There are dedicated parking spaces for motorcycles in the city centre. Despite this more and more spaces design for motor cars are now taken up by motor cyclists. We have even observed motorcycles parked on pavements which on Bath's busy streets seems to be inviting accidents.
The situation is made worse by the fact that as we understand it, and the BANEs website confirms, there is NO CHARGE levied on motorcycles occupying on street parking slots. Why not?
Not only do motorcyclist use their privileged position to use up more and more of the city's limited on street parking places, often taking up a space designed to accommodate a car or van with just one motorcycle, but some of them put covers on their bikes and leave them for days, weeks and even months.
We have raised this issue with BANEs council and await some action.
Friday, 26 August 2016
Thursday, 25 August 2016
Lords Committee on Licensing Act 2003 a response to call for evidence
Licensing objectives
1. Are the existing four licensing objectives the right ones
for licensing authorities to promote? Should the protection of health and
wellbeing be an additional objective?
While the existing objectives are fine as far as they go
they do not allow a proper consideration of the impact
that granting a licencing application may have on the quality of life in the
neighbourhood.
They also fail to address questions of cumulative impact.
Cumulative impact takes two forms:
·
Introducing new premises into areas that already
have a number of licenced venues. Banes council who struggle with balancing the large number of people who live and stay in
the city centre with the demands of the night
time economy have had to create the rather contrived mechanism of a local
cumulative impact policy and cumulative impact zone. This should be addressed
within the objectives of the licensing Acts.
·
Mission creep by applicants. A typical example
was two residential houses in a purely residential neighbourhood being bought
and converted into a B&B. The owners then applied for an alcohol licence
offering many reassurances and conditions to limit the sale of alcohol to in-house residents. Successive applications have by small steps extended this to having a
bar open to the public, vertical drinking, an outdoor drinking area of some
size and off sales.
2. Should the policies of licensing authorities do more to facilitate
the enjoyment by the public of all licensable activities? Should access to and
enjoyment of licensable activities by the public, including community
activities, be an additional licensing objective? Should there be any other
additional objectives? The balance between rights and responsibilities.
The enjoyment by the public of all licensable activities has
not been an issue
3. Has the Live Music Act 2012 done enough to relax the
provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 where they imposed unnecessarily strict
requirements? Are the introductions of late night levies and Early Morning
Restriction Orders effective, and if not, what alternatives are there? Does the
Licensing Act now achieve the right balance between the rights of those who
wish to sell alcohol and provide entertainment and the rights of those who wish
to object?
The issue with the Live Music Act 2012 was that it was a one
size fits all deregulation regime which allows little discretion for local
authorities to adapt its provisions to local situations. In situations where
people live near licenced premises, this
Act has left them defenceless in the face of premises exploiting the opportunities
the Act creates for boosting their commercial offer. The limitations imposed by
the act are hard and expensive to police, who will go and count how many people
are in a crowded pub, and the legislation
on noise nuisance is often inadequate to deal with the real world situations
that arise.
It is perhaps worth noting at this point that licensing
reviews have proved to be largely useless in practice for defending the rights
of residents and indeed other businesses. It is a little disturbing that your question talks about “those who wish to
object” rather that those who live and work in affected areas.
4. Do all the responsible authorities (such as Planning, and
Health & Safety), who all have other regulatory powers, engage effectively
in the licensing regime, and if not, what could be done? Do other stakeholders,
including local communities, engage effectively in the licensing regime, and if
not, what could be done?
If you take an area like Bath you will find that most
licenced premises are or have been in a position where there planning
conditions are in conflict with their licensing conditions. The artificial
barriers created by the legislation between planning and licensing should be
removed. This would allow both planning and licensing
authorities to hear and consider all the evidence of the impact or potential
impact that a premises will have on its
environment.
Similarly, the constraint on licencing authorities not to impose
conditions on things which are subject to other legislative regimes should be removed allowing the licencing authority to
effectively coordinate the work of all agencies in relation to licenced
premises.
Licensing and local strategy
5. Licensing is only one part of the strategy that local
government has to shape its communities. The Government states that the Act “is
being used effectively in conjunction with other interventions as part of a
coherent national and local strategy.” Do you agree?
No the see 1 & 4 above
6. Should licensing policy and planning policy be integrated
more closely to shape local areas and address the proliferation of licensed
premises? How could it be done?
Yes, see 4 above
Crime, disorder and public safety
7. Are the subsequent amendments made by policing
legislation achieving their objects? Do they give the police the powers they
need to prevent crime and disorder and promote the licensing objectives
generally? Are police adequately trained to use their powers effectively and appropriately?
The new policing legislation has certainly created
improvements and had given officers far more options which they seem keen to
exploit. However, it is still early days.
The new legislation still leaves
gaps the most obvious example being the lack of any effective control over
“Party Houses” which can cause endless misery for their neighbours and blight
communities.
8. Should sales of alcohol airside at international airports
continue to be exempt from the application of the Act? Should sales on other
forms of transport continue to be exempt?
No comment
Licensing procedure
9. The Act was intended to simplify licensing procedure; instead, it has become increasingly complex.
What could be done to simplify the procedure?
Give licensing authorities more discretion to create or
adapt the procedure to reflect local conditions and the nature of applications
they are receiving.
10. What could be done to improve the appeal procedure,
including listing and costs? Should appeal decisions be reported to promote
consistency? Is there a case for a further appeal to the Crown Court? Is there
a role for formal mediation in the appeal process? Sale of alcohol for
consumption at home (the off-trade)
We have an example in Bath of a premises which used the appeal process to resist decisions of the
licencing authority, and the planning authority, for 10 years. This is
unacceptable and led to housing units actually being vacated because the
premises involved made living in them intolerable. None of the substantive
appeal issues was upheld and the premises could legally trade in defiance of
the local authority’s decisions.
The fear of the cost of being appealed is clearly having an
influence on licencing committee decisions and the way in which they are being
implemented. Local residents are often effectively locked out of the appeals
processes. The idea of formal mediation would certainly be worth considering as
a way of addressing this.
11. Given the increase in off-trade sales, including online
sales, is there a case for reform of the licensing regime applying to the
off-trade? How effectively does the
regime control supermarkets and large retailers, under-age sales, and delivery
services? Should the law be amended to allow licensing authorities more specific
control over off-trade sales of “super-strength” alcohol?
Licenced premises regularly report pre-loading and the
smuggling of alcohol into their premises as a major factor impacting their
ability to control drink fuel disorder and trade profitably.
Retailers, in particular,
the major supermarkets often promote cheap drink offers and create products
which in practice make drink smuggling easier.
Under the current legislation it is virtually impossible to
object to a new off-licence even where it
is in close proximity to numbers of licenced venues and areas know for high
levels of drink-fuelled disorder – see
attached exchange with Banes licensing department.
12. Should alcohol pricing and taxation be used as a form of
control, and if so, how? Should the Government introduce minimum unit pricing
in England? Does the evidence that MUP would be effective need to be
“conclusive” before MUP could be introduced, or can the effect of MUP be gauged
only after its introduction?
No comment
Fees and costs associated with the Licensing Act 2003
13. Do licence fees need to be set at national level? Should London, and the other
major cities to which the Government proposes to devolve greater powers, have
the power to set their own licence fees?
No comment
International comparisons
14. Is there a correlation between the strictness of the
regulatory regime in other countries and the level of alcohol abuse? Are there
aspects of the licensing laws of other countries, and other UK jurisdictions,
that might usefully be considered for England and Wales?
No comment
15. Additional comments
Consideration should be given to giving licenses to
applicants rather than premises. Applications and conditions which may give little cause for concern by one
applicant may be inappropriate if the premises are sold to a different operator
with a different business model. Also because licences have a commercial value
there are numerous examples of applicants asking for hours they do not intend
to use because they will add value to the building when it is sold.
Where applicants make assertions before licencing committees
which are clearly influential in the decision to grant or are intended to be
influential these assertions can often not be turned into conditions for a
variety of largely technical reasons. In these cases, the assertions themselves
should be recorded and be made available at subsequent applications or reviews.
The assumption to grant built into the 2003 Act was
justified on the basis that the review procedure would be a powerful tool in
correcting any mistakes. In practice,
this has proved not to be the case. Licencing Committees who might have been quite comfortable with refusing a new
application are very reluctant to close premises that are already operational
and providing employment. The review procedure is also complex and difficult
for ordinary residents to use. An example of the reluctance to withdraw
licences can be seen BANEs with the outcome of a review on a nightclub where
undercover police had been sold class a drugs on numerous occasions by a drugs
operation that involved the premises management and the committee was shown
some 15 minutes of CCTV footage of customers coming out of the building so
drunk they were unable to stand, customers vomiting and defecating outside the
premises, customers fighting, customers trying drunkenly to force entry into
neighbouring premises. While conditions were imposed the premises were allowed
to continue their operations uninterrupted.
Monday, 22 August 2016
Improving Enforcement in the public realm - a suggested approach
The suggestion is that a group be set up to
produce a Task and Finish report on Enforcement in our city.
This should be addressed in 4 parts.
1. A review of all the current public realm enforcement
regulations and penalties and establish what the current policy is towards their
implementation and what enforcement activity has been conducted over the last 5
years.
2. Seek legal advice about whether new legislation could be
used to create more enforcement options. Some of these options may require
formal consultations before they can be used and at this stage it might be
necessary to undertake some informal consultations to establish likely public
responses.
3. Assess available resources that are or might be made
available to improve reporting and enforcement. This would include:
• Staff in
BANEs, officers both police authorities, residents, businesses, the BID and
other agencies who are active on the streets
• Technology
such as the CCTV network, personal CCTV, radio networks, text reporting and
personal phone apps
4. Preparation of a detailed report and a list of
recommendations for the Council to consider and approve in order to implement
an improved enforcement regime for our city. This would have the aim of
improving the quality of life for all those who live, work and visit our city.
Planning application relating to GARFUNKELS, ORANGE GROVE
In summary we ask that the application be REFUSED or a
DECISION DEFERRED until matters of concern to local residents are adequately
addressed.
Consultation, Information and Objection
The premises occupy a part of the ground floor of the Empire,
a Grade II listed apartment building, formerly a hotel, which is home to forty-three
households most of whose members are elderly.
Some of the apartments are immediately above the premises which are the
subject of this application. An
application for change of use to A3/A4 where a family restaurant is to be
replaced by a ‘gastropub’ can, of course, lead to a considerable increase in
disturbance from drinkers particularly where, as is the case here, there are
likely to be higher numbers of customers and outside drinking areas are
planned.
While the applicant has taken the trouble to present his
proposals to Empire residents he does not appear to have responded to their
concerns. Existing parasols and an
enclosed conservatory which have afforded some protection to residents until
now are to be removed and replaced by open verandas along the south elevation
of the building where diners and drinkers can gather immediately below the
apartments. To address this problem, the
applicant proposes reinforced canvas awnings.
However, from the drawings available (unfortunately sections through the
verandas are incomplete) these awnings do not appear to cover the full width or
depth of all the verandas. The applicant
cites, in para 3 of the Design and Access Statement, ‘an acoustic analysis…that
shows that the proposed open veranda arrangement will have no more detrimental
acoustic effect than the current conservatory bearing in mind the ambient sound
of Orange Grove’. The existing parasols
are not referred to in this context and the acoustic analysis is not included
among available documents.
Council Policy
The applicant does not seek to justify a change of use to
A3/A4 in this sensitive location; he has not dealt satisfactorily with local
residents concerns over amenity, nor does he discuss the application in the
context of council policy. The council
has various Retained Policies from the 2007 Local Plan which do address such
concerns where planning applications are being considered. These include Policies S6, S7 and D2f which
states: ‘Development will only be permitted if it will not cause significant
harm to the amenities of existing or proposed occupiers of, or visitors to,
residential or other sensitive premises by reason of loss of light or increased
overlooking, noise, smell, traffic or other disturbances’.
Conclusion
We conclude that it would be consistent with council policy
to refuse or defer a decision on this application until the applicant is able
to reassure local residents on issues of amenity. This could be done by fully enclosing the
verandas, thus treating them as conservatories, or by enlarging the awnings to
ensure that the verandas are fully covered above and to the sides. In any event the applicant needs to show in
an acoustic and environmental analysis that the measures taken will ensure that
noise and disturbance from diners and drinkers, and the nuisance caused by
cigarette smoking, will be no worse than at present.
However, should the council be minded to grant consent on
the basis of the application as presented we ask that a condition be imposed
which would require the clearance of the verandas, except for arriving and
departing customers, and the cessation of consumption of food and alcohol from
10.00 pm nightly.
Finally, although the applicant makes no reference in
available documents to changes to current arrangements for cooking,
ventilation, storage and removal of waste, etc, we ask that an additional
condition be imposed that would provide that the premises may not come into use
until proposals for ventilation including the elimination of cooking smells and
for the storage and disposal of waste, especially bottles, have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Monday, 8 August 2016
Some thoughts on managing coach drop off in the City Centre
There is no light bulb solution to this problem. Cities that attract large numbers of tourists
to their historic centres find themselves trying to reconcile conflicting
needs. Tour operators who are on a tight
schedule (the average stay-over for coach borne tourists in Bath is said to be
90 minutes) want to get their customers into the popular locations and out
again with as little fuss as possible. Then it is on to Stonehenge and
Longleat. Cities on the other hand, and
particularly residents who live in the historic core, want to reduce as far as
possible the nuisance associated with tourist coaches such as congestion and in particular
harmful emissions.
The standard model to which many cities aspire would have
visitors dropped off at designated points as close as possible to the central
zone and picked up again at pre-arranged times as coaches return from dedicated
parking areas further out. This model
has obvious failings. Each bus makes two
visits to the city centre thus disrupting operators' schedules and increasing
congestion.
An obvious improvement would be in effect a park and ride
system for coaches. All coaches park
outside the centre in dedicated parking areas and shuttles carry visitors into
and out of the centre. The electric
'petit trains' and shuttles operated by such French cities as Montpelier, Nimes
and Toulouse which are 'themed' as part of the visitor experience and provide direct
access even to traffic-free streets could easily be adapted for this
purpose. Of, there would be numerous
problems associated with trying this in Bath including the usual issues of
land, routes and resources. Perhaps the
river could be brought into use. It is vital that BANEs get specialist advice on addressing this issue sooner rather than later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)