Agenda and minutes

Councillor Bird was elected as Chair for the meeting.

No interests were declared.

All parties noted the hearing procedure.

The Licensing Officer presented the report and outlined the application for a variation of a Premises Licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the Backstreet Bistro, 2 Sturton Street, Cambridge. The details of the variation were set out in the report.  It was clarified that the variation did not relate to any of the licensable activities and timings already set out in the Premises Licence. 

Mr McCann, on behalf of Mr Clark, made the following points as Applicant’s Representative:

     i.        The applicant had taken the view that the change of layout was too significant to be dealt with as a minor variation.  In addition, the applicant had agreed to twelve new conditions which were actually more restrictive e.g. earlier closing times and restrictions on delivery times, which were legally binding;

    ii.        This was the fifth site the applicant owned in Cambridge, the other four being pub/restaurants in the city.  It was not intended that the Backstreet Bistro would be a destination venue, and the focus would be on food;

   iii.        The applicant had had pre-application consultations with local residents, and had attempted to address concerns raised;

  iv.        the applicant would not be increasing the number of covers provided by the previous owner.

In response to Member questions, the Applicant’s Representative and the Applicant:

   v.        Advised that the application did not include variations to opening hours or activities, and the number of covers indoors was the same (70).  Because of the style of operation, it was anticipated that there would actually be less throughput of diners;

  vi.        Whilst the applicant’s other Cambridge sites were in the city, one did have an appreciable number of residential neighbours, and likewise some of the applicant’s sites in London were in residential areas.  At all sites, dialogue between management and residents was encouraged to address any concerns residents may have.  The applicant was happy to provide a mobile telephone number for the manager which residents could use if they had concerns;

 vii.        Confirmed there would not be an external staircase;

viii.        Confirmed that rather than moving the outside tables and chairs, these could instead be rendered unusable;

  ix.        Confirmed that the new mechanical ventilation system featured air purification and silencers, and was being housed into the attic;

   x.        Confirmed that the windows that potentially overlooked neighbouring properties and gardens, including the ones in the toilets and kitchen, would be blacked and with acoustic quilting used between the board and window;

  xi.        Confirmed that around 20 local residents attended the consultation evening.

The applicant did not object to the late submission by one of the Other Persons, and the Sub-Committee had agreed to consider copies when they made their deliberations. 

The Sub-Committee received a presentations from two local residents, Professor James Moore and Lisa Halpern, who were objecting to the variation.  Concerns raised in their presentations included:

 xii.        The scale of the proposed pub restaurant, which would be larger than the previous owner’s business, and would be the largest business of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16/32/Lic