Agenda and minutes

Councillor McPherson was appointed as Chair for the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made.

All parties noted the procedure.

The Environmental Health and Licensing Support Team Leader presented the report and outlined the application.

 

In response to questions from the sub-committee, the Environmental Health and Licensing Support Team Leader stated that:

·      There would be no customer collections of alcohol, however a licence was required as the alcohol was being stored for purposes of online sales.

·      A 24-hour licence was required to cover the point of sale for online sales as they can happen at any time. Any conditions of the licence would relate to business operating hours and delivery/collection times.

·      The applicant had agreed some conditions with neighbours, but these were not part of the application being considered.

 

Representation from the Applicant

 

Sam Bailey made the following points:

·      Had been a resident of Owlstone Road for six years and considered himself a part of the community, which he valued. As a recent business graduate, he was seeking a licence to facilitate a start-up, online-only business, operating from his parents’ home.

·      The business had been founded by three friends.

·      Luma Spritz was a ready-to-drink canned wine spritz, still in production with an initial batch size of 500 cans.

·      All sales (trade and consumer) would be via the website.

·      There would be no public access to the property and no on-site consumption of alcohol.

·      Had already agreed formal conditions with the licensing team for no collections and deliveries between 11pm and 7am.

·      Had listened to all representations from neighbours and suggested additional conditions as per the report.

·      There would be no HGV deliveries/collections, no company fleet, and no e-bike delivery services associated with the business. The business planned to use courier companies that already serve Newnham, for example DPD and Royal Mail.

·      There would be no commercial lighting associated with the business.

 

In response to questions, the Applicant said the following:

·      Luma Spritz was in the manufacturing phase and production in the initial phase would be limited to 500 cans. Future production runs would be facilitated by a third-party logistics company and at such time the company would likely move to new premises.

·      The current storage area had effective security measures.

·      There was scope for the business to carry out their own deliveries locally with small orders.

·      Regarding prevention of public nuisance, the applicant said the following:

o   business was for off-sales only, within daytime operating hours.

o   Storing canned drinks would be less noisy than bottles.

o   There would be no external lighting.

o   There would be a maximum of five collections per week.

o   With no external staff, there would be no associated parking demands.

·      Regarding the protection of children from harm, the applicant said the following:

o   there would be no public access and no on-site sales.

o   The premises would be locked and gated, with no access for children.

o   Deliveries would be carried out by DPD or Royal Mail, who had strict policies for delivery of alcohol.

o   Challenge 25 would be in operation on website and at drop-off.

o   Trade sales would only be made to businesses operating Challenge 25.

 

Representation from Helen Murley

·      Clarified that she supported entrepreneurship but was concerned about the potential change of use of the premises and setting a precedent in the area.

·      Queried whether the business could sell other types of alcohol in future as per their Companies House description.

·      Queried whether it would be necessary for deliveries and collections to take place seven days per week.

·      Traffic was already a concern in the area with the construction of Owlstone Croft. This could exacerbate problems.

·      There was not a suitable place for loading and unloading of deliveries.

·      Could deliveries be restricted to outside of school drop-off and collection times.

·      Would like the committee to consider restricting operating hours, alongside the safety aspects of vehicle loading and unloading.

 

Representation from Valerie Johnson

·      The access gate to the business led onto a narrow street. Delivery vans would block access along the street, including for bicycles.

·      Additional vehicle movements would not align with net-zero policies and would create a public nuisance by blocking the street.

·      Would like to see the business succeed and so would be prepared to compromise with the applicant as follows:

o   24-hour delivery and collection window – should be reduced as per discussions with the applicant.

o   Limitless deliveries and collections – welcomed the applicant’s suggested limit of five per week, but queried whether this applied to the total collections and deliveries, or whether there would be five of each.

o   Queried whether a licence be granted for a specific duration of time.

 

Representation from Jim Bamberg

·      Would welcome a condition within the licence regarding either the number of cans to be stored or the size of the storage shed.

 

Representation from Councillor Clough

·      Would like to see the conditions proposed by the applicant be absorbed into any licence if granted.

·      Would welcome a time-limited licence if that were possible.

·      Would welcome controls on the number of deliveries and stock levels.

 

Summing Up

The Environmental Health and Licensing Support Team Leader reminded Members they were to determine the application on its individual merits having reference to the statutory licensing objectives and Cambridge City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Cumulative Impact Assessment.

 

Members should take such steps that they consider were necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee may resolve:

a.    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;

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

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

d.    to reject the application.

 

Members must give reasons for their decision.

 

In making the decision the committee considered the following:

 

·      Statutory provisions (Licensing Act 2003)

·      Statutory Guidance

·      Cambridge City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy

·      Reports

·      Advice from Legal Officer

·      Representations from those listed above.

 

Members withdrew at 13:45 and returned at 14:20. Whilst retired, and having made their decision, Members received legal advice on the wording of the decision.

 

Decision

The Committee resolved to GRANT the licence

 

·      Supply of alcohol (off the premises)

Monday – Sunday 00:00 to 23:59

 

WITH the additional Conditions that:

 

i.      the premises would not be open to the public

ii.    Collections and deliveries in total would be restricted to 5 per week.

iii.   No HGV collections

iv.  No collections or deliveries to occur at the premises between 20:00hrs and 08:00hrs

 

The reasons for the Committee’s decision were as follows:

 

·      The applicant had provided measures on how they intended to promote the four licensing objectives, with requested changes.

 

·      The applicant had agreed additional conditions to minimise any disturbance to local residents.