Newid hinsawdd, sero net, llifogydd, ynni, bioamrywiaeth, parciau a mannau gwyrdd.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae pob cyngor yng Nghymru wedi datgan neu ymateb i'r argyfwng hinsawdd ac mae ganddo gynlluniau i dorri ei allyriadau ei hun, o adeiladau, cerbydau a'r hyn y mae'n ei brynu. Mae cynghorau hefyd yn rheoli perygl llifogydd ar afonydd a nentydd lleol.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae'r Cabinet yn cytuno ar gynlluniau hinsawdd; mae pwyllgorau craffu'n gwirio cynnydd.
Dweud eich dweud
Gofynnwch i'ch cynghorwyr sut mae'r cyngor yn gwneud yn erbyn ei dargedau ei hun, ac ymatebwch i'w ymgynghoriadau ar gynlluniau.
Wrthi'n llwytho
Fesul cyngor, y 12 mis diwethaf
Faint o eitemau agenda ar y pwnc hwn y deliodd pob cyngor â nhw, a faint oedd â phenderfyniad wedi'i gofnodi.
Penderfyniad: Cymeradwyodd y Pwyllgor y newidiadau llywodraethu arfaethedig, gyda'i ddiwygiadau ei hun. Y prif bwyntiau yw: (1) Bydd swyddogion yn penderfynu ar geisiadau i amrywio amodau, gwneud newidiadau bach, cyflawni amodau neu gymeradwyo materion a gadwyd yn ôl (manylion a adawyd tan yn ddiweddarach), oni bai bod y Pwyllgor yn gofyn yn ffurfiol i un ddychwelyd ato. (2) Bydd ceisiadau'n mynd at y Pwyllgor os ydynt ar gyfer 250 neu fwy o gartrefi, mwy na 2,500 metr sgwâr o ofod masnachol, safleoedd dros 10 hectar, neu ddatblygiadau mawr gyda Datganiad Effaith Amgylcheddol. (3) Y Cadeirydd fydd yn penderfynu ar geisiadau gan aelodau i gyfeirio cais, a rhaid iddo gadw cofnod o'r penderfyniadau a'r rhesymau a'i adrodd yn rheolaidd i'r Pwyllgor. (4) Gall y Cadeirydd ofyn i gais ddod at y Pwyllgor. (5) Ymgynghorir â'r Cadeirydd pan fo pum gwrthwynebiad neu fwy yn dod o bum aelwyd neu fwy. (6) Bydd pob cais gan swyddogion yn y Gwasanaeth Cynllunio sy'n gwneud penderfyniadau cynllunio yn mynd at y Pwyllgor. Caiff pob siaradwr 4 munud, a gall mwy nag un aelod ward siarad yn ôl disgresiwn y Cadeirydd. (10) Paratoir Cod Ymarfer Da Cynllunio i Aelodau wedi'i ddiweddaru a Chanllaw Cynllunio unigol. O ran deisebau, pleidleisiodd y Pwyllgor i argymell i'r Cabinet na ddylai deisebau â 50 neu fwy o lofnodion anfon cais at y Pwyllgor yn awtomatig mwyach. Yn hytrach, byddent yn mynd at y Pennaeth Cynllunio, mewn ymgynghoriad â'r Cadeirydd, a byddai'r Cynllun Deisebau yn eithrio ceisiadau dilynol neu dechnegol. Rhoddwyd awdurdod dirprwyedig i swyddogion gwblhau'r gwelliannau i'r Cyfansoddiad, sy'n mynd at y Pwyllgor Cyfansoddiad ac yna'r Cyngor llawn. Mae newidiadau'r Cynllun Deisebau yn mynd at y Pwyllgor Cyfansoddiad ac yna'r Cabinet. Rhoddwyd awdurdod i'r Pennaeth Cynllunio gwblhau'r nodiadau gweithdrefn a'r protocolau eraill. Anfonir cadarnhad o'r trefniadau terfynol at bob aelod.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following persons to current Local Authority Governing Body vacancies as follows:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applications
Received
Cantonian
Fairwater
11/04/2026
Eastern High
Trowbridge
06/05/2026
Dylan Rees
Fairwater Primary School
Fairwater
26/03/2026
Tomos Dillon
Grangetown Nursery School
Grangetown
27/03/2026
Greenhill School
Rhiwbina
02/07/2025
Hywel Dda Primary School
Ely
03/09/2025
Russell Meade
Llanedeyrn Primary School
Pentwyn
30/04/2026
Meadowbank School
Llandaff North
23/04/2026
Russell Melbourne
Marlborough Primary School
Penylan
01/05/2025
Ninian Park Primary School
Grangetown
25/04/2026
Davina Guignard
Radnor Primary School
Canton
12/12/2025
Matthew Russell
St Alban’s RC Primary School
Splott
06/02/2026
Charlotte Husnjak
St Francis RC Primary School
Ely
08/03/2025
St Joseph's R.C Primary School
Gabalfa
27/04/206
St Peters RC Primary School
Plasnewydd
30/04/2026
Michelle Matthews
The Saints Federation
Pentwyn
09/09/2025
Lee Davies
Ysgol Cynefin
East- Llanrumney
West-Fairwater
01/05/2026
Whitchurch Primary School
Whitchurch & Tongwynlais
28/10/2025
Abigail Monk-Jones
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf
Llandaff North
01/05/2025
Owain Jones
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Plasmawr
Fairwater
08/12/2025
Zoe Hayne
Ysgol Gymraeg Pwll Coch
Canton
30/06/2025
Gareth Jones
Ysgol Gynradd Groes-Wen Primary School
Pentyrch & St Fagans
01/02/2025
Gareth Howells
Ysgol Pencae
Llandaff
27/11/2024
The Committee received and considered applications to future vacancies against criteria, matching skills to vacancies.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Re-appointment requested.
New Application Received
Baden Powell Primary School
Splott
28/09/2026
Stuart Parsons
Bryn Celyn Primary School
Pentwyn
28/09/2026
Cantonian High
01/07/2026
School
Fairwater
01/07/2026
Corpus Christi R.C. High School
Lisvane & Thornhill
17/09/2026
Kath Brown
30/09/2026
Gordan Plant
Eastern High x 2
Trowbridge
30/09/2026
Martin Weinel
Gabalfa Primary School
Llandaff North
30/09/2026
Thomas Wooley
Lakeside Primary School
Cyncoed
01/07/2026
Llanederyn Primary School
23/07/2026
Nicola Whitefield
Llanishen High School
Llanishen
30/09/2026
Barbara Cooke
Stephen Hudson
30/09/2026
Llysfaen Primary School
Lisvane & Thornhill
01/07/2026
Cllr Sian Melbourne
Marlborough Primary School
Penylan
01/07/2026
Andrew Twyman
Meadowlane
Primary School
Trowbridge
31/07/2026
Moorland Primary School
Splott
30/09/2026
Cllr Margaret Lewis
Pentrebane
28/09/2026
Primary School
Fairwater
30/09/2026
Peter Lea Primary School
Fairwater
01/07/2026
Radyr Primary School
Radyr &
Morganstown
28/09/2026
Rhiwbeina Primary School
Rhiwbina
30/09/2026
Dr Samuel Williams
Roath Park Primary
23/07/2026
Cllr Peter Wong
School
Plasnewydd
30/09/2026
Springwood Primary School
Pentwyn
20/07/2026
RESOLVED:
The Hearings Panel determined unanimously to proceed with the Hearing in public, noting that such matters would ordinarily be an open Hearing and that Cllr Latif’s representations did not raise issues of a sensitive nature which would warrant the matter being heard in private.
As there were no further procedural matters and no submission of late evidence, the Panel proceeded to consider findings of fact.
Cllr Latif confirmed that he did not dispute the key facts set out in the Investigation Report.
As the facts of the case were not in dispute the Chair of the Panel determined to combine Stages 1 and 2 of the procedure (findings of fact and whether a Code of Conduct breach had arisen) and sought representations initially from Mr. Morris and thereafter Cllr Latif.
Philip Morris drew attention to the facts, referring to page 39 of the papers, stating that:
· The actions of Cllr Latif on 3 June 2024 related to the criminal offence of locking on which is a relatively new offence under the Public Order Act 2023
· When the matter came before the Magistrates Court in May 2025 Cllr Latif pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay costs amounting to £750 and a surcharge of £26
· Cllr Latif continued in his role as Councillor throughout
· The incident gave rise to media articles (as referred to in Appendix 9 of the Investigation Report) and Social Media attention (as referred to within Appendix 9, pages 139-162 of the agenda pack). There were mixed views with some comments in support of Cllr Latif’s actions.
· The investigation of breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct relates to Paragraph 6.1(a), the duty to not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute, as referred to at Paragraph 8 of the Investigation Report.
· When interviewed Cllr Latif had provided a balanced account and had been open in terms of his actions, he’d shown remorse and had made a self-referral to the Ombudsman
· The Investigation Report sets out undisputed facts at Paragraph 26-38. One disputed fact was whether Cllr Latif attended the protest as a Councillor. Albeit Paragraph 6.1(a) applies in public as well as in private life, it is submitted that on the facts as Cllr Latif had introduced himself to the police as being a Councillor, that he did attend the protest in his capacity as a Councillor rather than as a private individual.
· References made to Paragraph 44 of the Investigation Report, and that Cllr Latif had expressed remorse from the start.
· References made to the role and requirement to uphold the law being a key principle to be adhered to by members.
· The Panel’s attention was drawn to Paragraph 53 of the Investigation Report which concluded that there was sufficient indication by the Ombudsman that Cllr Latif’s actions were suggestive of a breach of Paragraph 6.1(a) of the Code of Conduct and contrary to the principle that members have a duty to uphold the law.
The Hearing Panel discussed the issue of a breach to the Code of Conduct and bringing the Council into disrepute.
Cllr Latif openly expressed remorse, explaining that he did plead guilty at the Magistrates court.
The Hearing Panel noted the Nolan Principles and paragraph 6.1 a of the Code which stated:
You must:
Not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably by regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
Cllr Latif had prepared the following statement:
“Thank you for considering my statement. I take my role as a councillor seriously and deeply regret being before you.
I offer my sincere and unreserved apology. I recognise the importance of public trust and accept responsibility where I have fallen short. It was never my intention to bring the Council into disrepute, and I have reflected carefully and learned from this experience. I have also completed a refresher course on Standards and Ethics Committee requirements at the beginning of the year to strengthen my understanding and practice.
I remain committed to serving my community with integrity. I will also continue to stand firm in my principles, including speaking out for Gaza and Palestine and against oppression wherever it occurs, while ensuring I do so responsibly and in line with the standards expected of my role.”
The Hearing Panel had no questions
The Hearing Panel adjourned to deliberate in private.
The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision.
RESOLVED:
The Chairman announced that a unanimous decision had been reached by the Panel; that they were satisfied that the facts of the case had been established; and that with regard to whether Cllr Latif had attended the protest in a personal or Councillor capacity, they were satisfied that as he had introduced himself to the Police as a Councillor, he indeed was present at the police station in his capacity as a Councillor.
Given the facts, specifically, the public order nature of the offence of locking on, the guilty plea, the conviction and sentence of 18 months conditional discharge, together with £750 costs and surcharge of £26, together with the fact that the Cllr had introduced himself as a Councillor and the media coverage, with headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor, and social media commentary, some of which was negative, and having regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code of Conduct, paragraph 6.1(a) duty, the Panel were satisfied that the Cllr had brought the office of Councillor and the Council into disrepute, and therefore, paragraph 6.1(a) (and the principle of upholding the law underpinning the Code of Conduct) had been breached by Cllr Latif.
The Hearing Panel moved on to Stage 3 of the Hearing Procedure to discuss sanctions and invited representations from Mr Morris and Cllr Latif.
Mr Morris submitted that there were a number of mitigating factors including remorse shown by Cllr Latif; that he had made a self-referral; that no previous complaints had been received by the Ombudsman’s office against Cllr Latif; and that he had attended refresher training on the Code of Conduct.
Cllr Latif submitted that his actions were wrong and the situation could have been avoided; he had definitely learned from the experience; that the outcome that he had wanted to achieve at the police station could have been achieved without locking on and sitting down. There was a lot of noise in the police station and at the time he was ill (and was on sick leave from work). He had heard via social media about the protest and thought he’d be able to help. In future he would not get involved again.
Rashpal Singh asked Cllr Latif about his goal/purpose in attending the police station. Cllr Latif explained that he knew a number of Police Officers and he thought that he would be able to calm down and resolve the situation; that as a local councillor he felt that he could open up a channel of communication, however he was wrong as he was only there for forty five minutes, whereas protesters had been there from early afternoon.
Cllr Latif said he had hoped his actions could make a difference, but on reflection he now believed that he had over estimated his abilities and had been very ambitious.
Louise Evans asked Cllr Latif what the impact had been on him from the reporting of the incident and criminal conviction. Councillor Latif provided a full answer which contained personal information.
The Hearing Panel adjourned to consider potential sanctions in private.
The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision.
RESOLVED:
Having regard to the undisputed facts of the case as set out in the Investigation Report, including the seriousness of the criminal offence of locking on pursuant to the Public Order Act 2023 and the sentence issued by the Magistrates Court together with Cllr Latif’s comments during his interview with the Ombudsman’s investigating officer during which Cllr Latif had commented (as set out at page 8 of the Investigation Report) that ”the police officers were in an intense situation” and “the atmosphere was very charged”, the Panel took the view that in that situation, a public office holder would reasonably be expected to act responsibly and lawfully and walk away if necessary.
The Panel also considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, noting the seriousness of the breach, and the consequences for the reputation of the Council and the Councillor (having regard to the media headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor and social media commentary on Cllr Latif’s conviction by the Magistrates Court), and the various mitigating factors, as outlined by Mr Morris.
Having regard to all of the above, the Panel determined that Cllr Latif be suspended as a County Councillor for the City and County of Cardiff for two months.
The Panel noted that a decision notice would be provided to Councillor Latif setting out the reasons for the decision within five working days. The rights of appeal would also be outlined in the decision notice. The Panel noted that an appeal would have to submitted within 21 days.
A brief email would be sent to Cllr Latif today, outlining the Panel’s decision.
Penderfyniad: Penderfynodd y pwyllgor ar y ceisiadau yn unol ag argymhellion adroddiadau'r Cyfarwyddwr Cynllunio, Trafnidiaeth a'r Amgylchedd. Rhoddodd ganiatâd i 26/00507/FUL (digwyddiadau byw dros dro ar ran o Gaeau Blackweir, Cathays), 25/02030/FUL (pont i gerddwyr a beicwyr yn Central Quay), 25/01468/FUL (pont i gerddwyr a beicwyr yn y Marl a Pharc Hamadryad) a 26/00360/HSE (estyniadau yn 23 Charlotte Square, Rhiwbina). Rhoddodd ganiatâd i 25/02351/FUL (adeilad cyd-fyw ar dir rhwng Stryd Custom House, Stryd Bute a Stryd Hope, Cathays) yn amodol ar gytundeb Adran 106. Cytundeb cyfreithiol yw hwn sy'n nodi'r hyn y mae'n rhaid i'r datblygwr ei ddarparu neu dalu amdano.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application for the grant of a Personal Licence.
The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration.
However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office.
Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life.
Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence.
Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
RESOLVED that the press and public be excluded from the hearing in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Licensing Act (Hearings) Regulations 2005, to enable the Sub-Committee to take legal advice.
(CLOSED SESSION)
Members discussed the issues relating to the application.
(OPEN SESSION)
The Lawyer advising the Sub-Committee gave a comprehensive overview of the legal advice tendered.
The Chair indicated that the Sub-Committee had considered the application and representation made and the needs and interests of all parties in terms of the Council’s Statements of Licensing Policy, statutory guidance and the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.
The Sub‑Committee RESOLVED TO GRANT the application for a new premises licence as modified, subject to:
• Conditions consistent with the operating schedule (Appendix C),
• Mandatory conditions under the Licensing Act 2003, and
• The following modification:
Live Music
Friday & Saturday 1900- 2300
Recorded Music
Monday – Sunday 0900 - 2330
Supply of Alcohol
Monday - Sunday 1100 – 2330
1. No off sales are permitted at the premises.
2. An incident recording book, bound in numerical order, shall be maintained at the premises showing details of the date and time of all assaults, injuries, accidents or ejections, as well as details of the members of staff involved, the nature of the incident and the action/outcome. The book must be kept available for inspection by the Police and authorised officers of the Licensing Authority.
3. Comprehensive recordable CCTV system will be installed and maintained covering the trade areas whilst encompassing all ingress and egress to the premises. The system must continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain at the premises. The system must be capable of providing pictures of evidential quality, in particular facial recognition. All recordings must be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time. Recordings must be made available immediately upon the request of a Police or Authorised Officer.
4. The premises to keep up to date records of staff training and refresher training in respect of age-related sales including proxy sales to persons who are drunk and identifying and preventing drug misuse in written or electronic format available for inspection on request by an authorised officer.
5. The capacity of the premises will be calculated by way of fire risk assessment and staff to ensure capacity it adhered to at all times.
6. Emergency lighting and fire alarm testing to be recorded and maintained.
7. Structural safety of premises to be maintained.
8. External lighting around premises and in car park and to be maintained at all times.
9. Notices shall be clearly displayed in the premises to emphasise to customers the prohibition on providing sales of alcohol to persons under the age of eighteen years.
10. Notices shall predominantly displayed at all exists requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and leave the area quietly.
11. Notices shall be predominantly displayed in all areas used externally asking patrons to respect the needs of the local residents and use the area quietly.
12. No bottles, shall be moved, removed, or placed in outside areas between 0900 hours and 1800 hours.
13. Outside areas to be kept free of rubbish.
14. A Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises where the only acceptable forms of identification shall bear their photograph, date of birth and a holographic mark.
15. A log shall be kept detailing all refused sales of alcohol. The log should include the date and time of the refused sale and the name of the member of staff who refused the sale. The log shall always be available for inspection at the premises by the police or an authorised officer of the Council whilst the premises are open.
16. Key staff members to have undertaken safeguarding training and premises to have a designated safeguarding officer.
17. No adult entertainment is permitted at the premises.
Reasons for Decision
The Sub‑Committee carefully considered the application and operating schedule, the Officer’s report and agenda pack, the written and oral representations from other persons, the oral submissions made on behalf of the applicant, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Statutory Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.
The Sub‑Committee determined the application on its individual merits with a view to promoting the four licensing objectives.
The Sub‑Committee attached significant weight to the fact that no relevant representations were received from any Responsible Authority, including South Wales Police, licensing, Environmental Health and Trading Standards. Members considered this to be a strong indication that the application did not give rise to concerns of a regulatory nature in respect of the licensing objectives.
The Sub‑Committee carefully considered the written and oral representations from residents. These included concerns regarding noise nuisance, particularly from music and the use of the balcony area, late‑night bottling out, anti‑social behaviour, the potential change in the nature of the premises and increased use by the public, together with issues relating to traffic, parking and highway safety.
The Sub‑Committee recognised these concerns as genuinely held. However, Members noted that certain matters raised, including parking, traffic conditions and behaviour beyond the premises, are not licensable matters or are beyond the control of the premises licence holder and therefore cannot be determinative of the application. These matters were nevertheless considered insofar as they related to the licensing objectives.
The Sub‑Committee placed considerable weight on the evidence and assurances provided by the applicant. Members noted that the premises is a long‑established golf club and that the intention of the application is not to fundamentally alter the nature of the premises but to modernise its licensing arrangements and support its ongoing viability.
The Sub‑Committee noted that the applicant acknowledged the concerns raised by residents and had taken steps to address them, including agreeing to a voluntary modification to restrict bottling out to between 09:00 and 18:00 hours, and confirming that a clear point of contact would be available for local residents.
The Sub‑Committee further noted the measures in place to promote the licensing objectives, including the provision of comprehensive CCTV coverage, the operation of a Challenge 25 policy and staff training in relation to age‑restricted sales, safeguarding arrangements including designated safeguarding officers, a course marshal system, incident recording procedures and general responsible management practices.
Members were satisfied that these measures, together with the conditions attached to the licence and the agreed modification, were appropriate and proportionate to address the concerns raised.
In particular, the Sub‑Committee was satisfied that the prevention of crime and disorder would be promoted through the presence of CCTV, trained staff and established management practices. Public safety would be promoted through structured safety and safeguarding arrangements. The prevention of public nuisance would be addressed through the restriction on bottling out, together with conditions relating to noise control and the use of external areas; and the protection of children from harm would be ensured through the Challenge 25 policy, staff training and safeguarding measures.
Accordingly, the Sub‑Committee concluded that the concerns raised by residents could be appropriately mitigated by the conditions attached to the licence together with the agreed modification. Members were satisfied that those measures were necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.
In light of the absence of Responsible Authority objections, the applicant’s engagement and willingness to mitigate concerns, and the robustness of the proposed conditions and operating schedule, the Sub‑Committee determined that the grant of the premises licence, as modified, would promote the licensing objectives.
The Sub‑Committee therefore resolved to grant the application.
Right of Appeal
Any party to the decision has the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of the formal decision notice.
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.