Agenda item

The Environmental Health and Licensing Support Team Leader presented the report and outlined the application for the variation to the Premises Licence issued in respect of Chickeez, 59 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1AB.

 

Applicant

 

Mr Kumar made the following points:

      i.         Believed when they took over the lease for the premises that the premises licence for the previous business would remain in place i.e: late night refreshment licence until 4am. This was not the case, and this is why the premises licence variation application had been submitted.

    ii.         The previous business in the premises was a burger business.

   iii.         They had spoken with the Police regarding their application, and the Police had recommended reducing the licensing hours from 4am to 2am. This was because of concerns regarding anti-social behaviour (ASB) if the late-night refreshment licence was until 4am.

  iv.         The Police had also suggested 17 conditions which they were content to be attached to the licence and felt they could meet for example:

a.    Training staff to handle late night business.

b.    Putting a notice up within the premises asking people to leave the premises quietly.

c.    Participating in the Cambridge Crime Committee.

    v.         Alcohol sales was not their primary business.

  vi.         Just wanted to offer other refreshment options to customers on Regent Street.

 vii.         Noted that there were 3 other establishments within a minutes’ walk of their premises who could sell alcohol until 4am.

viii.         They would not be creating ASB; other establishments could be open until 4am.

 

The Applicant said the following in response to Members’ questions:

        i.       They had another premises on Regent Street – the Tiffin Truck.

      ii.        They acquired 59 Regent Street in September 2023.

    iii.        Their current licence allowed them to sell alcohol until 11pm and serve late night refreshments until midnight.

    iv.       The variation application was seeking to extend the time for serving late night refreshments until 2am.

      v.       They were originally going to apply for a late-night refreshment licence until 4am however the Police recommended applying for a licence until 2am, this is why the time in the variation application is until 2am.

    vi.       Confirmed that they had also liaised with the Environmental Health Team.

  vii.        There were a few tables in the premises, but the main business was a takeaway / fast food business selling burgers and pizzas.

 

The Environmental Health and Licensing Support Team Leader advised that the previous premises licence had been issued to a business called ‘Doppelganger’. This business had held a licence between 2015-2023 and had a late-night refreshment licence until 4am and were able to sell alcohol until 10pm. When the business went into administration the licence lapsed. Agreed to provide the Sub Committee with a list of the premises who had a premises licence on Regent Street.

 

Mr Silfikir (an ‘Other Person’ under the Licensing Act 2003) asked the following questions of the Applicant, and his daughter translated the questions on his behalf:

      i.         Stated that the applicant had said in December that they were going to open a takeaway shop.

    ii.         Expressed concern about the short distance between their premises and the impact on Mr Silfikir’s business.

 

The Applicant advised that he had not spoken with Mr Silfikir before, and he did not know who had spoken to him in December. He thought there would be enough business for both the Applicant’s and Mr Silfikir’s businesses.

 

The Legal Officer asked Mr Silfikir to ensure that any questions asked of the Applicant were about the Licensing Objectives. Competition between two businesses was not relevant to the Licensing Objectives.   

 

Other Persons

 

Mr Silfikir attended the meeting, and his daughter translated his comments on his behalf:

i.               Had run his business for over 20 years; it was a family business.

ii.             Expressed concern regarding the variation application and the impact that this would have on his family and him.

iii.            Expressed concern that his licence would be at risk.

iv.           Referred to a number of signatures which had been collected objecting to the application.

 

The Legal Officer asked Mr Silfikir to keep comments to the Licensing Objectives noting that impact on competition between businesses was not relevant under the Licensing Objectives. Noted his representation which was contained within Appendix C to the officer’s report and suggested that Mr Silfikir spoke about his concerns about anti-social behaviour and any impact on his business.

 

In response to a question from the Sub Committee, Mr Silfikir advised that there had been anti-social behaviour when the previous licence was in place. Mr Silfikir had reported concerns to the Police. His business had struggled following the pandemic. Did not understand the reference made by the Applicant to 60,000 people and did not understand why this was said.

 

In response to a question from the Sub Committee the Environmental Health and Licensing Support Team Leader advised that there were no records of complaints associated with 59 Regent Street. 

 

Summing Up

 

Mr Kumar (Applicant) made the following points:

      i.         59 Regent Street was located near other establishments which had late night refreshment licences until 4am.

    ii.         Their late-night refreshment variation application would not create noise as there were other premises in the vicinity who already had late night refreshment licences. There were 3 such establishments within a 1-minute walk of 59 Regent Street.

 

Mr Silfikir (‘Other Person’) made the following points:

      i.         The 3 premises referred to were further down Regent Street near to the city centre.

    ii.         The proposed late night refreshment application would affect his business.

 

The Environmental Health and Licensing Support Team Leader referred the Sub Committee to paragraph 5 of the Officer’s report which detailed the options available to them namely:

(a) to grant the variation as applied for;

(b) to modify the conditions of the licence

(c) to reject the whole or part of the application

 

The Sub Committee were reminded that they must give reasons for their decision.

 

In response to a query from the Sub Committee, the Environmental Health and Licensing Support Team Leader said he would provide them with a list of premises on Regent Street and their opening hours.

 

Members withdrew at 10:55 am and returned at 11:55 am. Whilst retired, and having made their decision, Members received legal advice on the wording of the decision.

 

Decision

 

The Sub Committee resolved to:

 

1. Grant the application as made.

 

The Sub Committee’s reasons for reaching the decision:

 

1.  The premises is replacing a similar previous business. The applicant has reduced hours.

2.  There is no effect to the cumulative impact area.