Saturday, 21 December 2019

The Bath City Forum

The Bath City Forum emerged out of a discussion about ways in which it might be possible to address the “Democratic Deficit” issue. This was the fact that although it is the largest town in BANES it did not have its own democratic forum unlike all the other towns in BANES and that it is represented by a relatively small number of councillors compared to its economic and cultural impact on BANES.

The discussion focused primarily on two scenarios based respectively on parish models or Winchester Committee model. The Bath City Forum, loosely based on the Winchester model was what ultimately emerged from this process.

The City Forum failed to deliver:

  1. It is perceived as undemocratic because of the appointment of 13 members selected by a largely opaque process using undisclosed selection criteria
  2. It has failed to achieve any significant level of public recognition
  3. It has failed to achieve any significant level of public participation or attendance
  4. It is widely perceived a talking shop which has failed to create any vision for Bath or identify solutions to its problems
  5. A number of public bodies have used the existence of the forum as an excuse to withdraw from other forms of public consultation and engagement
Alternatives for moving forwards seem to be:

  1. To go down the route of creating a Bath City/Parish Council
  2. Create a unique structure or structures to address the original problem but incorporating lessons learned from the failure of the Forum
  3. Reform the BANES council structures and processes to properly acknowledge the central role Bath plays in the economic and cultural success of BANES as whole 
From the point of view of Bath City centre residents, we would prefer BANES to go down the route of reforming BANES structures. However, if this is considered to be too radical we would support the creation of a Bath City/ Parish Council.

Wednesday, 4 December 2019

TARA's response to the proposed extension to the Abbey Footprint Hoardings

We are very concerned that this will result in serious constraints to pedestrian flow at a critical location at the height of the tourist season in 2020.

What is your modelling showing? Where do you think these pedestrian flows will go? What plans do you have for managing congestion at the site of the proposed hoarding and in areas affected by displacement?

Wednesday, 6 November 2019

In adequate assessment of fireworks on the Rec

We have just received the impact assessment for the fireworks display plan for the Rec.

We are disappointed to see that once again this document does not cover the environmental impact.

The impact assessment does not properly address the issues of environmental impact. Big fireworks displays always create a large spike in particulate pollution across the city and most concerningly a spike in the very dangerous PM 2.5 levels.

Saturday, 19 October 2019

TARA’s response to the CAZ consultation

Class D is the only option that even on the basis of the council’s own technical advice is likely to achieve a quick reduction in pollution levels. We would have expected a responsible council to want to stop poisoning people in the centre of Bath as quickly and as certainly as possible. We would also expect an administration that has declared a climate emergency would want to act as fast and effectively as possible in all areas of environmental management.

We welcome the inclusion of more of the city centre in the revised boundary and particularly the inclusion of the Pulteney Estate.

Whenever Queen Square has been partially closed in recent years it has displaced disruption and pollution elsewhere in the City. Spreading pollution over a wider area is not really pollution reduction it is playing with numbers. The disruption such schemes cause to residents and businesses in the city centre is always significant and this combined with the increases in pollution and disruption which will as ever, happen in the rat runs which will be exploited by drivers seeking to avoid Queen Square make this proposal unacceptable. Once again we are discussing ad hoc traffic management schemes in the absence of any vision or strategy for managing traffic in the city centre.

BANES have never managed to enforce current weight limits or most other motoring regulations such as the 20mph speed limit. What now makes you think you can enforce new ones? Have the police commented on this and to what effect? If the answer to these question involves extending the role of the proposed CAZ camera network to cover issues other than emission standards is this accounted for in the proposed budget?

A commitment to monitoring the scheme is essential to get residents’ to have any confidence in this watered-down proposal. We also need a commitment to the swift enhancement of the CAZ regulatory framework and boundaries if monitoring shows it is failing to meet its objectives in a timely fashion.

We also need assurances that current monitoring will be reviewed as many badly affected sites do not appear to be being monitored properly, for instance, key city centre canyons such as Broad Street. 

We would welcome any proposals to increase the capacity of the Park and Ride provision particularly to the east of the city.

We would welcome concrete proposals to improve the amount and affordability of public transport but remain unconvinced that what appear to be gimmicky advice services and apps can a be anything other than a minor and potential confusing diversion. 

Pedestrians and cyclists have very different needs particularly in dense urban contexts so please stop lumping them together in this sort of document.

Pollution in the city centre has been a scandal for more than a decade and for all that time people have been having their health damaged and their lives shortened. 

Politicians and pressure groups over this period have held numerous workshops, seminars and written countless papers. The few solutions which have got as far a the planning and feasibility assessment phase have been variously cancelled or watered down to the point of being ineffective often to appease some small but electorally significant group outside the city centre. 

If this council is really committed to environmental protection then they will put the proposed CAZ in place as soon as possible and be prepared to swiftly introduce tougher regulations if and when monitoring shows it is not meeting its objectives.
Once this is achieved we then need as a matter of urgency to address other forms of pollution, such as small participate as well as other sources of pollution.

Saturday, 28 September 2019

Supermarkets and the problems of the nighttime economy

One of the biggest issues in the management of drink fueled anti-social behaviour in Bath's nighttime economy is pre-loading. This is where drinkers buy and consume cheap alcohol prior to their night out. Often the symptoms of drunkenness from this practice only become apparent after they have been admitted to licenced premises when they have topped up.

Licensees often have, in addition, to deal with the problem of customers smuggling cheap alcohol into their premises which as well as fueling increased drunkenness hits their profits and therefore damages a sector of the Bath economy.

Latenight revellers can regularly be seen drinking alcohol in the streets and on public transport in defiance of laws and regulations. Little of this drink is supplied by clubs and bars who are strictly regulated and who's drinks are relatively expensive but it is readily available from supermarkets and off-licenses at very low prices.

In addition off-licences and supermarkets often offer multi-buy discount encouraging people to buy larger quantities than they may have intended. They also supply high strength drinks in pocket-sized containers.

Off-licenses and in particular supermarkets are in comparison very lightly regulated and under the current legislation, as interpreted by the licensing authority, hard for residents to object to or get conditions imposed on. They also fall outside the scope of the Cumulative Impact Policy.

Saturday, 21 September 2019

Council representation in city centre wards

It is widely known that due to the bizarre way in which BaNES is structured, of the fifty-nine Councillors in BaNES only twenty-six (44%) represent the fourteen wards that comprise the City of Bath.  Eleven Councillors, about one in five of the total, have Bristol Post Codes.

It is less well known, but apparently the case, that not a single Councillor with the possible exception of Sue Craig (Liberal Democrat, Kingsmead) whose address is not posted on the Council website, lives within in the area covered by the three main city-centre residents' associations, TARA, CARA and PERA which comprise the City Centre Action Group.  This area contains not only an unusually high resident population for a city centre but all of the city's main visitor attractions including the Roman Baths and Bath Spa, the iconic mainly 18th C. streets, terraces, crescents and squares, the city's main churches and museums, its commercial core and principal shopping centre.  It is a thriving community which underpins the BANES's economy as well as its global reputation.

Could such an imbalance in representation partly account for the sorry state of the heart of our city when compared with peer cities such as York and Chester which do not have the advantage of World Heritage Site status.  The physical infrastructure of our city-centre is way below current European standards and comments by visitors on its messiness and unkempt appearance are common in the media.  There is no police station or post office worthy of the name (Melksham and Wells have both).  Waste collection and litter removal have serious unresolved issues, traffic management is incoherent and air quality in many parts of the city centre below legal standards.

All of this underpins, the importance of having active local residents' groups to speak up for the interests of the city centre to the Council.  And there is no substitute for having your local Councillor as a neighbour as residents in communities such as Norton Radstock and Keynsham, who having ten Councillors between them.  The Bath City Centre Forum has entirely failed to address any of these issues.

The 'parishing' of the city has been discussed and although the process of achieving this might be lengthy and difficult it is one we would support.

Pedestrianisation - a magic bullet?

A number of politicians, pressure groups and officials have talked about pedestrianising all or part of the city centre. We have a number of concerns about this:

1. We doubt that BANES have well a founded traffic management scheme which can avoid considerable disruption and chaos if the is extensive experimentation with pedestrianisation. The traffic management in the city centre is poor even under normal circumstances. One-off closures of Milsom Street and Queen square have shown our doubts are not without foundation.

2. Any pedestrianisation scheme needs to be part of a carefully thought through a traffic plan for the whole of the city centre to avoid unintended consequences elsewhere in the city. We have yet to see such a scheme. This traffic management plan needs to encompass more than just traditional traffic issues and in addition cover, the range of things address by the late lamented Public Realm and Movement Strategy.

3. Pedestrianisation will create numerous problems for city centre residents ranging from loss of parking to problems with access. A large number of people live in the city and nobody seems to accord them and their needs any priority in pedestrianisation experiments or longer-term schemes. There are many residents and visitors with impaired/variable mobility and energy, who don’t meet Blue Badge criteria but would be adversely affected if the centre was pedestrianised. Accessibility for them appears to have been overlooked.

4. Most importantly this whole debate seems to be starting from the wrong end. We should be talking about how to improve the city centre for all those who live, work and visit. Pedestrianisation may have a role to play in these plans but it cannot and should not be seen as an end in itself.

It has been suggested that pedestrianisation is the magic bullet to improve air quality in the city centre. TARA has a long history of fighting to get improvements in air quality and this has shown us that the issue is much more complex than this and those advocating extensive pedestrianisation need to acknowledge this or we will fail to have the result that we would all wish to see. This is particularly true if we move from our current focus on NOX to the much more dangerous small-particulate pollution.

Sunday, 15 September 2019

The Rec Trust AGM

We recently attended the AGM of the Rec Trust.

The meeting highlighted the work some of the organisations supported by the charitable work of the trust which was often inspiring and impressive.

However, much of the rest of the meeting served to highlight the unsatisfactory nature of the constitutional arrangement for the Rec and the growing distrust an antagonism between the Trustees and their Bath City neighbours and, in our view, the failure of the Trustees to properly acknowledge or manage these problems and concerns.

The AGM is the only official chance the people of Bath get to publicly question the Trustees about their stewardship of the Rec or their decisions about how they pursue their charitable objectives.

Questions were raised about the basis of decisions about how charitable funds were being spent and the trustees priorities. We for instance questioned an apparent assumption that there was little or no poverty in the city centre either in absolute terms or in terms of access to sport and recreation.

However, many people had come to question the Trustees about their role as neighbours and custodians of one of the cities most inportant green recreational asset.

Responses to these question fell into roughly two catagories:

  1. Anodyne legalistic responses which often failed to ackowledge either the legal issue raised or the concern that the underpined them
  2. Assertions that such questions where not appropriate at the AGM.
This latter catagory raised further concerns about the constitutional arrangements. People naturally asked if their questions where not approprite to this meeting which meeting would be appropriate. The answer to this seems to be the AGM of the company that manages the charity. The catch here being that you can only attend that meeting if you are a member of the company and the only members of the company are the Trustees. 

How then do you become a Trustee? Well you apparently apply to the existing board of Trustees and then they and they alone decide if you are a suitable candidate.

Saturday, 14 September 2019

The impact of pollution on NHS services

Pollution has a major impact on NHS services in terms of costs and service demand but also in terms of patient outcomes.

We have been talking to the BANES Clinical Commissioning Group about the possibility of the becoming more proactive in campaigning for more funding for anti-pollution measures.

Following recent discussions we are now more helpful that they are shifting the view on this and will start gathering the financial and medical data they have to make the business case for increased funding to substantially reduce pollution in BANES.

Our discussions with BANES also suggest a willingness on their part to work with and encourage the NHS in this arena.

Tuesday, 3 September 2019

Response to the Licensing Policy Consultation

Broadly, and because we recognise the limitations imposed on the Licensing Authority by legislation, we are supportive of the Policy as drafted. 

We particularly welcome the emphasis on best practice and the incorporation of examples of best practice in the policy so that they can be taken into account in judging applications, enforcement activities and reviews. 

We would have liked to have seen more in that best practice about working with local residents and residents’ representatives. 

Where licensees have shown a willingness to engage with local residents we have seen a significant reduction in complaints and real reductions in public nuisance. Examples include pre-application consultations, acceptance of conditions to hold regular meetings with residents, giving residents contact telephone numbers and participation in Nightwatch.

We accept that the redrawing of the boundary of the cumulative impact boundary reflects the new situation on the ground, largely due to key premises closing or significantly changing their business models. 

We did have one suggestion that BANES might consider. While acknowledging that it would fall outside what was envisioned by Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Act. We would propose including the river bank outside the Rugby Stadium and relevant adjacent streets and areas on the grounds that there is soon to be a substantial planning application which includes several new licensable premises in this area and that this is likely to greatly increase the cumulative impact within the timeframe of the review.

Wednesday, 14 August 2019

Love Milsom Street

As this and other similar events look set to become more regular. We are asking BANES to ensure that they will be doing some follow up studies on the impact of these both positive and negative and that these assessments will be shared with residents.

Saturday, 22 June 2019

Rough sleepers, beggars and street drinkers

City centre issues involving rough sleepers, beggars and street drinkers continue to be a significant problem.
In addressing this issue, it is important to be clear that not all or even most of the people involved are homeless. Some are homeless, some are not technically homeless but remain part of the street community some are merely criminals expoiting the generousity of passers by. It is also important to recognise the fear that the behaviour of some of this community generate in vulnerable residents and visitors.

There is an ongoing programme of outreach work seeking to meet the accommodation problems of this community and the problems of untreated mental illness, addiction and substance abuse which often underpin them.

However, we are concerned that:

  • Not enough is being done to identify the criminal explotation public symapthy and modern slavery which we suspect underpins much aggressive begging.
  • Systematic cuts to policing budgets and priorities set have impacted the policing of anti-social protection and public protection.
  • The problems are complex and require a multi-agency response but it is not clear where responsibility for this coordination lies
  • Mental health services continue to be massively underfunded across the board

Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Alcohol licence application Bath Fish And Chip Company Limited

We object to this licence being granted as we believe in its present form it will add to public nuisance and disorder.

These premises are in a very sensitive location at the epicentre of the cumulative impact zone of night-time economy; close to other licensed premises and a taxi rank and on the route from the clubs and pubs in the north of the city to trains, taxis and buses.
We have little objection to a restaurant in this location serving alcohol to customers sitting down and eating substantial meals.

However, given its location and the well established connection between pre-loading and public nuisance as well as the potential for already intoxicated persons getting access to further alcohol bought by members of their group at off sales premises we have considerable concern about a licence which allows off sales or even on-site sales not as part of a substantial meal.

The committee and licensing officers will be well aware of the disorder associated with other fast food takeaway premises in the city centre.

If the Licensing Authority is minded to grant this licence we would ask the conditions be added requiring alcohol only be served as part of a substantial meal.

Sunday, 16 June 2019

Policing Bath: what should the priorities be?

We would like to see more resources given to policing the city centre.

However, we are concerned with the nature of the debate which is now taking place.

Firstly, the fear of crime still remains a greater problem than actual crime. The fear of crime has both economic and socially damaging effects on our community. The way in which the current debate is being conducted is in our view increasing the fear of crime.

Secondly, we need a much more serious debate about where any additional resources released by central government should be spent.

The main focus to-date has centred upon providing a new police station but should this really be the priority?

We would like to see more and better-equipped officers. While we wait for these to be provided better CCTV coverage is key to ensuring limited resources are effectively deployed to combat on-street crime and disorder.

However, what is really likely to make the biggest difference is proper investment in mental health and substance misuse services and programmes to tackle the mental illness issues which are the root cause of most crime and anti-social behaviour.

Indeed proper investment in mental health services would in itself free up police resources as the current poor provision in this area too often means that police become the default service responding to mental health crises for which they are ill equipt and ill-trained.

It is very important to residents that this debate is properly conducted and does not become just another political football.

Tuesday, 4 June 2019

The Assembly Rooms

The press release from the National Trust about their plans for the Assembly Rooms raises a number of concerns.

They appear, on the face of it,  to be proposing to deprive residents of a well used and well-loved community asset and endanger the future of one of Bath's most important museum collections in order to create a sort of theme park attraction to be a cash cow for other National Trust properties.

Friday, 17 May 2019

Clean Air still not a priority

For many years we have been campaigning for a plan of action to address the scandal of high levels of pollution poisoning residents of, visitors and workers in the city centre. 

We were pleased when central government funding became available to create a clean air zone and actively participated in the discussions with officers and their specialist advisors in designing the best way to implement it. During the consultation that followed, we actively campaigned that the officers’ carefully consider recommendations should be implemented. 

Unfortunately, the CAZ became a political football where the voting intentions of North East Somerset took precedence over swift and effective action to stop city centre residents’ health being damaged. It also meant that the decision date was pushed back so close to the elections as to jeopardise the implementation of even the suboptimal proposal.

We now face the prospect of further delays and uncertainty as the new council plan to "have the evidence re-examined". 

How many people will have their health permanently damaged while politicians debate whether or not to take decisive action and will the central government funding still be available when they finally decide? 

Charging people £9 to bring highly polluting vehicles into the city we know will make a difference faster than anything else yet proposed so let's get on and do it and start saving lives.

Friday, 12 April 2019

The management of the streetscape

We are concerned about the management of the streetscape and in particular:

  • The management of cycling and cyclists in the city centre
  • What is going to replace the Public Realm and Movement Strategy which was designed to bring public infrastructure in the city centre up to international norms and appears to have been abandoned?
  • Pavement parking
  • The unregulated use of car and cycle parking bays by motorcyclists

Sunday, 7 April 2019

The Policing Debate

We continue to lobby for more resources to be given to policing the city centre. 

However, we are concerned about the nature of the debate which is now taking place. 

Firstly, the fear of crime still remains a greater problem than actual crime. The way in which the current debate is being conducted is in our view increasing the fear of crime. 

Secondly, we need a much more serious debate about where any additional resources should be spent. For instance, not just creating a new police station but spending on having more and or better-equipped officers, more CCTV coverage or perhaps properly funded programmes to tackle the drug dependence and mental illness that drives much of the theft and anti-social behaviour. 

It is very important to residents that this debate is properly conducted and does not become just another political football.

Wednesday, 3 April 2019

Formal Complaint to Banes

This complaint is about the Highways department and concerns two issues.
  1. Failure to respond to a written enquiry

The relevant BANES policy is:
“We will:
Respond to all written enquiries within 10 working days. This means either:
A full response to your enquiry, or;
If we need to take longer to give a fuller response, we’ll tell you why and what the next steps are, or;
Your emails or web-based requests to our team in-boxes are automatically acknowledged where possible and provide information about next steps
Write clearly and concisely, so that information is easy to read and understand
Include a named contact person and phone numbers in our correspondence”
  1. Failure to deal with a highways obstruction

The relevant BANES policy, which we understand is mandated by legislation, is:
“Encroachment of the Highway  
Any obstruction on the public highway must be appropriately licenced by Bath & North East Somerset Council. Any unlicensed obstruction is an encroachment of the highway and should be reported to Council Connect for Highway Inspection.”

I and my residents’ association have been complaining about the trade waste dump on a pavement in George Street for some years. The dump is located next to at a very busy junction which is crossed daily at all time of the day or night by large numbers of pedestrians who are often forced into the traffic flow.  The dump is often hit by passing HGV’s and buses.
The dump is located close to both residential and business premises and is poorly maintained and causes a number of environmental problems. Local businesses have also complained both to BANES and the BID on numerous occasions and we have had a number meetings in an attempt to resolve issues.
In February of 2018 I on behalf of local residents, the MD of Moles on behalf of local businesses and our ward councillor Peter Turner sent a letter to the highways department in an attempt to clarify the legal status of the dump. I have written on my own behalf a couple of years before but received no reply.
We had had no reply by the summer so we approached the cabinet member responsible for highways who sent two emails about a month apart to Highways requesting a response to our letter.
Since by August we had still not had a response from Highways I submitted an FOI request. This request was responded to in the required legal timescales with a two-word response on a copy of my request.
This response uncovered the fact that the dump was unlicensed and that Highways knew that it was and allowed it to continue to block the Highway without consulting neighbouring premises and without the required license. From the Bid, we have learned that this was a result of discussions they had had with Highways.

It is worthy of note that we have still not received a reply to our original letter.

Saturday, 16 March 2019


We are very disappointed that BANES have chosen to go with option C rather than option D particularly if, as seems likely, this was done electoral reasons.

We are concerned that option C will deliver results much more slowly and may not actually meet EU and WHO standards particularly in the most heavily polluted parts of the city centre.

The decision to let people continue to bring their non-compliant diesel cars into the city will also mean additional particulate pollution which will almost certainly contribute to people having their health severely damaged.

However, given the elections and the already clear propensity of politicians to play politics with this issue we are urging that we now cease the debate and implement option C for which there is now a plan and identified finance.

Let's have something that will make a difference rather than more years of debate and inaction.

Saturday, 9 March 2019

The application to open a pub at the current Garfunkles premises

We are objecting to this application because we believe there is evidence that these premises already create nuisance which undermines the objectives of the Licensing Act and that there is a reasonable expectation that the applicant’s proposals will increase that nuisance without additional conditions.

This business is within the Empire building which is primarily residential and is home to many elderly residents, the premises are close to other noise and nuisance sensitive residential premises. The building is in the heart of the Cumulative Impact Zone and residents of the Empire regularly report disturbance outside. The current level of business at the existing restaurant means that complaints about noise and smoke in residential units are less than in the past but complaints about noise and smoke are still been made particularly in relation to the terrace. Since the purpose of this application is to increase business there is clearly a potential for nuisance to return to historic levels.

The use of the terrace is of particular concern both because it is the major source of nuisance to residences but also because of its potential to allow interaction between customers and passing crowds of people many of whom particularly at night, will be under the influence of alcohol.
It is worth noting that the terrace is directly under the windows of the nearest noise sensitive premises and that the applicants own noise advisors have expressed concern about the challenge this represents in preventing nuisance.

We believe this application will increase the potential for nuisance because it will increase the number of customers who are drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol without food. There are also indications in the applicant's submissions to BANES that they intend to increase the amount of vertical drinking or at the least do nothing to restrict it. From other premises, we know that an increase in vertical drinking independent of food leads to an increase in disorder.
The BANES cumulative impact policy creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences, club premises certificates or variations relating to “on trade” premises situated within the Cumulative Impact Area, will be refused if relevant representations are received. In order to rebut this presumption, applicants must demonstrate that the operation of the premises will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.

While we must thank the applicant for the very considerable efforts they have made to engage with us and address our concerns and while considerable progress has been made in many areas we still contend that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the premises will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
We would all welcome the renovation and revitalisation of this important premises this should not be at the expense of residents quality of life nor a should it undermine council licensing policy.
To avoid this we would ask the committee to impose the following conditions:

  1. That alcohol should not be sold before 10 am in line with neighbouring premises.
  2. That alcohol should not be sold after 22.30 on a Sunday evening again in line with
    neighbouring premises.
  3. That substantial food should be available during all the hours when alcohol is being sold.
  4. That customers using the terrace must be seated and have drinks served by waiting staff
  5. There shall be no emptying of bottle bins outside the buildings outside following times,
    Monday to Sunday including bank holidays or public holidays 08.00 to 22.00 hours.
  6. A direct telephone number be available at all times the premises is open. The telephone
    number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.’
  7. The outside area shall be used for the supply of food and/or drink only between the hours of
    9:00 and 22.00 and shall be cleared of customers by 22.30.

Monday, 18 February 2019

Objection to change of use application 7 Bladud Buildings

Bladud Buildings was laid out by Attwood and Jolly in the 1750s and gradually assumed its present role as a mixed residential and commercial terrace during the nineteenth century.  When residential and commercial uses are established, permitted or encouraged in a terraced structure in a predominantly residential area it is vital that commercial premises do not, as a result of accumulated planning consents, gradually undermine the amenity of people living in the area.
The applicant in this case seeks to convert the use of the premises from night club (sui generis) to pub (A4).  Among the works proposed is the provision of a partially roofed outside drinking area at the rear of the property in what is presently the ‘garden’.  Due to noise nuisance from high volumes of traffic on the Paragon many Bladud Buildings residents have their bedrooms at the rear of the property.  In addition, the main Bath YMCA building is a short distance to the south west.  Finally, numbers 45 and 47 Walcot Street, which incorporate existing and proposed residential accommodation on upper floors, occupy a position immediately to the south of the premises.  This is therefor a highly noise sensitive location particularly at night and the introduction of an open drinking area in a raised position at the rear of 7 Bladud Buildings is likely to have a severely adverse impact on the amenity of local residents contrary to Policy D6 of the council’s Adopted Placemaking Plan.
We therefor ask that the application be REFUSED.  If, however, the council is minded to grant consent we ask that conditions be attached that would

  • Provide for the clearance of patrons from open drinking areas at the rear of the property by 10.00 pm nightly.

  • Prevent the provision of musical performances, whether live or recorded, in open drinking areas at the rea of the property.

  • Require details to be provided to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of design and construction of the fence at the south boundary of the property to ensure the preservation of daylight available to residents whose property adjoins the boundary.

Monday, 21 January 2019

Dary's change of use application

We are concerned that the applicant's plans do not incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste. The area already has considerable issues with badly managed collections of trade waste being stored on the street in both approved and unapproved locations. Rodents are regularly observed in the area.

This change of use increases both the amount and changes the nature, i.e. an increase in organic material, of the waste created by this business.

We believe it is unacceptable that no provision is being made to manage this.

Tuesday, 15 January 2019

Response to The Lilliput Court Cafe licencing application

We note that these premises are in the cumulative impact zone.

The premises are in a old building with all the sound proofing and sound transmission issues are created by Georgian building construction standards and techniques. Residents regularly report that the applicants have failed to address this challenge either through proper sound proofing or through proper management practices designed to reduce noise nuisance. Consequently all residents but particularly those directly above them, frequently report unacceptable noise in their premises.

These premises are very close to residential premises particularly the courtyard which is a source of both noise and smoke. One resident has windows less than 20 metres from the door from the courtyard to the interior. The design and construction of Lilliput Courtyard retains the noise generated by conversations and projects it upwards.

The proposed extension to hours in this application would considerably increase the already unsatisfactory levels of noise nuisance to which residents are currently subjected in an area which has already  been impacted by a failure to meet the spirit if not the letter of the cumulative impact policy.

We therefore call on the committee to reject this application.

However, if the committee is minded to grant the application we would ask for additional conditions to be imposed as follows.

  • All outdoor areas to be cleared within 15 minutes of closing
  • No noise generated from the premises to be audible at the nearest noise sensitive premises
  • Noise limiters to be fitted to all amplification systems set to levels agreed with environmental health.