Agenda and minutes

Councillor Benstead was elected as Chair for the meeting.

No interests were declared.

All parties noted the hearing procedure.

The Licensing Manager presented the report and outlined the application for a Premises Licence to be granted in respect of Sainsbury’s 78-80 Mill Road, Cambridge.

In response to Members’ questions the Licensing Manager said:

       i.        The Police had chosen not to make any representation.

      ii.        The current Premises Licence had been issued in 2005, when there had been no Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) policy in place and the current occupier of the property operates under that Licence.

     iii.        Sainbury’s could have chosen to transfer the existing Licence. In which case only Cambridgeshire Constabulary could object to the application to transfer the Premises Licence. The Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 states: “In exceptional circumstances where the chief officer of the police believes the transfer may undermine the crime prevention objective, the police may object to the transfer.

The Chair requested that the representative of Sainsbury’s gave a full account of their plans and addressed the concerns of those who had made representations as listed in the agenda. The representation would be timed and those who had registered to speak would be collectively offered an equal time allocation.

Applicant’s Agents

Mr Botkai made the following points on behalf of the Applicant:

     i.        Sainsbury’s were unable to apply for a variation of the current licence until they had taken possession of the store. A refusal of the proposed new licence would delay the refit and allow the continuation of the current unrestricted licence.

    ii.        As already noted, Sainsbury’s had the option to simply transfer the existing licence. If they choose to do so, there would be very limited grounds for objections.This would allow them to trade with the unrestricted current licence.

   iii.        In choosing to apply to committee for a new application, Sainsbury’s were offering restrictions and conditions which would be of benefit to the community.

  iv.        Discussion had taken place between Sainsbury’s and the Police and an agreement had been reached.

   v.        No objection had been received from official bodies.

  vi.        Some representation referred to the extension of hours and a concession had already been made to the application proposing hours of 8.00 to 23.00 Monday to Saturday.

 vii.        The only additional hours would be the extended Sunday hours.

viii.        The conditions proposed had been tailored to meet the needs of the area including: no strong beer sales, no self-service of spirits, Challenge 25, Cambac and staff training).

  ix.        Sainsbury’s already had two stores within the CIA which trade without difficulties.

   x.        This store would not add to the number of outlets in the CIA.

  xi.        Additional conditions could be added to address any concerns.

 xii.        Should problems arise after the licence has been granted, a review could be requested.

xiii.        Happy to restrict the sale of low cost, high strength alcohol that attracted street drinkers.

xiv.        Disputed that the store would have any impact on students pre-loading as there were already a number of alcohol outlets in the area.

xv.        National pricing structure (of Sainsbury’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.