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 Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police. The Sub Committee noted the concerns raised regarding antisocial behaviour, drug supply, and the general character of the area. However, no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that these issues could be directly attributed to this premises. Members further noted that the premises had been operating for approximately eight months and that no evidence had been presented of breaches, enforcement action or complaints during that time. While the applicant had limited experience of running a licensed premises, they placed weight on the absence of any issues during the period the premises has been trading. Members also noted that the premises was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area, and therefore negative cumulative impact was not a matter they could take into account when determining the application, and the commercial demand for a premises was not a consideration for the Sub Committee. Having considered all the evidence and representations, they were satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. Members noted that the Licensing Act allowed for any person to apply to review a licence in future should evidence arise that the operation of the premises was undermining any of the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, issued a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice preventing licensable activities from being authorised. The Sub Committee carefully considered the representation made by Environmental Health and were satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that permitting the temporary event would undermine the licensing objectives. In reaching their decision, they placed weight on the evidence of previous breaches associated with the premises licence, including a breach of a noise abatement notice that was discovered at a previous event authorised by a Temporary Event Notice. Members were concerned that the combination of these factors created a significant risk of undermining the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance, and therefore resolved to issue a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice. The effect of this decision was that the event was not authorised to proceed.
There were none.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police. The Sub Committee noted the concerns raised regarding antisocial behaviour, drug supply, and the general character of the area. However, no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that these issues could be directly attributed to this premises. Members further noted that the premises had been operating for approximately eight months and that no evidence had been presented of breaches, enforcement action or complaints during that time. While the applicant had limited experience of running a licensed premises, they placed weight on the absence of any issues during the period the premises has been trading. Members also noted that the premises was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area, and therefore negative cumulative impact was not a matter they could take into account when determining the application, and the commercial demand for a premises was not a consideration for the Sub Committee. Having considered all the evidence and representations, they were satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. Members noted that the Licensing Act allowed for any person to apply to review a licence in future should evidence arise that the operation of the premises was undermining any of the licensing objectives.
Present Applicant: Shahrami Ahmedi Ward Member: Cllr Lexi Pocknell Cllr Lee Bridgeman Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from Shahrami Ahmedi in respect of Smoke UK, 32 Countisbury Avenue, Llanrumney, Cardiff, CF3 5SJ. The applicant had applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “Smoke UK operates as a local mini market retail premises offering confectionary, soft drinks and general convenience items” (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: 07:00 to 23:00 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 07:00 to 23:00 hours Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee, Shahrami Ahmedi explained that he had made the application so he could sell alcohol at his shop. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he had run his shop for around eight months and had not sold alcohol before, but was fully trained and would be the Designated Premises Supervisor. All staff would be trained to use Challenge 25, and any incidents on the premises or refusals of sale were recorded in a log. Members asked whether there had been any issues such as antisocial behaviour on or linked to the premises. Mr Ahmedi responded that there had been very few problems other than children trying to buy energy drinks when they weren’t allowed to, and he was happy with his business. Ward Member Representations Addressing the Sub Committee as Ward Member for Llanrumney, Cllr Pocknell explained that she was opposing the application as she felt a responsibility to protect residents. Countisbury Avenue already had multiple premises that sold alcohol, so it would not be answering any unmet need but rather adding to an already saturated environment. She referred to ongoing antisocial behaviour issues in the area, including loitering, noise, littering and intimidating behaviour, which got worse in the evening. The site was a commercial strip close to residential communities. There were already premises there selling alcohol and operating extended hours, and adding another outlet would have a further impact. She emphasised that supporting businesses should not come at the cost of community wellbeing. In particular, she cited the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and protection of children from harm, based on concerns from residents. Members asked whether the disorder and nuisance in the area was linked to a particular premises. Cllr Pocknell suggested that it was not one specific premises but rather the whole area due to children and young adults congregating there. Addressing the Sub Committee as Ward Member for Llanrumney, Cllr Bridgeman added that the area around Countisbury Avenue had seen repeated issues with e-bikes, gangs and drug dealing. South Wales Police had tried various disruption tactics and recently a mini mart had been closed for selling illegal tobacco, which had dispersed some of the youngsters from the area. The Ward Members had opposed this shop having a licence in the first place as there were already two vape shops on the street, as well as plenty of premises that sold alcohol. Cllr Bridgeman added that residents often approached him with the concern that premises like these were not operated in the right way, with some being linked to organised crime. It was a new shop that had only been open for a few months, with no experience of selling alcohol, and was changing its business model from a vape shop to a convenience store. Members asked if the issues on Countisbury Avenue were attributable to alcohol, and if so whether they had been referred to the police. Cllr Bridgeman suggested that the police might not have the full picture, as issues had to be recorded in Bridgend rather than Llanrumney. There were persistent issues with local drug dealing and they were concerned as Ward Members about the possibility of local establishments being linked to this. Summing Up Summing up, the Ward Members cited ongoing issues on Countisbury Avenue, to which alcohol was a contributing factor, and their need to support their community as their reasons for opposing the application. Summing up, Mr Ahmedi emphasised that he would be a responsible licence holder and wanted to contribute to the area having a good character. Decision RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police. The Sub Committee noted the concerns raised regarding antisocial behaviour, drug supply, and the general character of the area. However, no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that these issues could be directly attributed to this premises. Members further noted that the premises had been operating for approximately eight months and that no evidence had been presented of breaches, enforcement action or complaints during that time. While the applicant had limited experience of running a licensed premises, they placed weight on the absence of any issues during the period the premises has been trading. Members also noted that the premises was not located within a Cumulative Impact Area, and therefore negative cumulative impact was not a matter they could take into account when determining the application, and the commercial demand for a premises was not a consideration for the Sub Committee. Having considered all the evidence and representations, they were satisfied that the grant of the premises licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. Members noted that the Licensing Act allowed for any person to apply to review a licence in future should evidence arise that the operation of the premises was undermining any of the licensing objectives.
This item was withdrawn, having been agreed.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, issued a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice preventing licensable activities from being authorised. The Sub Committee carefully considered the representation made by Environmental Health and were satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that permitting the temporary event would undermine the licensing objectives. In reaching their decision, they placed weight on the evidence of previous breaches associated with the premises licence, including a breach of a noise abatement notice that was discovered at a previous event authorised by a Temporary Event Notice. Members were concerned that the combination of these factors created a significant risk of undermining the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance, and therefore resolved to issue a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice. The effect of this decision was that the event was not authorised to proceed.
There was one urgent item. Present Applicant: Caroline Munro Keith Munro Responsible Authorities: Gillian Jones (Pollution Control) Temporary Event Notification A Temporary Event Notification (TEN) had been received on 17th April 2026 from Caroline Munro for authorisation of a temporary event at Kings Road Yard & Dance Hall, 183a Kings Road, Pontcanna, Cardiff, CF11 9DF. The notification was in respect of an event due to take place between 12:00-23:00 on Friday 22nd May 2026. The notification was to allow the following licensable activities: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the premises (ii) The provision of regulated entertainment The event had been described as a dance party to begin with a sit-down meal. The maximum number of persons attending the event at any one time in accordance with the TEN was 100. Pollution Control had issued an objection notice to the TEN, stating that holding the event would lead to the undermining of the Prevention of Public Nuisance licensing objective. The Sub-Committee was required to determine if a counter notice, which would prevent licensable activities from being authorised, should be issued. Responsible Authority Representations Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of Pollution Control, Gillian Jones explained they had submitted a representation against the TEN under the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance. Environmental Health had served two noise abatement notices on Kings Road Yard last year for loud music and loud noise from patrons, and since the service of those they had witnessed five breaches relating to loud music and noise from patrons. The team had an ongoing noise prosecution case which was going to court, and didn’t feel they could allow the TEN to go ahead in the circumstances. She added that Environmental Health hadn’t received any evidence from the applicant of improvements made to the sound insulation or noise management plan to show what they had done since the service of those notices. The venue was in a built-up residential neighbourhood, and the extension of hours was likely to cause more noise nuisance. The team felt that the TEN was an intensification of what they were licensed for, which was already causing an issue. Members asked whether Environmental Health had received any information from the applicant about how the previous breaches had been or would be mitigated, and heard that the TEN application was lacking in that respect. Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee, Keith Munro suggested that contrary to the responsible authority’s representation, he and his wife had sought to significantly mitigate the previous issues raised. They had closed the room which had been identified as causing the bulk of the problem, with no more amplified music in there, and were insulating another room, with triple glazing due to arrive soon for the other rooms. They were also building a structure which would help to keep the noise down when patrons were eating and drinking, which would be finished in time for the event in May. Mr Munro read out two letters of support from neighbours whose properties were directly adjacent to the premises, which described it as having a welcoming and considerate family atmosphere, and suggested that it caused less noise nuisance than the pubs nearby. Mr Munro explained that the event itself was a wedding where the couple wanted to have a cocktail bar, and the application was required because the current licence only allowed the sale of wine and beer. The couple had also asked for the event to go on until 1am but the applicants had said no, since other venues in the area closed at 11. They only had up to three large events per year, in contrast to other local venues which had 20-30. Members asked whether the mitigation measures the applicants had been working on had been done in conjunction with Pollution Control and Environmental Health so they could carry out the appropriate tests. Mr Munro responded that Environmental Health had been informed in writing. They had temporary insulation in place while they waited for the triple glazing to arrive, and were confident that this would reduce any noise pollution. Members asked why the concerns raised by Environmental Health hadn’t been addressed sooner. The applicants recalled that they had met with the statutory authority last year and told them about their plans to close the one room and reduce the noise outside. It was expensive to undertake permanent soundproofing but they were confident it would be in place by the time of the event. The representative of Pollution Control asked whether the premises had sought advice from an acoustic consultant, noting that they had been awaiting a noise management plan which had not been forthcoming. The applicants suggested that their sound consultant had felt it wasn’t as necessary due to the closure of the room that was causing much of the issue. The representative of Pollution Control suggested that more information was required regarding the methods of mitigation and their timescales, and they didn’t yet have adequate information to show how the applicants would control the noise of the venue. Summing Up Summing up on behalf of Pollution Control, Gillian Jones noted that multiple complaints over many years had cumulated in the service of two noise abatement notices and an ongoing prosecution, and they were still receiving complaints as of last Friday night. They considered this application to be an intensification of use, as it concerned a large event with alcohol to be drunk during the day. Summing up, Mr Munro emphasised that they had made the application on behalf of the couple who were getting married, who wanted a cocktail bar at their wedding. If not approved they would just have other alcohol, as the applicants had personal licences and were experienced licence holders. They recently had a wedding that went very well, and there had never been any trouble at the Yard. They did not feel that they had received any legitimate complaints across 22 years of operating. Decision RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, issued a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice preventing licensable activities from being authorised. The Sub Committee carefully considered the representation made by Environmental Health and were satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that permitting the temporary event would undermine the licensing objectives. In reaching their decision, they placed weight on the evidence of previous breaches associated with the premises licence, including a breach of a noise abatement notice that was discovered at a previous event authorised by a Temporary Event Notice. Members were concerned that the combination of these factors created a significant risk of undermining the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance, and therefore resolved to issue a counter notice in respect of the Temporary Event Notice. The effect of this decision was that the event was not authorised to 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.