Agenda and minutes

Cllr Moore was appointed Chair for the meeting.

No declarations were declared.

All parties noted the procedure.

Members RESOLVED to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the applicant on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest to adjourn.

 

Officers confirmed that the applicant had been given notice of the meeting.

 

The Licensing Officer presented their report.

 

The representative from the police

      i.          Found that the application lacked sufficient detail to allow an informed decision and demonstrated a lack of accountability.

     ii.          Had contacted the applicant to seek clarification but had received no reply. 

   iii.          Expressed uncertainty around the nature of the application for a wine bar when the plan showed a variety of additional spaces including hotel rooms, a sauna and a restaurant.

   iv.          The plan had not highlighted the area that would be licensed.

    v.          Conditions in the application had not addressed how this premises would not further impact the Cumulative Impact Zone.

   vi.          Recommended refusal of the application.

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Police representative said:

      i.          Some premises in the Cumulative Impact Zone had dispersal plans within their conditions, others would make use of SIA Security staff. This application contained no similar conditions.

 

The representative from Cambridgeshire County Council

      i.          This application sat within a Cumulative Impact Zone and would add to the impact on public health, disorder and emergency services. Cambridge City Council had a presumption to refuse unless applicant could demonstrate how it would not add to the impact. The applicant had not addressed how it would meet each of the four licensing objectives.

     ii.          The applicant had failed to respond following the first adjourned hearing, which had not instilled confidence that the objectives would be addressed in future.

   iii.          Concerned that the applicant would be delegating responsibility for all four licensing objectives to an external security team.

   iv.          Public Health team had no reply to their approach to the applicant for a more detailed application.

    v.          On the basis that this application would add to the pressure in a Cumulative Impact Zone, recommended refusal of the application.

 

In response to Members’ questions, the public health representative said:

      i.          With regard to protecting children from harm, the applicant had provided no further details as to how would do that, beyond the initial application.

     ii.          The application should demonstrate how the applicant would meet all four of the licensing requirements with a more detailed set of conditions.

 

Summing Up

 

Licensing Officer

Referred to the Officer’s report, paragraph 5.2, Members should take such steps that they consider are necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.  The sub committee may resolve:

      i.          To grant the licence subject to the mandatory conditions and those conditions offered by the applicant which may be modified to such extent as the authority considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives;

     ii.          To exclude from the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities to which the application relates;

   iii.          To refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises supervisor;

   iv.          To reject the application.

 

Members must give reasons for their decision.

 

The Decision

 

That the application be refused.

 

Reasons for reaching the decision:

 

      i.          Insufficient detail in the application to allow Members to properly consider granting it on paper, with or without conditions.

 

     ii.          Insufficient detail in the Plan to allow the licensing authority to determine the application.

 

   iii.          The Applicant had failed to engage with the Licensing Authority and Responsible Authorities (notwithstanding the agreed conditions proposed with Environmental Health). Including where a further adjournment had allowed additional time for engagement.

 

   iv.          The Panel felt that on the evidence, the Applicant had demonstrated as not possessing the required skills, experience or competence to uphold the licensing objectives.

 

    v.          There was insufficient evidence to satisfy the Panel that the granting of this application would promote the licensing objectives. There were no conditions proposed to protect children from harm and no engagement with the conditions proposed by Public Health. For example, no challenge 25 and no proposed control measures for children in the premises (particularly, when noting the plan and building structure). In addition, no evidence had been provided to promote any of the licensing objectives, including prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

   vi.          The premises was within the Cumulative Impact Assessment area and was subject to the rebuttal presumption. The onus was on the Applicant to demonstrate that their application would have no impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives and would not result in an increase in the cumulative impact of the area. Members were not satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated in their operating schedule that the grant of the application would not result in an increase in the cumulative impact of the area.

 

 vii.          Noted athat the Police and Public Health did not support the application.