Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The Senior Technical Officer presented the report and outlined the
application.
In response to Member’s questions the Senior Technical Officer confirmed
that 5 complaints had been received regarding a fire / intruder alarm and 1
complaint had been received regarding building works.
Applicant
Mr Cullaro made the following points:
i.
The business had been up and
running since 2014, since that time the local area had changed and had become a
family friendly street.
ii.
The restaurant had been improved,
children enjoyed the restaurant and families liked to sit outside the
restaurant.
iii.
The business had had no issues
with misbehaving customers.
iv.
All staff received training and
would challenge anyone buying alcoholic drinks if they did not look 21 years of
age. If individuals did not have ID to
prove their age then they would not be sold alcohol.
v.
Under the current licensing
conditions, customers were only able to buy and drink alcohol inside the
restaurant.
vi.
The complaints regarding the fire
alarms related to the language school which was above the restaurant and had
nothing to do with the restaurant.
vii.
The complaint regarding building
works again related to a party taking place upstairs. The restaurant had some furniture
which was not suitable for health and safety standards therefore works were
undertaken to rectify this during these works music came from upstairs.
viii.
Other restaurants in the vicinity had
permission to sell alcohol outside their premises.
ix.
The restaurant did not sell
alcohol on draught everything was from a bottle.
x.
The person who had raised a
complaint about the application was a persistent complainer.
xi.
The restaurant worked with the
Police and gave them full access whenever there were any issues on Burleigh Street.
xii.
The restaurant had also worked
with the Environmental Health Team.
xiii.
They would not sell alcohol to
individuals who were inebriated and staff had undertaken training regarding the
sale of alcohol.
xiv.
The restaurant was a family
business and had done everything that it was required to do, to be able to sell
alcohol to customers in the outside seating area.
Member Questions
In response to Members’ questions the Senior
Technical Officer confirmed:
i.
Although the licensed premises had specific
licensing hours, the restaurant did not have to open for all the hours that the
licence permitted.
Applicant
In response to Member’s questions Mr Cullaro
made the following points:
i.
There was an area of land outside the restaurant
which belonged to Charlie’s Coffee Company and not the City Council. Tables and
chairs in this area did not impact on pedestrian, bicycle or wheelchair
accessibility.
ii.
Currently in the outside seating area there was one
chair and one mini table. Ashtrays were provided so that customers could smoke
and have somewhere to dispose of their cigarettes. Staff had to check and clean
this area hourly.
iii.
There were no plans for the restaurant to be open
beyond 11pm; he was conscious that he did not want his staff to be heading home
after 11pm.
iv.
Customers would be asked 15 minutes before 10pm to
be mindful of the restaurants closing hours.
v.
The restaurant had complied with its current
licensing conditions.
In response to the Legal Officer’s questions Mr Cullaro
made the following points:
i.
The maximum capacity of the external area was 15
people; realistically it would hold 4 tables and 10 people.
ii.
Customers generally either spent 25-40 minutes in the
restaurant and then went on to the cinema. Families who came to the restaurant tended
to have a glass of wine rather than beer.
iii.
The Chinese restaurant and pub that were near to
the restaurant both had external seating areas and therefore his restaurant should
be treated the same and be able to permit customers to sit outside and drink
alcohol.
iv.
The Chinese restaurant had 7-8 tables pus chairs
outside its premises and they could serve alcohol outside.
v.
The premises variation application would not add to
the cumulative impact area.
vi.
The restaurant had lost custom because they were
unable to sell alcohol to customers who wanted to sit outside the restaurant.
Members withdrew at 10:30am and returned at 11:00am. Whilst retired, and
having made their decision, Members received legal advice on the wording of the
decision.
Decision
The Sub Committee resolved to grant the application under s34 of the
Licensing Act 2003 to vary the Premises Licence issued in respect of Charlie’s
Coffee Company 44-45 Burleigh Street as detailed in
the Committee papers.
The Sub Committees
reasons for reaching the decision are as follows:
1.
Noted the
current licence only allowed the tables and chairs to be used outside up to
10pm.
2.
Found
that the applicant had demonstrated that the operation of the premises would
not add to the cumulative impact.
Supporting documents: