Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
The Senior Technical
Officer presented the report and outlined the application.
In response to members’ questions the Senior Technical Officer made the following
points:
i.
Considered Waitrose to be the closest business to
the application providing off sales.
ii.
Charlie’s Coffee Company (pizzeria / café) opposite
the application provided on sales of alcohol.
iii.
Possibility the Snug public house (currently
closed) on East Road would re-open and offering on sales.
iv.
There was also a member only sports and snooker bar
(WT’s Sports Bar) which offered on sales of alcohol.
v.
Confirmed that Tesco Express on East Road currently
did not hold a licence to sell alcohol.
vi.
Clarified that the application was for off sales
only (there had been a mistake by the applicant when completing the
application).
Mr A Nath made the following points on behalf of his father (the
applicant).
i.
All the necessary precautions as highlighted by the
Police had been put in place and had taken advice from the City Council.
ii.
The Police had made no further objections now their
conditions had been met.
iii.
All staff would be trained to conduct challenge 25
check.
iv.
The applicant had fifteen years’ experience of selling
alcohol in another store which he owned; Mr A Nath himself was a license holder
for the past five years in the same store.
v.
There was a market to sell alcohol as was
consistently asked by the public if they sold alcohol.
vi.
CCTV would be used to monitor the outside space and
any issues would be reported and dealt with.
Mr A Nath made the following points in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Had accepted the condition to start the sale of
alcohol at 11.00am until 8.00pm.
ii.
Responsibilities of meeting the licensing
objectives were to ensure that there was no crime due to the sale of alcohol.
iii.
Would monitor any noise pollution and anti-social
behaviour to ensure that immediate neighbours were not affected.
iv.
CCTV would be used to guard the area and staff would
be trained in the sale of alcohol.
Councillor Bick (Market Ward Councillor) who had made a written
representation addressed members with the following points:
i.
Highlighted why the application was in a sensitive
location,
a.
In area where a large amount of rough sleeping took
place, with those individuals begging in the daytime (primarily Burleigh Street and East Road).
b.
Close to Jimmy’s Cambridge (providing help to
people experiencing homelessness).
c.
On the route from the city centre to the GP’s
access surgery catering for people living on the street; this was also a
meeting point for street life individuals, the location had a history of
anti-social behaviour and public nuisance.
d.
There were individuals who slept rough who were
dependent on alcohol and or other drugs, some suffered with mental ill health.
e.
There had been occasion when there was boisterous
and sometime intimidating behaviour and waste being left on the streets.
ii.
The application was in an area where there was a
heavy foot fall and cycle use between Petersfield and the City Centre. It was
also used by primary school children to and from St Matthews Primary School.
iii.
The licensing policy defined a cumulative impact
area which included the location of the application. Anti-social issues from
members of the street life community was a prominent factor why a cumulative
impact area had been approved.
iv.
The status of a cumulative impact area should
indicate that the sale of the alcohol should not be permitted unless the
applicant demonstrated why the operation would not add to the cumulative
impact. Believed in the application there was little information to address
this issue.
v.
The application showed no acknowledgement their
premises was in a cumulative area which had been highlighted by the Police with
their recommended list of additional conditions.
vi.
Suggested the sale of alcohol would intensify the
issues that the cumulative impact area was trying to address; the additional
conditions would not resolve this.
vii.
Members should be aware that there had been a
series of applications in this locality for off sales of alcohol which had been
rejected over several years. These applications had demonstrated an awareness
of the cumulative impact area and were of much higher standard than the
application before members for their consideration.
viii.
The Duke of Cambridge Pub was also on East Road.
ix.
Suggested the sub-committee to refuse the
application.
The Senior Technical
Officer highlighted to members the written representation from Councillor
Martinelli contained within the agenda pack.
Summing Up
Mr A Nath made the following points:
i.
Had not experienced or witnessed
any anti-social behaviour in or outside the premises.
ii.
Would be able to see via CCTV if
alcohol was being brought for other people and this
would be not be permitted.
iii.
Had previous experience of selling
alcohol and dealing with anti-social behaviour.
Members withdrew at 11:45am to consider their decision. Members received
legal advice on the wording of the decision.
Decision
The Licensing Sub Committee refused the
licence subject to the following conditions.
i.
The premises are in a Cumulative Impact Zone and
this was not sufficiently addressed in the application. The additional
conditions did not sufficiently address this
ii.
The premises are near to Jimmy’s Assessment Centre
and the Cambridge GP Access Surgery for the Homeless.
iii.
The premises are near to a primary school
iv.
The area is associated with street begging and anti-social
behaviour
v.
The application did not sufficiently address the
licensing objectives
Supporting documents: