Agenda item

The Technical Officer presented the report and outlined the application and highlighted the representation/objection on page 34 of the agenda had been withdrawn.

The Technical Officer made the following statements regarding Members’ questions:

i.       Believed that McDonalds had a license until 4:00am but was not certain and would need to investigate further.

ii.       Would like applicant to discuss/describe schedule of building works as he was in a better position to answer.

 

Applicant

Mr Rees-Gay made the following points:

i.       Had revised conditions based on recommendations from Environmental Health and the Police.

ii.       The Adil Group already ran 26 Taco Bell franchises in the UK.

iii.      They also ran other restaurants in the UK including Burger King.

iv.      Mr Roderickson was the general manager and had 30 years industry experience.

v.      The restaurant would create 50 full and part-time jobs. Many of those jobs would be in effect from 11:00pm until closing time.

vi.      A training programme was in place for late night licenses, this was a formal training package for employees working late night hours.

vii.     The management will work with responsible authority and police to ensure premises operates within licensing conditions that do not negatively impact on the local area.

viii.    Sent out messages to objectors attempting to reach an understanding and to overcome their concerns. One objector dropped their objections based on applicant agreeing that tables and chairs in Market Passage would be cleared by 10:00pm, rather than 11:00pm.

ix.      There would not be spillage on to the street at any time as all customers would be contained in the premises.

x.      Taco Bell would be refurbished. The management would be happy to discuss any work done with Cambridge City Council Project Officer.

xi.      Would have door staff on duty Friday-Saturday and Bank Holidays.

xii.     Grant Roderickson was happy to provide his telephone number to objectors so they can contact him directly with any issues.

 

Objectors

      i.         Nightclubs would be busy at 11:00pm. Their premises license stated that if the Pub had a queue, they must have a queue area. They stated that their license infringes upon this (Taco Bells) license.

    ii.         Had been running Town and Gown Pub since 2020 which closed at 1:00am. However, they were appealing not as operators of the Pub but as residents who lived on site. They had worked hard to make it a nice street. With the nightclubs and with a new late night food venue this would cause an issue/anti-social behaviour.

   iii.         When there were “500 people” leaving a nightclub there would surely be people sitting in the street outside eating after the nightclub closes, which would be problematic.

  iv.         The noise at 4:00am would be an issue. They were working with MASH Nightclub to try and reduce the noise currently. They were keeping a log of incidents that have happened with MASH. 2-3 times a week there are noise issues, ASB, Aggressive ASB, all occurring in this market passage area.

    v.         Realistically people would go into market passage after getting their food.

  vi.         Had no issues with Taco Bell the restaurant, only the closing time they were proposing.

 vii.         Concerned about ASB, felt the proposed closing time of 4:00am would add to it.

viii.         They were concerned about public safety in the narrow passageway of Market Passage.

  ix.         In response to a members question they stated that they feel that 2:00am would be a more reasonable closing time.

    x.          

Member Questions

The Applicant’s representative made the following statements in response to Members’ questions:

i.       Clarified location of tables and chairs in Market Passage and in relation to Town and Gown Pub.

ii.       As a premium operator, they (Taco Time) had a relationship with aggregators/goods delivery drivers so can stipulate when deliveries were made and where they would park. Stated if the delivery drivers did not follow instructions, the applicant had the power to remove aggregators from their account. They would first give a warning to the aggregator and then remove them from the account.

iii.      At present there was an image of outside seating in the report, however the applicant had not yet applied for a pavement licence.

iv.      There would be one toilet on the ground floor, a disabled toilet. Downstairs toilet would close at 10:00pm. The upstairs toilet would remain open from 10:00pm-closing.

v.      The entrance and exit were on Market Street, not the Market Passage. There was no evidence that people would congregate in market passage after buying their food.

vi.      If the license was granted, and in agreement with previous objector who has withdrawn their objection, the applicant had agreed to clear away tables and chairs from outside at 22:00 instead of 23:00 which was the applicant’s original plan.

 

 

Objector made the following statements in response to Members’ questions:

i.       Confirmed they operated the Town and Gown and resided on the premises.

Summing up

The Technical Officer said the following:

i.       Whilst having reference to the information provided by the applicant and the information raised in the representation and also Cambridge City Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, the Sub-Committee’s decision must be made with a view to promoting one or more of the four licensing objectives, namely:

a. The prevention of crime and disorder.

b. Public safety.

c. The prevention of public nuisance.

d. The protection of children from harm.

 

ii.       Members should take such steps that they consider were necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee could 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.

 

iii. Members must give reasons for their decision.

Following advice form the legal officer concerning the consideration of the application that the committee were to consider the application on its individual merit. Members withdrew at 11:25 and returned at 12:50. Whilst retired, and having made their decision, Members received legal advice on the wording of the decision.

Decision

To grant the license subject to the mandatory conditions and those conditions offered by the applicant, which we have modified from the list entitled “revised operating schedule after agreement with Police and EH” as below:

      i.         Replace “On Friday, Saturdays…” with “On Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays…” and replace “Sunday to Thursday” with “Sunday to Wednesday”.

    ii.         Replace “Patrons will not use such areas after 22:00” with “Such areas will be closed, and all tables and chairs removed by 22:00”.

   iii.         The grant of the license for late night refreshment would be from 11:00pm to 02:00am only.