Agenda item

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report and outlined the application. They confirmed that the Police had agreed conditions with the Applicant and no representations had been made by the Environmental Health Department.

 

Applicant

 

The Applicant made the following points:

      i.         They were not from Cambridge.

    ii.         Worked with the LGBTQ society and wanted the Six Six bar to be a safe space.

   iii.         The project had supported other local businesses.

  iv.         As an independent business wanted to work with the community, Police and residents.

 

The Applicant’s supporter made the following comments:

i.               The city was becoming a music waste land.

ii.             Volunteers had come together to refurbish the venue.

iii.            A petition had been launched to support this application which was supported by city residents.

 

Member Questions

 

The applicant made the following statements in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Was not aware of acoustic fences which could be used to reduce noise from outside the premises.

    ii.         They were working on the basis of a premises capacity of approximately 180 people but were still waiting to hear back from the Fire Authority to confirm numbers.

   iii.         There would be 2 door supervisors at the weekends, there was only 1 door supervisor working otherwise. The door supervisors would supervise the smoking area. The front door to the premises would be closed for noise prevention.  There would be a team briefing for employees at the beginning of each day.

 

The Licensing Enforcement Officer:

i.               Confirmed that a condition of the premises licence required doors to be closed except for entry and egress to the property, this was for the purpose of preventing noise nuisance. 

ii.             Requested that a copy of the Noise Management Plan was sent to the Local Authority. 

 

The Applicant advised:

i.               That the refurbishment of the premises was mainly aesthetic and that the position of the bar remained the same.

ii.             In response to questions about how complaints would be dealt with the Applicant advised that the whole business had been built around ensuring a safe space. Complaints would always be logged. One customer had been asked to leave the premises recently. They were an approachable person and was happy to meet anyone who had a complaint to try and reach a solution.

iii.            The windows were brand new, and purpose built, and the cladding was a higher specification.

iv.           There were no speakers in the garden.

v.             The lighting had been put on a timer as thought this was better in the current energy crisis but could look at this to stop the lights flashing on and off and causing problems for neighbours. 

 

Interested Party/ ‘Other Person’

 

Mr Weerts made the following comments:

      i.         Had concerns about the premises licence being granted permission into the early hours of the morning. Welcomed the regeneration of the area.

    ii.         Expressed concerns about noise, anti-social behaviour and public nuisance.

   iii.         Was happy that security officers would be present at the premises and hoped they would be visible. 

  iv.         Expressed concerns about customers parking on residential streets which restricted access for emergency services.  Requested signage within the premises advising customers where they could park. 

 

The Legal Officer referred members to the proposed conditions for the premises licence which were contained on pages 41-44 of the agenda.

 

The Applicant confirmed that they would provide their personal mobile number to Mr Weerts so that Mr Weerts could contact the Applicant to discuss any concerns and that a copy of the Noise Management Plan would be provided to Mr Weerts. 

 

Summing Up

 

The Licensing Enforcement Officer drew members attention to pages 10 and 11 of the agenda and advised that as the application was in the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) policy if members departed from the CIZ policy they must give reasons. 

 

The Applicant made the following points:

      i.         Would always work with the community, Police and residents.

    ii.         The Six Six bar was to be a beacon of light / safe space.

   iii.         Would work with Mr Weerts to address concerns after the meeting.

 

The Legal Officer reminded members that the only criteria they could take into account as part of their decision making were the licensing objectives.  If this application was granted, then the Applicant would need to decide which licence they would use. Noted that parking issues were beyond the remit of the Sub Committee and a condition could not be imposed to require the Applicant to do something about it.

 

The Applicant advised that if the premises licence (the subject of the Licensing Sub Committee) was granted today, the current premises licence would be surrendered. 

 

Members withdrew to consider their decision. Members received legal advice on the wording of the decision.

 

Decision

 

The Sub Committee resolved to grant the licence subject to the mandatory conditions, those conditions offered by the Applicant and those conditions arising out of the discussions between the Applicant and the Police.

 

The reasons for reaching the decision are as follows:

The existence of an active licence on the premises which had been transferred to the Applicant.

 

The Sub Committee was satisfied that the conditions attached to the licence address the four licensing objectives.

 

The Legal Officer noted that a condition of the new premises licence required the agreement of the Local Authority regarding a noise level and that the new premises licence could not be used until that condition had been complied with. If the Applicant used the licence without this agreement then they would be in breach of one of the premises licence conditions. The Applicant needed to contact the Environmental Health Team to resolve this issue.