Sub?Committee concluded that the premises had demonstrated a history of compliance, that responsible authorities had raised no objections, and that the proposed variation could be permitted without undermining the licensing objectives, provided that additional safeguards were applied. The Sub?Committee therefore considered it appropriate and proportionate to grant the variation subject to additional conditions designed to address concerns relating to public nuisance, particularly on major event days. Accordingly, the Sub?Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the following additional conditions: • There will be no exiting from the doors on Westgate Street on major event days after 9pm. • The premises shall operate a documented door management plan designed to minimise disturbance to nearby residents. The plan must outline procedures for controlling entry and exit, managing external areas, preventing noise from patrons, and addressing any incident that may impact local residents. The plan shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by authorised officers. The Sub?Committee further noted that the application sought to include the following wording: “The entrance doors to the Westgate Street frontage shall not be used by customers or staff for the purpose of exit/egress to and from the premises between the hours of 23:15 and 09:00 Monday to Saturday and between 22:45 and 09:00 on Sundays except in the case of emergency.” For clarity, the Sub?Committee resolved to amend this to read: “entrance/egress to and from the premises.” The Sub?Committee considered that these conditions struck the appropriate balance between supporting the needs of the business and addressing the concerns of local residents. The Sub?Committee concluded that, with these measures in place, the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance would be promoted.
RESOLVED – The Sub Committee considered all of the evidence, written material, and submissions made at the hearing. In reaching its decision, the Sub Committee had regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance issued by the Home Office, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee noted that the Temporary Event Notice related to a proposed event for up to 90 attendees, involving a daytime seated buffet and dancing in the evening, with dispersal concluding at 01:00 hours. The Sub Committee carefully considered the objection submitted by Environmental Health (Pollution Control), which stated that authorising the event would undermine the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub Committee attached significant weight to the history of noise nuisance associated with the premises. It noted that multiple complaints had been received from several individuals since 2024 in what is predominantly a residential area. The Sub Committee further noted that a noise abatement notice had been served in May 2025, and that five subsequent breaches of that notice had been witnessed by officers. Of particular concern to the Sub Committee was the evidence that a previous Temporary Event Notice, on 20 June 2025, had resulted in a further breach of the abatement notice, as licensable activities continued beyond the hours authorised by that TEN. The Sub Committee considered this a serious matter demonstrating both ongoing noise problems and a failure by the premises to comply with regulatory requirements designed to protect local residents. The Sub Committee took into account Mr Munro’s explanation that he had been unable to monitor previous events due to ill health, and noted that some internal alterations had been made to the premises in an effort to mitigate noise. However, the Sub Committee was not satisfied that these measures sufficiently addressed the underlying issues. The pattern of repeated breaches, including during a TEN, led the Sub Committee to conclude that there remained a significant risk that the licensing objectives would not be upheld. Having considered all of the evidence before it, the Sub Committee was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that allowing the event to proceed would undermine the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The cumulative history of complaints, breaches of a statutory abatement notice, and non compliance during a previous TEN carried substantial weight in the Sub Committee’s deliberations. Accordingly, the Sub Committee RESOLVED to issue a counter notice. The effect of this decision was that the Temporary Event Notice was not authorised and the event could not proceed.
No declarations of interest.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
The following item is confidential and exempt from publication as it contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
This item was confidential and exempt from publication as it contained exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The public were excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – The Sub?Committee heard from the applicant, considered all evidence, submissions, and written material, and reviewed the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the National Licensing Policy Framework, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub?Committee also heard the oral representations made by the local ward member on behalf of a local resident. The Sub?Committee noted that the premises had been trading for a significant number of years and had established a positive track record of management. It also noted that no representations had been received from either South Wales Police or Environmental Health, and the Sub?Committee attached appropriate weight to the absence of objections from the responsible authorities. The Sub?Committee considered the explanation provided on behalf of the applicant that the current door restriction was imposed more than two decades ago in different regulatory circumstances, and that subsequent planning decisions had permitted later use of the Westgate Street entrance. The Sub?Committee also acknowledged the applicant’s position that extending the operational hours of that entrance would improve customer flow and support effective management, particularly during peak times, without undermining the licensing objectives. However, the Sub?Committee also acknowledged the concerns raised by the local ward member on behalf of residents, particularly in relation to the unique characteristics of Westgate Street, its proximity to the Principality Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park, and the limitations faced by some residents due to conservation area restrictions preventing the installation of double glazing. The Sub?Committee accepted that residents regularly experience elevated levels of disturbance during major events and that the reopening of an additional access/egress point could potentially increase the risk of public nuisance if not carefully managed. The Sub?Committee had regard to the fact that the objections centred primarily on the prevention of public nuisance and considered whether the proposed variation, if granted, would adversely impact that licensing objective. In doing so, the Sub?Committee took account of the applicant’s assurances regarding continued responsible operation, the existing use of door staff, and the willingness of the applicant to adopt additional controls through a formal management plan. Balancing all the evidence, the Sub?Committee concluded that the premises had demonstrated a history of compliance, that responsible authorities had raised no objections, and that the proposed variation could be permitted without undermining the licensing objectives, provided that additional safeguards were applied. The Sub?Committee therefore considered it appropriate and proportionate to grant the variation subject to additional conditions designed to address concerns relating to public nuisance, particularly on major event days. Accordingly, the Sub?Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the following additional conditions: • There will be no exiting from the doors on Westgate Street on major event days after 9pm. • The premises shall operate a documented door management plan designed to minimise disturbance to nearby residents. The plan must outline procedures for controlling entry and exit, managing external areas, preventing noise from patrons, and addressing any incident that may impact local residents. The plan shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by authorised officers. The Sub?Committee further noted that the application sought to include the following wording: “The entrance doors to the Westgate Street frontage shall not be used by customers or staff for the purpose of exit/egress to and from the premises between the hours of 23:15 and 09:00 Monday to Saturday and between 22:45 and 09:00 on Sundays except in the case of emergency.” For clarity, the Sub?Committee resolved to amend this to read: “entrance/egress to and from the premises.” The Sub?Committee considered that these conditions struck the appropriate balance between supporting the needs of the business and addressing the concerns of local residents. The Sub?Committee concluded that, with these measures in place, the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance would be promoted.
Present Applicants: Nigel Connor, Legal Director and Company Secretary Steve Jordan, Area Manager Jack Elias, Designated Premises Supervisor Other persons: Councillor Sarah Merry, representing Councillor Mackie The Application The applicant applied to amend licence condition 9 to read as follows: “The entrance doors to the Westgate Street frontage shall not be used by customers or staff for the purpose of exit/egress to and from the premises between the hours of 23:15 and 09:00 am Monday to Saturday and between 22:45 and 09:00 am on Sundays except in the case of emergency.” Condition 9 currently states: “The entrance to the premises on Westgate St shall shut to members of the public at 21:00 hours each day.” Applicant Representations Mr Nigel Connor presented the application. Members were advised that the applicant was seeking a modest variation to condition 9 on their premises licence. The premises was a long established, traditional public house that provided a food offering. There was no music, entertainment or dancing at the premises. The current condition was imposed in the year 2000 and it aligned with a planning condition that was in place at the time. In 2003 the planning condition was amended following an appeal. The planning conditions requires the door to be closed 15 minutes before the premises close. The applicant was now seeking to replicant the planning condition on the premises licence. Prior to the introduction of the Licensing Act there had been no restriction on the use of the door. The restriction was imposed following a request from South Wales Polce in 2005. Mr Connor considered that it was now appropriate for the conditions to be reviewed. There is only 1 entrance/exit in use at the premises after 2100 hours. Having two entrance/exits would improve the flow of customers in and out of the premises and assist the effective management of the premises at peak times. Referring to the representations received, Mr Connor stated that the majority of the representation raised concerns regarding noise and anti-social behaviour. In response Mr Connor stated that the premises were well run and were managed in accordance with established procedures. The Licensing Objectives were promoted at the premises and there was no record of any crime and disorder or noise nuisance. Members were reminded that no responsible authority had made representations on the application and Members were asked to give weight to that when they deliberate their decision. Mr Connor considered that it was reasonable for the applicants to seek the variation as Westgate Street was a busy throughfare in the city centre and other licenced premises on Westgate Street were not restricted in terms of access and egress. Mr Connor advised that the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy state that the Sub Committee must seek to get a fair balance. Member were assured that the applicants would continue to promote the licensing objectives. Door staff would manage the Westgate Street entrance on Friday and Saturday nights, as they do now, but until 2315 hours if the application is granted. The applicant was no seeking to vary any other conditions. Responding to a question from the Sub Committee, Mr Connor stated that the applicant would accept a condition on the licence that would require the premises to have a management plan in place in relation to the Westgate Street entrance. The Management Plan would require that no queuing be permitted and there would be no exit via Westgate Street after 2100 hours. Summing Up Mr Connor stated that a responsible operator should try to and address the concerns of objectors and this shouldn’t be treated as evidence that the applicants consider that the proposed changes will cause an issue. The premises has two entrances and the application seeks a reasonable request to extend the use of one door. Members were asked to consider whether a balance has been struck and that you take into consideration the way that the premises is currently managed. Mr Connor referenced paragraph 9.43 of the Section 82 guidance, that any decision by the Sub-Committee should be proportionate and based on evidence. Members were also asked to take into consideration the National Licensing Policy Framework, which requires the licensing regime to be flexible that support the needs of businesses as well as consumers and others. Other Persons Councillor Sarah Merry addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of Councillor Norma Mackie and residents of Westgate Street. Councillor Merry considered that the premises was located within a unique location adjacent to the Millennium Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park. The area was a conservation area and therefore residents in the properties opposite the premises were unable to install double-glazed windows. Councillor Merry considered that it was inevitable public nuisance would occur when customers are waiting to enter the premises. The Councillor did not accept that the applicants would lose customers as a result of the door remaining closed after 2100 hours. It was suggested that the mitigations offered by the applicant highlighted the fact that they are aware of the concerns of residents. The concerns regarding disturbance and anti-social behaviour were consistent but were more likely to occur on major event days. Decision The Sub Committee heard from the applicant, considered all evidence, submissions, and written material, and reviewed the Licensing Act 2003, Section 182 Guidance, the National Licensing Policy Framework, our own Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment. Members also heard the oral representations from the local ward member on behalf of a local resident. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the premises has been trading for a number of years with a good track record of management and also noted that no objection was received from either South Wales Police or Environmental Health. However, the Sub Committee also acknowledged that due to the proximity of the residential properties nearby and the nature of events that take place in the city centre that this is likely to cause public nuisance. RESOLVED – The Sub?Committee heard from the applicant, considered all evidence, submissions, and written material, and reviewed the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the National Licensing Policy Framework, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub?Committee also heard the oral representations made by the local ward member on behalf of a local resident. The Sub?Committee noted that the premises had been trading for a significant number of years and had established a positive track record of management. It also noted that no representations had been received from either South Wales Police or Environmental Health, and the Sub?Committee attached appropriate weight to the absence of objections from the responsible authorities. The Sub?Committee considered the explanation provided on behalf of the applicant that the current door restriction was imposed more than two decades ago in different regulatory circumstances, and that subsequent planning decisions had permitted later use of the Westgate Street entrance. The Sub?Committee also acknowledged the applicant’s position that extending the operational hours of that entrance would improve customer flow and support effective management, particularly during peak times, without undermining the licensing objectives. However, the Sub?Committee also acknowledged the concerns raised by the local ward member on behalf of residents, particularly in relation to the unique characteristics of Westgate Street, its proximity to the Principality Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park, and the limitations faced by some residents due to conservation area restrictions preventing the installation of double glazing. The Sub?Committee accepted that residents regularly experience elevated levels of disturbance during major events and that the reopening of an additional access/egress point could potentially increase the risk of public nuisance if not carefully managed. The Sub?Committee had regard to the fact that the objections centred primarily on the prevention of public nuisance and considered whether the proposed variation, if granted, would adversely impact that licensing objective. In doing so, the Sub?Committee took account of the applicant’s assurances regarding continued responsible operation, the existing use of door staff, and the willingness of the applicant to adopt additional controls through a formal management plan. Balancing all the evidence, the Sub?Committee concluded that the premises had demonstrated a history of compliance, that responsible authorities had raised no objections, and that the proposed variation could be permitted without undermining the licensing objectives, provided that additional safeguards were applied. The Sub?Committee therefore considered it appropriate and proportionate to grant the variation subject to additional conditions designed to address concerns relating to public nuisance, particularly on major event days. Accordingly, the Sub?Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the following additional conditions: • There will be no exiting from the doors on Westgate Street on major event days after 9pm. • The premises shall operate a documented door management plan designed to minimise disturbance to nearby residents. The plan must outline procedures for controlling entry and exit, managing external areas, preventing noise from patrons, and addressing any incident that may impact local residents. The plan shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by authorised officers. The Sub?Committee further noted that the application sought to include the following wording: “The entrance doors to the Westgate Street frontage shall not be used by customers or staff for the purpose of exit/egress to and from the premises between the hours of 23:15 and 09:00 Monday to Saturday and between 22:45 and 09:00 on Sundays except in the case of emergency.” For clarity, the Sub?Committee resolved to amend this to read: “entrance/egress to and from the premises.” The Sub?Committee considered that these conditions struck the appropriate balance between supporting the needs of the business and addressing the concerns of local residents. The Sub?Committee concluded that, with these measures in place, the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance would be promoted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – The Sub Committee considered all of the evidence, written material, and submissions made at the hearing. In reaching its decision, the Sub Committee had regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance issued by the Home Office, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee noted that the Temporary Event Notice related to a proposed event for up to 90 attendees, involving a daytime seated buffet and dancing in the evening, with dispersal concluding at 01:00 hours. The Sub Committee carefully considered the objection submitted by Environmental Health (Pollution Control), which stated that authorising the event would undermine the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub Committee attached significant weight to the history of noise nuisance associated with the premises. It noted that multiple complaints had been received from several individuals since 2024 in what is predominantly a residential area. The Sub Committee further noted that a noise abatement notice had been served in May 2025, and that five subsequent breaches of that notice had been witnessed by officers. Of particular concern to the Sub Committee was the evidence that a previous Temporary Event Notice, on 20 June 2025, had resulted in a further breach of the abatement notice, as licensable activities continued beyond the hours authorised by that TEN. The Sub Committee considered this a serious matter demonstrating both ongoing noise problems and a failure by the premises to comply with regulatory requirements designed to protect local residents. The Sub Committee took into account Mr Munro’s explanation that he had been unable to monitor previous events due to ill health, and noted that some internal alterations had been made to the premises in an effort to mitigate noise. However, the Sub Committee was not satisfied that these measures sufficiently addressed the underlying issues. The pattern of repeated breaches, including during a TEN, led the Sub Committee to conclude that there remained a significant risk that the licensing objectives would not be upheld. Having considered all of the evidence before it, the Sub Committee was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that allowing the event to proceed would undermine the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The cumulative history of complaints, breaches of a statutory abatement notice, and non compliance during a previous TEN carried substantial weight in the Sub Committee’s deliberations. Accordingly, the Sub Committee RESOLVED to issue a counter notice. The effect of this decision was that the Temporary Event Notice was not authorised and the event could not proceed.
Present: Responsible Authority: Bryony Harper, Pollution Control Respondents: Mr and Mrs Munro The Application A Temporary Event Notification (TEN) was received on 4 March 2026 from Caroline Munro for authorisation of a temporary event at Kings Road Yard and Dance Hall, 183a Kings Road, Pontcanna, Cardiff. The notification was in respect of an event due to take place between 12:00 hours and 01:00 hours on Friday 22 May 2026 (going into Saturday 23 May 2026) The nature of the event has been described as: “Formal sit down buffet taking place mainly in the dance hall (large downstairs room), which is located on the left side of Pipes Bar, furthest away from neighbouring properties. The room has been fully soundproofed to minimize any potential disturbance. During the daytime, the event will consist of a seated buffet style meal. In the evening, the same room will be used for dancing until midnight. Guests will begin to depart gradually after midnight, with all guests expected to leave by 1:00am”. The maximum number of persons attending the event at any one time, in accordance with the temporary event notice is 90. Pollution Control issued an objection notice to the Temporary Event Notice. They state that holding the event would lead to the undermining of the prevention of public nuisance. Responsible Authority Representations Bryony Harper of Pollution Control addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the area was predominantly residential and despite Kings Road Yard striving to meet the needs of the community, there have been a number of noise nuisance complaints investigated since 2024. Officers witnessed loud noise from King Road Yard and served a noise abatement notices on the owners in May 2025. Following the serving of these notices, a further 5 breaches were witnessed. Despite these issues being communicated to Mr and Mrs Munro, Pollution Control considered that insufficient mitigating actions have been taken to address these issues. Furthermore, a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) on 20 June 2025 led to a breach of an abatement notice, as licensable activities continued beyond the times permitted by the TEN. It was considered that this demonstrated the poor management at the premises and a disregard for the Licensing Objectives. Therefore granting further TENs would be irresponsible. Pollution Control requested Members to consider whether a counter notice should be served in relation to the proposed event. Responding to questions Bryony Harper stated that the complaints received were from multiple individuals. Respondent Representations Mr Munro provided an overview of the premises. Members were advised that Mr Munro was unable to monitor the events that had resulted in breaches to the abatement notices due to ill health. However the internal layout of the premises has been changed in an attempt to mitigate any noise nuisance. The TEN application was in respect of a wedding party. Mr Munro would accept reduced hours if the Sub Committee considered that necessary. Mr Munro was reminded that his existing premises licence would permit licensable activity until 2300 hours. RESOLVED – The Sub Committee considered all of the evidence, written material, and submissions made at the hearing. In reaching its decision, the Sub Committee had regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance issued by the Home Office, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee noted that the Temporary Event Notice related to a proposed event for up to 90 attendees, involving a daytime seated buffet and dancing in the evening, with dispersal concluding at 01:00 hours. The Sub Committee carefully considered the objection submitted by Environmental Health (Pollution Control), which stated that authorising the event would undermine the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub Committee attached significant weight to the history of noise nuisance associated with the premises. It noted that multiple complaints had been received from several individuals since 2024 in what is predominantly a residential area. The Sub Committee further noted that a noise abatement notice had been served in May 2025, and that five subsequent breaches of that notice had been witnessed by officers. Of particular concern to the Sub Committee was the evidence that a previous Temporary Event Notice, on 20 June 2025, had resulted in a further breach of the abatement notice, as licensable activities continued beyond the hours authorised by that TEN. The Sub Committee considered this a serious matter demonstrating both ongoing noise problems and a failure by the premises to comply with regulatory requirements designed to protect local residents. The Sub Committee took into account Mr Munro’s explanation that he had been unable to monitor previous events due to ill health, and noted that some internal alterations had been made to the premises in an effort to mitigate noise. However, the Sub Committee was not satisfied that these measures sufficiently addressed the underlying issues. The pattern of repeated breaches, including during a TEN, led the Sub Committee to conclude that there remained a significant risk that the licensing objectives would not be upheld. Having considered all of the evidence before it, the Sub Committee was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that allowing the event to proceed would undermine the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The cumulative history of complaints, breaches of a statutory abatement notice, and non compliance during a previous TEN carried substantial weight in the Sub Committee’s deliberations. Accordingly, the Sub Committee RESOLVED to issue a counter notice. The effect of this decision was that the Temporary Event Notice was not authorised and the event could not proceed.
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.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.