Agenda and minutes

Councillor Naomi Bennett was appointed as Chair for the meeting. 

 

Councillor Bennett and Councillor Robertson agreed to continue with Committee with two members.

No declarations of interest were made.

 

All parties noted the procedure.

The Technical Officer presented the report and outlined the application.

 

Applicant

 

Mr Nathaniel Crofters made the following points:

 

i.       Had been working with the following organisations through the application process:

•        College Bursar and Master of Sidney Sussex College.

•        Operational planning and licensing department of Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

•        CAMBAC (Cambridge Business Against Crime).

•        Licensing team at Cambridge City Council.

ii.       Confirmed would be happy to work closely with all the necessary teams going forward to ensure the Yard enriched the local area  and would have no negative impact to its surrounding.

 

Applicant’s Representative

 

Mr Colley made the following points:

 

i.       Both had been in the restaurant industry for over 10 years.

ii.       They were happy to work with any objectors.

iii.      This would be a licensed restaurant, not a bar or club.

iv.      Had a very positive meeting with Sidney Sussex College Bursars who were excited about the project.

v.      Both had been running a restaurant in Norwich for over a year and was going very well.

 

Member Questions

 

Mr Colley made the following statements in response to Members’ questions:

i.       Confirmed he runs another Yard restaurant with Mr Crofters in Norwich with 30 employees which was popular in the area and working well. Also owned a pizzeria restaurant as sole proprietor.

ii.       Confirmed that Sidney Sussex College were their landlords for the Cambridge location. They had several conditions proposed to them in regard to; hours of operation during term time, music volume, the type of alcohol sold.

iii.      Stated they would not be in conflict with the cumulative impact zone as they were working closely with CAMBAC.

iv.      Stated that rather than having a negative impact on the area, would in fact be able to benefit it because with their presence at that location there would now be more vigilance on the street/area.

v.      Deliveries would take place during trading hours.

vi.      They were not seeking a paving/outdoor dining license. Were installing soundproofing inside the building to ensure that everything was contained within the premises.

vii.     The College were concerned about people gathering and drinking in the area and with their presence as a licensed premises it would discourage this current behaviour.

viii.    In the representation which referenced objection to outdoor seating it has been decided not to do this following discussion with Sidney Sussex College. Confirmed they were not seeking an outdoor liquor license and that everything would be inside the premises.

ix.      Stated there was no smoking area. As it was a restaurant there would not be people lingering drinking outside. Agreed a notice would be put up stating that there was no smoking outside the restaurant.

x.      Confirmed the conditions put to them by the Cambridgeshire Constabulary had been agreed.

 

Summing up

 

The Technical Officer said the following:

 

i.       Whilst having reference to the information provided by the applicant and the information raised in the representation and also Cambridge City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, the Sub-Committee’s decision must be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/22/Lic