Pages

Wednesday, 29 December 2010

TARA's Engagement in the issues of the Bath Night Time Economy

TARA is involved in a number of activities aimed at improving the management of the night time economy and ensuring that resident's views are considered when decisions are being made.

We provide the chairman of a Police Resources and Visibility Working Group whose terms of reference are to:

1. Make practical recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of policing in the centre of the city

2. Make practical recommendations as to how the police and other agencies can work together to improve the experience of people using the city centre

3. Support the development of a vision for the management of the night time environment in Bath which can be used to guide future planning

4. Suggest ways of improving public understanding of policing in the City


We have a representative on BANE'S NTE Steering committee which is a coordinating body for all the agencies involved in the management of the night time economy.

We have a representive on the City Centre Management Partnerships’ - Environmental Management Project Group where local business representative discuss projects aimed at improving peoples' experience in the city centre.

We provided assessors for the overnight audit team for the Purple Flag which aims at improving the night time economy and winning outside recognitions for having done so.

We routinely act on behalf of Residents’ in the processes associated with:

* Licencing
* Planning and Development and in
* Discussions with Licensees

Friday, 17 December 2010

King Edwards School - Planning Application

We have objected to Samuel Smiths application for the removal, in its entirety, of Condition 21 of their current planning permission which relates to limits on the patronage of the rear courtyard area. The use of this large area by excessive numbers of customers could seriously harm the amenity of the occupants of the 20-odd apartments in the immediate area. It was for this reason that TARA, together with neighbouring residents’ groups, pressed for limits to the number of patrons allowed to use this area at any one time and we believe that the Committee was right to impose this condition.

The applicants’ reference to government Circular 11/95, and their argument that Condition 21 duplicates a condition imposed under the Licensing Act 2003 is, in our view, misconceived. The existence of parallel conditions on the same premises under the planning and licensing regimes is common. Even if this were not the case we believe there is no duplication. The licence condition which requires that the rear courtyard area be ‘predominantly seated’ turns on the meaning of the word ‘predominantly’ and, as such, is open to interpretation and would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. The planning condition which refers to a maximum occupancy of the rear courtyard of 96 patrons is, by contrast, precise and enforceable.
Since the applicants’ argument relating to Condition 21 depends entirely on the existence of ‘duplication’ we believe Condition 21 should be retained in its current form.