THE PROPOSAL
The
applicant seeks to extend an existing cocktail bar, Sub 13, currently occupying
the basement of 4 Edgar Buildings to the ground floor above and requests a
change of use from A2 to A4 in order to achieve this. Existing offices on the first floor would be
retained as would apartments on the second and third floors. The combined complex would have a new entrance
from the street shared with offices and flats above. The proposal would double the number of staff,
and presumably also of customers, to be accommodated at the premises.
The scheme
would essentially eliminate one of two existing levels, the ground floor, which
currently act as a buffer limiting the impact of any noise and disturbance in
the basement on residential levels at the second and third floors. The applicant proposes various measures, both
internal and external, to mitigate this impact and an acoustic analysis is
provided in supporting documentation describing these measures.
COUNCIL POLICY AND CONTEXT
The
applicant cites current council policy in support of the application as well as
pre-application advice provided by officers (16/00442/PREAPP). This states, inter alia, ‘The change of use to a drinking
establishment would be acceptable in principle under current policy. Considering the context of the site it is my
view that the proposed change of use would not be harmful to the character of
the Conservation Area or the vitality or viability of the centre. It is my view that there is not an over
concentration of A4 uses in this locality and the proposed change of use would
support vitality and viability by attracting more people to the area.’
Unsurprisingly
the applicant was ‘particularly heartened’ by these comments. Residents in the George Street area are
likely to be less enthusiastic. The
applicant does not refer to the potential impact of his proposal on an area
already stressed by excessive noise, violence and drunkenness associated with
the night time economy. Nor does he acknowledge
that, in addition to licensed premises, George Street contains offices, an
hotel, numerous other businesses and many residents, some of long standing,
most of them in flats above commercial premises including 4 Edgar Buildings. A study carried out in 2014 by the two local
residents associations, TARA and The Circus Area Residents Association (1)
highlighted the existence of 14 licensed premises in the 300 meter stretch of
George Street in which Edgar Buildings is situated, a concentration unmatched
anywhere else in Bath. This
comparatively small area has long been known in Bath for high levels of noise,
disturbance and crime associated with the night time economy all of which
adversely affect the amenity of local residents and visitors alike. Problems reported by residents include fights
and assaults (28% of recorded violent crimes between April 2012 and February
2013 in Bath took place in the George Street area), littering, public drug
taking and urinating, shouting and obscene language, threats of violence and
damage to property. 38 reportable
offences were committed during August 2016 including six violent and/or sexual
offences. The Council’s Cumulative Impact
Policy, introduced in Guidance to the Licensing Act 2003, while acknowledging these problems and the
widespread demand for public action that resulted from them, has done nothing
to limit the number of licenses premises in the area or their hours of
operation.
CONCLUSION
The
applicant claims there is nothing in council policy to prevent the granting of
further A4 consents in this locality. The council does, however, have various Retained Policies from the 2007 Local
Plan which do place upon it an obligation to consider any potential adverse
impact on local residents, and others,
where such applications are being considered. These include policies D2f and S6, which is
cited in support of the application, but which states ‘Proposals for A3, A4 and A5 uses within and adjoining the city
centre…will be permitted provided that (either singly or cumulatively with
other similar existing uses) they preserve or enhance the character or
appearance of the relevant part of the Conservation Area and do not have an unacceptable impact on the
retail viability and vitality of the area or the amenity of local residents.’
If there is
anywhere in Bath where such policies have relevance and should be routinely
implemented it is in the George Street area.
Compared with peer cities such as York and Chester Bath is exceptional
in the proportion of its citizens who choose to live in the city centre. This contributes to the character of the
city, to its economy and to its reputation for being a friendly, busy and
engaging place to visit and in which to live.
If the legitimate concerns of residents are ignored they will leave the
city centre, the fragile balance of interests there will unravel, and the city
will pay the price.
While we
support the night time economy we conclude that it would be consistent with
council policy to REFUSE this
application and request that this action be taken.
(1) The Impact of the Night Time Economy
in the George Street Area. A Joint
Report by CARA and TARA