Agenda item

The Senior Technical Officer presented the report and outlined the application and made the following points in response to members’ questions:

i.             Clarified that Scudamores had submitted two premises licence applications one at Bridge Street and one at Granta Place.  The application at Granta Place had been approved because no representations had been made in relation to that application.

ii.            Confirmed that the agent had consulted the police about the application and had agreed conditions which were included within the application.

 

Mr Conisbee, Mr Krushkov and Mr Ingersent made the following points on behalf of the Applicant:

     i.        The application was not for an off-licence per se but the intention was to serve alcohol on punts which were pre-booked.

    ii.        Referred to p51 of the agenda and commented that felt that current operations were sufficient to deal with objections.

   iii.        Three alcohol punting packages were provided by a third party vendor. Customers booked and organised these tours through a third party vendor. The vendor invoiced Scudamores for the punting element of the booking.

  iv.        Punts serving alcohol accounted for less than 1.6% of their business.   

   v.        Chauffeurs should conduct a challenge 25 check.

  vi.        Having tours booked through a third party was a clunky process, some customers expressed frustration with the booking system. They were looking to bring the process in-house.

 vii.        Referred to bat tours which were delivered in-house and had a better booking process.

viii.        Alcohol would be brought down to the punt sealed and would be opened on the punt.

  ix.        Punts would be in the cumulative impact area for a very short period of time when the punt was moved around.

   x.        Referred to the additional documents a, b and the plan which had been provided to members and published on the website in advance of the meeting.

  xi.        Referred to other punt tour companies which were closer to Beaufort Place than Scudamores and confirmed that tours by Scudamores did not cover this area of the River Cam.

 xii.        None of the objections had said that Scudamores had caused the issues raised by the objections.

xiii.        With the current procedures in place the application would not add to the cumulative impact.  

 

Mr Conisbee, Mr Krushkov and Mr Ingersent made the following points in response to members’ questions:

    i.          There would continue to be a mixologist on the punt, Scudamores did not want their staff to be serving alcohol as they would be concentrating on navigating the punt.

  ii.          Staff members were not permitted to consume alcohol on punt tours.

 iii.          The youngest chauffeur was 17 years old; they would not be able to take a tour which was serving alcohol.

iv.          Tying punts together was irresponsible. Self-hire customers were briefed before they went out on the river. If Scudamores became aware that their punts had been tied together then they would intervene and take action to stop this.

  v.          Staff could not take punts out after hours; there was a policy against this.

vi.          Would not sell alcohol to self-hire punts.

vii.          If a customer appeared to be under the influence of alcohol then they would not be let on the river.  People had a low understanding of risk; safety had to be the primary concern above everything else.

viii.          The challenge 25 policy occurred at the booking stage and also before anyone went on a punt and only pre-booked punts could have an alcohol tour. Group bookings tended to be corporate bookings. If someone was under 18 years then they would be told that they could not have alcohol on the punt.

ix.          Pre-booked tours had to be briefed by a manager or supervisor; this was the time that the challenge 25 policy would be explained.

  x.          There was no need for the tours to go past Beauford Place. Had read through objections and noted the comments made. Chauffeurs would be advised not to go past this.

xi.          Punt tours operated from dawn until dusk, commented that if members wanted to restrict the hours during which alcohol could be permitted they would be happy with this.

xii.          There was no intention to serve hot meals so that individuals over 16 years could consume alcohol; they wanted to apply for an alcohol licence properly to ensure the safety of their passengers.

xiv.        Dates of births for passengers would always be checked by ID for those wanting to get concessionary rates.

xv.        Reference was made to CCTV licence conditions and it was confirmed that in effect the CCTV would be checked daily.

 

The Legal Officer highlighted to members the written representations contained within the paperwork and said even though members of the public had not attended the hearing, the representations should be given the same weight.

 

Members withdrew at 11:17 pm and returned at 12:15 pm. Whilst retired, and having made their decision, Members received legal advice on the wording of the decision.

 

Decision

 

The Licensing Sub Committee granted the licence subject to the following conditions:

1.   That the selling or supplying of alcohol will take place only between 12 noon and 20.00.

2.   That punts selling alcohol are not chauffeured by individual’s under 18 years.

3.   Office staff handling alcohol sales and ID checks will be 18 years and over.

4.   That punts where alcohol will be consumed will not pass Beaufort Place.

 

The reasons for reaching the decision are as follows:

 

Although concerns have been expressed by a Ward Councillor and 16 Other Persons the Licensing Sub Committee are satisfied that this licence will not increase the effects on the cumulative impact area as it represents a transfer of an existing business.