|
City of York Council |
Committee Minutes |
|
|
Meeting |
Licensing/Gambling Hearing |
|
|
Date |
13 April 2026 |
|
|
Present
Officers in Attendance
|
Councillors Cuthbertson, Hook, and Nicholls
Lesley Cooke – Licensing Manager Sandra Branigan – Senior Lawyer
|
|
|
|
|
|
46. Chair (10:00am)
Resolved: That Councillor Nicholls be elected to act as Chair of the hearing.
47. Apologies for Absence (10:00am)
No apologies for absence were received.
48. Introductions (10:00am)
Introductions were made.
49. Declarations of Interest (10:01am)
Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest or other registerable interest they might have in respect of business on the agenda if they had not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. None were declared.
50. Exclusion of Press and Public (10:01am)
Resolved: That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the sub-committee’s deliberations and decision making at the end of the hearing, on the grounds that the public interest in excluding the public outweighs the public interest in that part of the meeting taking place in public, under Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.
51. Minutes (10:02am)
Resolved: That the minutes of the Licensing Hearing held on held on 13 November 2025 be approved as a correct record subject to the following amendment:
· That the spelling of LBGTQUIA+ within section 7, the representation of the Licensing Authority, be corrected as LGBTQIA+.
52. The Determination of an Application by Leeds Tap Ltd for a Premises Licence (Section 18(3) (a) application) in respect of Mittel River Restaurant, York Guildhall Restaurant, Lendal, York, YO1 8AA (CYC-083733) (10:03am)
Resolved: That prior to hearing representations, the Sub-Committee would adjourn the hearing in order to undertake a site visit of the premises.
[The hearing reconvened at 10:45am]
Members considered an application by Leeds Tap Ltd. for a Determination of Application for Premises Licence in respect of Mittel River Restaurant, York Guildhall Restaurant, Lendal, York, YO1 8AA. In considering the application and the representations made, the Sub-Committee concluded that the following licensing objectives were relevant to the Hearing:
1. Prevention of Crime and Disorder.
2. Public Safety.
3. Prevention of Public Nuisance.
In coming to their decision, the Sub-Committee took into consideration all the evidence and submissions that were presented, and determined their relevance to the issues raised and the above licensing objectives, including:
1. The application form.
2. The papers before it including the written representations received from neighbouring businesses and responsible authorities, and the additional information provided by the Applicant, as seen in the agenda supplements.
3. The Licensing Manager’s report and her comments at the Hearing.
The Licensing Manager outlined the report and the annexes noting that the application was for the licensing of a ‘Gastro-brewpub’, and detailed the timings applied for. The Licensing Manager confirmed that the premises was located within the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) and directed members to the representations made at Annexes 5, 6, 7, and 9, and the additional information provided by the Applicant. She then advised the Sub-Committee of the options open to them in determining the application.
In response to questions from North Yorkshire Police, as a Responsible Authority, the Licensing Manager confirmed that:
· The Amber and Red Zones, as described within paragraphs 9.13 and 9.14 of Annex 4, Licensing Policy Extract, had been taken from an out-of-date policy, and had now been superseded by the Statement of Licensing Policy 2025-2030, which was duly shared with those in attendance at the hearing.
· The hours detailed within the report were those as applied for and did not account for the additional information provided by the Applicant.
4. The Applicant’s representation at the hearing.
Piers Warne, the Solicitor for the Applicant, and Jamie Hawksworth, on behalf of the Applicant, presented their case to the Sub-Committee and confirmed that in relation to their application, they would only refer to details presented within Supplement 2 - Additional information from the Solicitor to the Applicant where these differed to details within their application.
Mr Warne highlighted that the hours set out within Supplement 2 - Additional information from the Solicitor to the Applicant had been made within guidelines worked up with North Yorkshire Police, and that the hours applied for should be corrected to 10:00 – 00:00 hours, and not 08:00 – 00:00 hours.
Mr Warne stated that there would be a degree of control through the landlord for the premises being the landlord for neighbouring business, which would mitigate risk and increase mediation.
Mr Warne also stated that Mr Hawksworth was a part of the fabric of hospitality in York due to him being a local operator in the city.
Mr Warne then drew attention to the plans located within Annex 1 – Plans, and reported that above the main area, which is highlighted red, was a substantial trade kitchen and at the bottom was a micro-brewery – this highlighted the investment that was being put into the premises. There was to be a focus on local produce for both drink (including the Applicant’s own brewed beer) and local food. It was also reported that approaches had been made by a local boat company to work with the Applicant for food.
Mr Warne highlighted that the Applicant needed to offer food due to the amount of investment that has been made and could therefore not operate otherwise. Mr Warne considered that although cumulative impact was not explicitly mentioned within the application, the Applicant understood the policy and its importance – it was noted that four other premises were run by the Applicant in York, and two of those were food led.
Mr Warne drew attention to conditions amended as set out within Supplement 2 - Additional information from the Solicitor to the Applicant, which had been amended in review following receipt of the written representations made. Conditions such as requiring door staff on Saturdays and using internal bottle stores before moving bottles externally had been agreed in liaison with respective Responsible Authorities; however according to Mr Warne, a condition relating to smoking could not be applied due to potential changes to smoking legislation, and uncertainty over future requirements, but efforts would be made to keep smoke away from tenants.
Mr Warne highlighted that the requirement of substantial food was a condition offered on the licence, and he urged the Sub-Committee not to refuse the licence just because of the CIA, and to judge the application on its merits which would be heavily food oriented; he further suggested that when making decisions, the Sub-Committee should consider how to create growth for the area, and that the Applicant recognised concerns raised and had tried to mitigate these concerns within their application and representation.
In response to questions from North Yorkshire Police, as a Responsible Authority, Mr Warne confirmed that:
· The hours applied for had been amended for the supply of alcohol to be from 10:00 and not 08:00 hours.
In response to questions from Public Protection, as a Responsible Authority, Mr Warne confirmed that:
· Plans for the House of Trembling Madness entrance were for the entrance to be cleared of rubbish and made more accessible, with CCTV being used all the way down the alleyway for increased security.
· There would be no public access through to the premises out of hours as access through this entrance would be locked; access would be possible via key fobs for workers in neighbouring offices.
In response to questions from Professor Damian Murphy, a representor, on behalf of XR Stories, Mr Warne and Mr Hawksworth confirmed that:
· There were currently discussions ongoing regarding the relocation of Guildhall access gates and there would be a heavy CCTV presence on the walkway toward the terraces from this direction. Access to the Guildhall would be controlled by the Guildhall only; when access through the House of Trembling Madness alleyway on Lendal Street is closed, the route through via the Guildhall would lead to a dead end and there would therefore be no need for anyone to access.
In response to questions from Julian Richards, a representor, on behalf of Archaeology Data Services, Mr Warne and Mr Hawksworth confirmed that:
· A minimum number of tables and chairs on the premises was set in order to prevent vertical drinking and control the type of establishment the Applicant wanted by creating a seated atmosphere.
· The main point of access would be through the House of Trembling Madness alleyway on Lendal Street and through the front door to the premises.
· If anyone were to sit down outside without first coming through the building, then they would usually not be served; around 15 staff would be on site at any one time in order to monitor this.
· It was expected that for most of the year the weather would put people of from the terraces and people would end up inside the premises.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Warne and Mr Hawksworth confirmed that:
· The Guildhall pathway was a public right of way which leads to the lower terrace, which is a public area, access in this way would however not be promoted.
· The alleyway beside the House of Trembling Madness was owned by City of York Council (CYC) but the Applicant had sole rights of way (shared with CYC).
· When completing the application there wasn’t the possibility to highlight the food operations and as such this omitted the food led operation that the premises was looking to undertake; many customers may want to visit the premises for drink first before returning for food and the Applicant could not force customers to eat.
· In order to prevent overcrowding on the terraces, on key busy days security would control numbers and there would be blend of table service which will deter some types of people. There would also be the possibility of booking tables, and people would be told if there were no tables available which would quickly help to clear up crowding if people were not wanting to wait.
· If food was needed then they could keep the kitchen open, but having a minimum hours condition would allow for early closure of the kitchen when needed.
· The Applicant was not permitted to put signage on the river banking or near the Guildhall and as such access through the Guildhall was not allowed to be promoted.
· There would be no promotions on food or drinks and local food offered would have to be sold fresh and therefore there would be an incentive for the Applicant to ensure they sell the food; being set away from the high street gave the Applicant a different aspect and unique selling point than many other restaurants.
In response to questions from the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee, as a point of clarification, Mr Warne and Mr Hawksworth confirmed that:
· In relation to Outside terrace areas contained within conditions suggested within Supplement 2 - Additional information from the Solicitor to the Applicant, this could be amended from: “…when the terraces are fully open to the public”, to “…when the terraces are open to the public”, omitting the word “fully” in order to prevent ambiguity regarding the partial opening of the terrace.
5. The representation of North Yorkshire Police, Responsible Authority, at the hearing.
PCs Jackie Booth and Kim Hollis, on behalf of North Yorkshire Police, outlined their case.
PCs Booth and Hollis detailed that the Applicant had shown Police representatives round the premises on a site visit and stated that they were required to object to the application as they did not have ample time to inspect the application before the consultation period deadline; many points originally objected to had now been mediated.
PCs Booth and Hollis highlighted how within CYC’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2025-2030, paragraph 9.14 stated that in the CIA alcohol must be supplied ancillary to a meal, with substantial food. They said that the Police had considered the application on its own merits.
PCs Booth and Hollis discussed how the Police and Applicant had agreed on conditions relating to seating numbers and door staff (minimum seating numbers were required to ensure seats could not be cleared away to create a vertical drinking environment).
The Police representatives concluded by confirming that they wanted the Sub-Committee to condition the premises to be predominantly food led, and to increase the time when food is available.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, PC Booth and PC Hollis, on behalf of North Yorkshire Police confirmed that:
· As North Yorkshire Police are CYC’s expert on Crime and Disorder, the Police would like conditions to be implemented leading to an increase in time at when food would be available; having a menu available would help make the atmosphere and environment of the premises a food led one and could reduce vertical drinking.
The Applicant commented that opening the kitchen past 22:00 hours would not be viable as nobody would want to come out to eat at that time, and it would be a waste of resources.
6. The representation of Public Protection, Responsible Authority, at the hearing.
Michael Golightly, on behalf of Public Protection, outlined their case.
Mr Golightly commented that Public Protection accepted many of the conditions proposed by the Applicant in Supplement 2 - Additional information from the Solicitor to the Applicant, less a couple of points, namely: the close proximity with neighbouring office space and the issue of noise control.
Mr Golightly continued that if the premises was predominantly food led the amount of drinking without food would be reduced and so therefore would noise and rowdiness.
There were also concerns regarding management of noise and disorder outside the premises, such as through the pathway towards the Guildhall passing directly by offices, as office workers would be classed as sensitive receptors to any nuisance.
Mr Golightly concluded that in order to control the amount of people drinking outside late at night the Applicant could implement plans to deter late night outside drinking and smoking.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Golightly, on behalf of Public Protection, confirmed that:
· Confirmation was only received on the morning of the hearing that there were no residents living in the near vicinity to the premises, and as such this required for a representation to be put in during the consultation period urging the addition of a condition closing the premises at 21:00 or 22:00 hours. Following recent clarification, Public Protection were now content with the hours of 23:00 hours and highlighted that concerns now centred around control of noise and nuisance for nearby daytime staff.
· Noise control solutions could be installed at the premises but would prove difficult.
7. The representation of the Licensing Authority (City of York Council), Responsible Authority, at the hearing.
Jemma Kettlestring, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, outlined their case.
Ms Kettlestring described how the premises was located within the CIA, and that it was CYC’s policy to normally reject these applications unless evidence could be provided showing how the licence would not lead to increased cumulative impact. She continued by commenting on the conditions offered in Supplement 2 - Additional information from the Solicitor to the Applicant which were welcomed but were not as robust as required. Ms Kettlestring concluded by declaring that the Licensing Authority did not have confidence of how activity at the premises would not lead to increased cumulative impact within the local area and supported the representations made by the Police and Public Protection.
8. The representation of Claire Bennett, on behalf York Science Park, at the hearing.
Claire Bennett, on behalf York Science Park, outlined her case.
Claire detailed a site visit that was undertaken of which representatives from CYC, the University of York, and the Applicant were in attendance.
Claire outlined concerns with the location of the outside terrace and on-site brewing operations. She continued by confirming agreements made with the Applicant in that between the hours of 09:00 and 17:00 midweek, Guildhall tenants would be able to use reserved tables on the existing benches on the outside terrace, and Guildhall tenants would have access to the terrace by keeping their lanyards visible.
She stated that confirmation had been received from the Applicant in that no tv screens or music will be played outside, and she requested that the Sub-Committee consider this as a condition to any potential licence.
Ms Bennett expressed desires of planting and landscaping to be used as a natural sound buffer, for the moving of empty bottles to external bins to be done in the evening to avoid disrupting office working day operations, and for all waste management and keg storage to be internal.
She further explained that the Applicant needed to use internal venting and CYC regulated odour control systems, that a strict end of day clearing policy should be implemented, and that several physical security enhancements had been agreed upon to prevent trespass and ensure safety of the site – including a new secure gate to be installed at the Lendal entrance, and a barrier at the second floor entrance to prevent unauthorised access to office areas above. Ms Bennett then made the Sub-Committee aware that it had been agreed that Guildhall tenants would maintain access to the internal bike storage, that window transfers would be applied to Guildhall office windows.
Ms Bennett discussed a joint fire strategy approach in conjunction with all interest parties in the vicinity, including a linked fire alarm system, clear escape routes and public right of way; a designated smoking and vaping area would also need to be located on the lowest terrace, as far away as possible from the office windows and thoroughfares to minimise second hand smoke. She further explained that agreements were in place for the Applicant to improve the lighting of the House of Trembling Madness alleyway, and to keep it clear to ensure a safe right of way for customers.
Ms Bennett concluded by reporting how tenants who used to sign three-year tenancies were now only agreeing to 12-month leases because they were concerned over the future of the restaurant and its impact on their business, and that this could be rectified from the result of the hearing.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Ms Bennett, on behalf of York Science Park, confirmed that:
· York Science Park was the leaseholder for the Guildhall and office spaces.
· Tenants were always aware that a restaurant of some description would take over the vacant premises which had remained empty for four years.
· The noise element during working hours was their main concern and previous suggested conditions could ease concerns raised.
9. The representation of Professor Julian Richards, on behalf of Archaeology Data Services, at the hearing.
Professor Julian Richards, on behalf of Archaeology Data Services, outlined their case and expressed how the safety and security of their staff was their primary concern, and as there were multiple ways of gaining access to the offices there was an increased safety risk. Professor Richards also commented that sharing of the bike storage with their staff and customers and staff of the premises would be difficult.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Julian Richards, on behalf of Archaeology Data Services, confirmed that:
· There was a great amount of visibility through office windows from the lower terrace and pathway and as such frosted glass would be necessary.
· The proposed smoking area being at the furthest area on the terrace away from office space would be welcomed if enforced.
· The most difficult aspect of security on the site would be to manage footfall and ensure that access occurs through the correct ways.
10. The representation of Professor Damian Murphy, on behalf of XR Stories, at the hearing.
Professor Damian Murphy, on behalf of XR Stories, outlined their case.
Professor Murphy reported that his business had brought lots of investment and jobs to York over recent years and were concerned of the compatibility with their business and this premises. Privacy was a great concern for the offices as the office windows open straight onto the passageway toward the lower terrace. He continued that concerns mainly existed for daytime midweek usage - working hours. Professor Murphy concluded by reporting that XR Stories had reduced their current tenancy of their offices to 12 months due to concerns that mitigations suggested were not enough to alleviate their concerns.
PC Booth and PC Hollis, on behalf of North Yorkshire Police, were given the opportunity to sum-up.
They reminded the Sub-Committee to consider the Cumulative Impact policy and expressed that no clarity had been received during the consultation process, and as such many issues which had now been mediated could have been resolved before the Hearing. However, concerns were still maintained over how the premises would be predominantly food led. They concluded that the Applicant had responsibilities set out through the licensing objectives and that North Yorkshire Police were not wanting the licence to be refused but instead wanted to ensure that the premises was predominantly food led and increase the times that food was available.
Michael Golightly, on behalf of Public Protection, was then given the opportunity to sum-up.
Mr Golightly expressed concerns to the Sub-Committee and in that he could not see how issues raised could be mitigated. He advised the Sub-Committee to refuse the licence, or to condition restrictions upon egress and access and to ensure the premises is food led.
Jemma Kettlestring, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, was then given the opportunity to sum-up.
Ms Kettlestring highlighted that the Licensing Authority’s primary concerns were with the premises evidencing how it would be food led.
Claire Bennett, on behalf of York Science Park, was then given the opportunity to sum up.
Ms Bennett outlined how she had accepted physical security upgrades to the premises and safety protocols and urged the Sub-Committee to condition that no audio or video could be played externally to support noise concerns raised.
Professor Julian Richards, on behalf of Archaeology Data Services, was then given the opportunity to sum up
Professor Richard urged the Sub-Committee that the premises should be predominantly food led and reminded the Sub-Committee of the Guildhall’s status within the city and how this should remain.
Professor Damian Murphy, on behalf of XR Stories, was then given the opportunity to sum up.
Professor Murphy urged the Sub-Committee that the premises should be predominantly food led and that the Sub-Committee should consider all concerns raised in regard to vertical drinking, and potential disorder outside office spaces.
The Applicant was then given the opportunity to sum up.
Mr Warne, on behalf of the Applicant, stated that they were able to accept conditions on seated drinking only in the external area; Mr Warne noted that the nature of the business influenced the type of customer and as such closing the kitchen would not immediately promote vertical drinking and rowdiness. He informed the Sub-Committee that most custom for the premises would come from outside of general office working hours (namely 09:00-17:00) due to the nature of the business, and that the terraces would only be open during sunny days.
He discussed the possibility of an additional hour during the week of kitchen opening and noted that this would add around £560 of labour to the cost of the business, which, when it is not needed, would be difficult.
Mr Warne concluded by noting the premises had remained empty for four years as large investments were required to renovate it - which is what the Applicant was now proposing. He reported that although frosting windows was not a licensing matter, this had been considered. He also mentioned that the landlord, York Science Park, had powers to keep the Applicant in line if issues arose, and if rules were not followed. The Applicant had added seating, reduced hours, worked to mitigate risks highlighted, and were working to promote the licensing objectives.
In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Warne, and Mr Hawksworth, on behalf of the Applicant, confirmed that:
· The CYC Statement of Licensing policy already stated that substantial food was required.
· We would remain open after selling food as many people may want to use the terraces and premises while waiting for boat rides.
· Many similar operators in the area were closing early when they felt they need to and there was therefore a lack of consistency and confidence from customers, because of this the Applicant suggested a minimum of opening times within their application.
· The premises had been brought up to building control standards and was compliant. If public nuisance was caused, then the Applicant would be required to work with Public Protection and therefore was not able to do whatever they wanted, and it was in their interest to work within the licensing objectives. Music or entertainment had not been applied for.
· Planners must approve of any fully external planting scheme, and a certain amount of lighting must be kept.
In response to questions from the Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee, on points of clarification, Mr Warne, and Mr Hawksworth, on behalf of the Applicant, confirmed that:
· There were sliding doors to both elevations of the terraces which must be shut.
· The hours of which bottles could be moved externally, stated as being outside “office hours”, was outside of the hours 08:00-18:00, Monday-Friday.
[The meeting adjourned at 12:52pm and reconvened in private session at 1:00pm]
The Sub-Committee resolved to grant the licence for the following activities and timings with modified/additional conditions imposed by the Sub-Committee (Option 2) as set out below:
|
Activity
|
Timings
|
|
Late night refreshment – indoors & outdoors
|
23:00 to 00:00 hours daily |
|
Supply of alcohol - on and off the premises
|
10:00 to 23:30 hours daily (with a 30-minute drink up time thereafter) |
|
Opening hours
|
08:00 to 00:00 hours daily
|
The Operating Schedule conditions contained on pages 5 to 7 of Agenda Supplement 2 – Additional information from the Solicitor to the Applicant, published on 9 April 2026, shall be added to the licence SUBJECT TO the following modified and additional conditions:
Modified conditions
(a) Minimum seating capacity at the premises when the premises is open and operating as follows:
Lower floor – 60
Upper Floor – 20
Outside terrace areas - the minimum number of seats provided for customer use when the terraces are open to the public (when the weather permits) are: lower terrace 20 and upper terrace 40.
(b) Condition 21:
Signs shall be displayed near the exits reminding customers to respect the needs of those living nearby and to leave the premises as quietly as possible.
No outdoor speakers or TV screens will be used at any time.
Deliveries of alcohol will be made to from Lendal and shall not be made down the side of Guildhall.
No bottles to be removed from the premises into outside bottle bins during office hours of 08:00 to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday when this could disturb local businesses.
The manager will ensure that each day an area laid out to tables and chairs on the lower terrace (as agreed with the Landlords) will be set aside and reserved for staff of businesses overlooking the terrace from 9:00 to 17:00 hours Monday to Friday for the consumption of their own food and soft drinks.
(c) Condition 25
In all parts of the premises where alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises the premises shall be predominantly food led and as a minimum a substantial food and non-intoxicating beverages including water shall be available to order between 10:00 and 21:00 hours. For the avoidance of doubt, a substantial food menu shall be available to order between these hours each day.
Additional conditions
(d) Alcohol consumed on the outside terrace areas shall only be consumed by customers seated at tables. For the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no vertical drinking of alcohol in any delineated external area as shown on the plan attached to the licence.
(e) Smoking and vaping by customers must be restricted to a designated smoking/vaping area away from the neighbouring offices.
The licence is also subject to the mandatory conditions applicable to licensed premises.
Reasons for the decision
The Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have regard to the Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP).
The Sub-Committee noted that the premises was located within an area where a cumulative impact policy applies. The Sub-Committee had regard to the Cumulative Impact Assessment and noted that an application for a premises situated in the cumulative impact area that is likely to add to the cumulative impact already experienced will normally be refused if relevant representations are received and that the applicant should demonstrate how their proposal will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.
The Sub-Committee considered the SLP and the CIA and noted that nature of the Cumulative Impact Area is such that the problems and cumulative impact directly relate to the style of business operating in the area and their clientele, due to the concentration of pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, cafes, hotels, late night refreshment and off-sale licensed premises, especially in the night time economy.
It was noted by the Sub-Committee that the Council’s policy states that with in the CIA predominantly food led premises including with alcohol supplied ancillary to a meal, may be considered more favourably. The Sub-Committee gave great weight to the CIA and noted that each application will be considered on its own merits and that it is open for the Council to grant an application where it is considered appropriate and where the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that they would not be adding to the cumulative impact.
Representations had been received from North Yorkshire Police, Public Protection and the Licensing Authority that the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance would be undermined by the grant of the licence if the premises is not going to be predominantly food led.
The Sub-Committee had regard to the location of the premises and the character of the area and noted its city centre location in the cumulative impact area and its close proximity to neighbouring offices.
The Sub-Committee noted in particular the concern of the Police that granting the application for a premises that is not going to be predominantly food led in this location would add to the cumulative effect of having more licensed premises in the CIA. The Sub-Committee considered that the Police’s concern carried great weight in accordance with paragraph 9.12 of the statutory guidance.
The Sub-Committee also gave great weight to the representation of Public Protection in accordance with paragraph 9.12 of the statutory guidance which states that each responsible authority will be an expert in their respective field.
Members noted that concerns had also been raised by businesses in close proximity that the grant of the premises licence would undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee considered that their concerns relating to the potential noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour arising from the premises were valid.
The Sub-Committee gave considerable weight to the statutory guidance which requires that the Sub-Committee takes such steps as it considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives when making a determination. Members acknowledged the operating schedule provided and noted the Applicant’s offered amended conditions.
The Sub-Committee was concerned that any grant of an application in the CIA requires a particularly robust operating schedule, which should demonstrate particular measures at the premises to address the likely impact of the availability of alcohol in an area that already experiences a high volume of anti-social and criminal behaviour and public nuisance, these issues being factors behind the creation of the CIA in the first place. Having considered all of the evidence and taking into account the nature of the premises as a ‘gastro pub’, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that if the premises is not required to be predominantly food led with longer hours during which substantial food is available, this would be likely to add to the existing problems in the area.
In addition, in the view of the Sub-Committee it would be inappropriate to permit an establishment as proposed in the application i.e. (which is not predominantly food-led) in very close proximity to existing offices because noise disturbance and nuisance would be likely to materially impact the working environment in this immediate area.
The Sub-Committee was satisfied that these impacts should be alleviated by ensuring that the premises are predominantly food led, by increasing the hours during which food should be available and by ensuring that there should be no vertical consumption of alcohol on the outside terrace areas, together with the other added and amended volunteered conditions.
The Sub-Committee decided to grant a premises licence accordingly, which it considered to be appropriate and proportionate for a premises located in an area which was already saturated with licensed premises and to ensure that nearby officer workers would not be unreasonably disturbed, `in order to ensure the promotion of the promotion of the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee felt that, based on the evidence before it, the additional and amended conditions were appropriate and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.
Cllr Nicholls, Chair
[The meeting started at 10.00 am and finished at 1.44 pm].