Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Paragraph x of Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then retired to undertake its considerations. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session and the Chair announced the decision. DECISION The Sub Committee has considered the application for a variation to a premises licence to add an external consumption area to the rear of the premises. No licensable activities will be taking place in this area. The Sub-Committee has received representations from interested parties, all of whom object to the application. Their representations are similar in nature expressing concern around Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety were the application to be granted. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee has considered the relevant parts of the Authority’s statement of licensing policy and the statutory guidance, together with all four of the Licencing Objectives. The Sub-Committee has considered this application on its merits and has carefully considered the written and spoken representations made, both in support of and written representations against the application. Whilst these representations are valid and have been considered, the Sub-Committee considers that they are perception-based rather than evidence-led. The Sub-Committee has therefore not attached as much weight to these representations as it would have done had evidence been cited. In this instance, the Licensing Objectives of the Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety are an issue. There is no direct evidence of these objections. The Sub-Committee finds that the absence of representations from any of the responsible Authorities – Fire, the Police or Pollution Control, being the experts in the Licensing Objectives is highly relevant. The Sub-Committee finds that the application made and clarified by the Applicant comprehensively promotes the Licensing Objectives and therefore the application can be granted.
There were none in attendance.
There were no declarations of interest received.
Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Vanessa Thomas. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2026 be approved as a correct record. [Councillor David Bryan abstained from the vote by virtue of not being in attendance at the meeting.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Paragraph x of Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then retired to undertake its considerations. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session and the Chair announced the decision. DECISION The Sub Committee has considered the application for a variation to a premises licence to add an external consumption area to the rear of the premises. No licensable activities will be taking place in this area. The Sub-Committee has received representations from interested parties, all of whom object to the application. Their representations are similar in nature expressing concern around Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety were the application to be granted. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee has considered the relevant parts of the Authority’s statement of licensing policy and the statutory guidance, together with all four of the Licencing Objectives. The Sub-Committee has considered this application on its merits and has carefully considered the written and spoken representations made, both in support of and written representations against the application. Whilst these representations are valid and have been considered, the Sub-Committee considers that they are perception-based rather than evidence-led. The Sub-Committee has therefore not attached as much weight to these representations as it would have done had evidence been cited. In this instance, the Licensing Objectives of the Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety are an issue. There is no direct evidence of these objections. The Sub-Committee finds that the absence of representations from any of the responsible Authorities – Fire, the Police or Pollution Control, being the experts in the Licensing Objectives is highly relevant. The Sub-Committee finds that the application made and clarified by the Applicant comprehensively promotes the Licensing Objectives and therefore the application can be granted.
The Chair introduced the application to the Sub-Committee and invited the Principal Solicitor to outline the procedure for the hearing. The Sub-Committee considered a report by the Lead Licensing Officer regarding an application for a variation of the premises licence for the Bunker, Saundersfoot. The Lead Licencing Officer clarified that this application was to add an external consumption area to the rear of the premises and did not include an application for licensable activities to take place. The Sub-Committee was informed that the bin storage area shown on the plan was now in a different location and clarified that there would be a maximum capacity of 50 persons with CCTV monitoring. The Lead Licensing Officer reported that the consultation had closed on 1 April 2026 during which time correspondence had been received regarding a right of way in respect of a fire exit. This had since been removed from the plan and, following consultation with the Mid and West Fire and Rescue Service, the Applicant had been advised to consult with a Fire Risk Assessor. The Lead Licensing Officer further advised the Sub-Committee that additional representations had been received outside of the consultation period and, as outlined in the Licensing Act, were not admissible. The Lead Licensing Officer informed the Sub-Committee that a response had been received from the Dyfed Powys Police Licensing Officer who was in attendance at the hearing. In response to a question raised by Councillor Mark Carter regarding the objections that had been received, the Lead Licensing Officer clarified that one objection had been received from the Tenant and one from the Owner of the Boathouse, a neighbouring establishment in Saundersfoot. Clarification was sought by Councillor Mark Carter regarding the ownership of the former fire escape as both objections were claiming to be the freehold owners to which the Lead Licensing Officer explained that this was outside the scope of the application and was a Civil matter. The Chair then welcomed the Applicant to the hearing and invited them to present their application to the Sub-Committee with the key points highlighted as follows. The Applicant clarified that she and her partner were the licensed premises owners and that they reside above the premises with two young children. They had owned the property since 2002, having been the licence holders until 2007 when they leased the property. The Applicant explained that the premises were run as a cellar bar and café above with limited day time trade and that, following an increase in the rateable value from £7,200 to £20,000, they sought to reinstate areas of the original licence. It was further explained that the external area had been removed from the licence during the previous tenant’s occupancy in October 2023 as they had no access to the area. The Applicant clarified that there were 17 existing licensed premises with outdoor areas and seating in the centre of Saundersfoot and that the Bunker was the only one that did not have an outdoor area. The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to ask questions of the Applicant. Councillor David Bryan thanked the Applicant for their comprehensive presentation and made reference to their application being for the hours of operation as 14:00-21:00hrs, when nearby premises were licenced until 22:30hrs. The Applicant explained that these were the hours previously attached to the premises licence and clarified that they were requesting what had previously been granted. The Applicant emphasised that they were looking to encourage the daytime trade and did not want to cause any disruption to neighbours or to their own young family. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Mark Carter regarding the representations that had been received highlighting the concerns that a ‘Happy Hour’ encouraged binge drinking, the Applicant explained that the application was similar to other establishments in the vicinity and sought to encourage trade. She advised that they had not experienced any problems during the ‘Happy Hour’ and highlighted that they were not open every day. It was noted by Councillor Mark Carter that the tenants of the nearby Boathouse held a licence for external drinking which was subject to strict lease provisions regarding any disturbance to neighbouring residential properties and the tightly controlled hours of use. The Applicant advised that their seating areas were similar in size; however, the Boathouse was licensed until 22:00hrs. In response to a further comment raised by Councillor Carter regarding the external fire exit of the Boathouse, the Applicant advised that she was aware that patrons used the fire exit to access and egress the Boathouse through the beer garden. It was clarified that there would be no access through the beer garden to the bar or café area at the Bunker. Clarification was sought by Councillor Mark Carter regarding the fire report undertaken by a professional company and the Applicant explained that the report stated that there was no requirement for a fire escape from the rear of the beer garden as the existing fire escapes and routes were adequate. In response to a question raised by the Chair regarding Personal Licence Holders being on site, the Applicant confirmed that, as both she and her husband were Personal Licence Holders, there would always be a Licence Holder on site during opening hours. In addition, the Sub-Committee was advised that a member of their staff also held a licence to provide cover during holidays. In response to a concern raised by Councillor David Bryan regarding one of the representations that had been received stating that the licence holder was known to not follow times and noise levels, the Police Licensing Officer clarified that there was no evidence to support that claim. Clarification was then sought by Councillor Mark Carter as to whether there had been any concerns regarding the premises or the licence holders and the Lead Licencing Officer confirmed that none had been received. In response to concerns raised by the Licensing Inspector regarding the premises plans, the Applicant clarified that the external area was identical in size in both the original plan and the new plan; however, the original drawings identified that they were approximate in size and were not drawn to scale. The Applicant further advised the Sub-Committee that the photographs of the external demonstrates that the boundaries had not altered and that the most recent plans were drawn to scale. The Principal Solicitor then clarified that any questions raised should be solely relevant to the application before the Sub-Committee. The Police Licensing Officer advised the Sub-Committee that he had liaised with the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service as the initial application had benefitted from a fire escape. They had confirmed that there were no concerns regarding the application with the existing fire escapes. In addition, the Police Licensing Officer clarified that there were no concerns regarding the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Prevention of Public Nuisance or Protection of Children from Harm as there had not been any issues either at the Bunker or with the Applicants’ management. No further questions were raised by the Sub-Committee and the Chair invited the Applicant to summarise their application. The Applicant clarified that the external garden area was limited to 50 persons with opening hours between 14:00-21:00hrs and included CCTV coverage. The Sub-Committee was advised that patrons would start to be dispersed from 20:30hrs and that they operated a strict challenge 25 Policy that required staff to request photo ID from any customer that appears under the age of 25. The Applicant reiterated that no permanent residents had submitted any objections and that the premises would be tightly controlled within permitted hours, capacity and supervision. They were seeking to provide an outside area for customers to sit and consume food and drink. The Chair then invited the Solicitor to present the options available to the Sub-Committee prior to deliberations. Exclusion of the public was Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor David Bryan. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the Meeting for consideration of the current item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under Paragraph x of Schedule 12A to the Act. The Sub-Committee then retired to undertake its considerations. The Sub-Committee then resumed in open session and the Chair announced the decision. DECISION The Sub Committee has considered the application for a variation to a premises licence to add an external consumption area to the rear of the premises. No licensable activities will be taking place in this area. The Sub-Committee has received representations from interested parties, all of whom object to the application. Their representations are similar in nature expressing concern around Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety were the application to be granted. In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee has considered the relevant parts of the Authority’s statement of licensing policy and the statutory guidance, together with all four of the Licencing Objectives. The Sub-Committee has considered this application on its merits and has carefully considered the written and spoken representations made, both in support of and written representations against the application. Whilst these representations are valid and have been considered, the Sub-Committee considers that they are perception-based rather than evidence-led. The Sub-Committee has therefore not attached as much weight to these representations as it would have done had evidence been cited. In this instance, the Licensing Objectives of the Prevention of Public Nuisance and Public Safety are an issue. There is no direct evidence of these objections. The Sub-Committee finds that the absence of representations from any of the responsible Authorities – Fire, the Police or Pollution Control, being the experts in the Licensing Objectives is highly relevant. The Sub-Committee finds that the application made and clarified by the Applicant comprehensively promotes the Licensing Objectives and therefore the application can be granted.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.