Loading
The minutes are published. No summary has been written yet.
There were no declarations of interest.
Present: Applicant: Dip Prasad Pun Rhiannon Cornwall Responsible Authorities: PC Jason Jones (South Wales Police) Rhys Morgan (Cardiff Council Licensing) The Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from The Moonlight Club & Bar Ltd in respect of The Moonlight Club & Bar, Unit 8, The Friary, Cardiff, CF10 3FA. The applicant had applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises. (ii) The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of live music (indoors), recorded music (indoors), performance of dance (indoors) and entertainment of a similar description (indoors). (iii)) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors). (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “The premises are situated in an area of mixed commercial and office use in The Friary, Cardiff. The applicant wishes to establish a late-night entertainment bar and venue with live and recorded music, dancing, food and alcohol. Food and drink will be available throughout the day, with breakfast, lunch and dinner offerings. Food will be available for delivery with alcohol, if requested, until 00:00 hours only. The indoor capacity will be up to 260 in the evenings, but during the day tables and chairs will be present for customers to sit and dine which will reduce the capacity. The tables and chairs will be removed after the main evening food offering is wound down for the later activities to commence. There’ll be an external front capacity of up to 60 where tables and chairs will be provided until 11pm.” (3) Unless otherwise indicated the premises may be open to the public during the following hours and for any hours consequential to the non-standard timings: Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 04:00 hours New Years Eve: 10:00 hours until start of permitted hours on New Years Day (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises: Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 03:30 hours New Years Eve: 10:00 hours until start of permitted hours on New Years Day (ii) The sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 00:00 hours (iii) The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of live music (indoors), recorded music (indoors), performance of dance (indoors) and entertainment of a similar description (indoors): Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 03:30 hours New Years Eve: 10:00 hours until start of permitted hours on New Years Day (iv) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors): Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 00:00 hours New Years Eve: 23:00 to 05:00 hours Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee, Dip Prasad Pun explained that he was originally from Nepal and had lived in the UK for 25 years. He had served for 22 years in the British Army before retiring, and had received many honours including a Conspicuous Gallantry Cross awarded by the Queen and a Pride of Britain award. Having lived in Wales for seven years while he was in the army, he felt that Cardiff was the best place to settle and start a business. He had a long family history in the nightclub business, as his parents had opened one in Nepal when he was only a year old. He had all the relevant qualifications including a personal alcohol licence, and had invested a lot of time and money in this application. Addressing the Sub Committee, Rhiannon Cornwall explained that she would be one of the managers of the premises, and had 18 years of experience working in hospitality. She outlined the application and their dialogue with the police, in which they had proposed a number of measures to mitigate disturbance and four amendments to the police’s proposed conditions. Ms Cornwall emphasised that they were happy to accept any of the terms the police put in place. They had asked if it would be possible to reduce the requirement of 70% seating after 9pm to 25%, as this could cause a hazard when people were drinking and dancing later at night. She also suggested reducing the required age to 21, as they would be implementing a Challenge 25 policy in any case. The premises would be aimed at over 25s but during the day they wanted to be a family-friendly restaurant, and were concerned about the idea of having to ask under 25s to leave at 9pm. In terms of the operating schedule, they were asking for extended hours for business reasons, since they would lose trade if they were closed while Live Lounge was open next door. If granted, the application would be an asset to Greyfriars Road as it would alleviate demand and reduce the large queues often seen outside of Live Lounge. They intended to make it a trouble-free venue and would employ their own SIA officers with all the relevant training. Ms Cornwall noted the suggestion in an email from South Wales Police that Mr Pun had changed his mind about the conditions, and stressed that this was not the case. He had consistently said that he was happy to adhere to any conditions imposed. Regarding the suggestion that he was not an experienced nightclub operator, she noted that he had worked in a nightclub for years before going into the service, and had also served in the officers’ mess as a barman for several years. He had a wealth of knowledge about this area and was a very capable operator with all the relevant qualifications. Regarding the goal for the business, Ms Cornwall explained that it was aimed at an older clientele than other city centre bars which tended to focus on the student crowd, with older people often leaving when they arrived. It would seek to create a different kind of atmosphere to existing Cardiff venues, with primarily jazz and blues music as well as Nepali nights, and a Nepali restaurant with British options too. They felt that this was an exceptional offer, both in terms of food and nightclub entertainment. Mr Pun added that he was aware of the cumulative impact policy and the need to create a safe environment benefitting the public. The security staff would be key to this, and there would always be at least four of them at night with body cameras. They would train the staff themselves to ensure they were appropriate for the premises. He also reiterated the value of bringing Nepali cuisine to Cardiff along with a unique jazz bar offering. Members queried the suggestion that the venue would help to alleviate the queue outside Live Lounge considering it would close at 12:30am. Ms Cornwall was confident that security staff would be able to manage the departing patrons and ensure they went towards the taxi rank rather than into the Live Lounge queue. She reiterated her view that the increased number of security staff would make Greyfriars Road a safer place to be. Members asked whether they saw the premises as being more of a restaurant or a nightclub. Mr Pun explained that they would open at 10am, first serving breakfast and then food throughout the day, with 70% of floor space occupied by tables and chairs. They hoped they could reduce this to 25% after 9pm, allowing the premises to shift to a space more focused on drinking and dancing. During the daytime they sought to create the ambience of a café and jazz and blues bar, with live music and a self-playing piano. As the night progressed it would change into more of a bar, not just based around vertical drinking but also open mic and speciality nights. They would continue to serve food until an hour before closing time. The Sub Committee queried the mention of exclusive alcohol offers and promotions including complimentary drinks, which were frowned upon within the cumulative impact policy. Ms Cornwall clarified that they wouldn’t be using a promoter, although they might offer drinks promotions in the same vein as other bars. However, these wouldn’t involve free drinks or shots, as they were not seeking to get people drunk. The representative from South Wales Police asked what kind of atmosphere they were hoping to create later in the evening. Mr Pun explained that they would aim for a nightclub atmosphere with music aimed towards the older crowd, with a focus on 80s and 90s easy listening music. Responsible Authority Representations PC Jason Jones of South Wales Police outlined his objection, recalling that they had first received the application in August and met with the applicant throughout the consultation period. He explained that this premises lay within the red zone of the cumulative impact policy, where there was a rebuttable presumption that applications of this nature would be rejected unless they were exceptional. PC Jones suggested that the applicant’s plans had changed over time, and that he had originally wanted to offer karaoke in the evening. He noted that the stated aim to attract an older crowd clashed with the suggestion that they would also help to displace the Live Lounge queue, which was mostly comprised of students. He acknowledged that the applicant had prior hospitality experience, but not within Cardiff city centre. He noted that a recent application on the same premises, which also aimed at an older audience than Live Louge next door, had been rejected, although he understood that the Sub Committee would look at each application on its own merits. The crime report detailed a 45% increase in incidents of crime and disorder during the night-time, and twice as many incidents near the Friary compared to St Mary’s Street. South Wales Police proposed a number of conditions should Members be minded to grant the application, although he didn’t feel that the applicants had provided enough information about how they would mitigate the risks associated with managing a nightclub in the city centre. Members asked PC Jones whether he agreed that the offering of Nepali cuisine and the focus on over 25s made it an exceptional application. He acknowledged that it was a unique offer, but did not feel that the application was exceptional, and the amendments offered did not change this view. Speaking on behalf of the Licensing Authority, Rhys Morgan highlighted that the premises fell within the red category of the Cumulative Impact Assessment. Several amendments had been made throughout the process, with a reduction in hours to 12:30am agreed with the police. The key issue from a licensing point of view was that the venue sought to become a nightclub after 9pm, which was a category of premises that attracted higher levels of crime and disorder in the city centre. It was difficult to find specific mitigations or conditions that might take it out of the red category, and he did not feel that it constituted an exceptional application at this stage. Members asked about the smoking area and heard that as the heavily used frontage of Live Lounge was very close to the window of this venue, there would need to be regular communication between the two premises. The capacity of this venue would change significantly when the seating and tables were removed, creating pinch points. Control over this external area, as well as managing the migration of people, were real challenges which required a clear door management plan. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, Rhys Morgan clarified that the core issue was the transition during the evening into a nightclub based around vertical drinking, which was firmly in the red zone. The restaurant on its own would be permissible within the policy, but when considering a venue that changed during the day then it was necessary to focus on the riskiest elements, which were those related to the nightclub aspect. Regarding the applicant’s willingness to accept the police’s conditions, he emphasised that compliance was not in itself exceptional. In order for a premises to be exceptional, it needed to do more than the basics. Summing Up PC Jones reiterated his concerns about the shift from a food-led premises to a nightclub in the evening, the latter of which was in the red zone in the cumulative impact assessment for this part of the city centre. He did not feel that it was an exceptional application. Mr Pun and Ms Cornwall summarised their case in support of the application and noted that there were a number of successful food-led bars in the red zone of the city centre, for example Turtle Bay. They felt that their highly trained door staff operating a zero tolerance policy would be an asset to Greyfriars Road. The possibility of noise pollution had been mitigated with double doors, and they did not believe that the customers they were seeking to attract would be likely to cause disturbance themselves. They were seeking to provide a relaxed atmosphere for an older crowd, with a smooth transition from restaurant to club in the evening. They would promote responsible drinking and ensure that patrons felt safe and looked after on the premises. They were fully aware of the crime and disorder issues in the area and the restrictions of the cumulative impact policy but felt that their application and business plan were exceptional. Decision The Sub Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, as well as the oral representations made by South Wales Police and the licensing authority. The Sub Committee noted that the premises was located in an area covered by the Cumulative Impact Assessment, creating the rebuttable presumption that any new or full variation applications for premises licences would be refused unless the applicant could successfully demonstrate that granting the application would not add to the negative cumulative impact in the area. It was noted that the applicant had accepted the conditions proposed by South Wales Police, however they had not withdrawn their representation. The Sub Committee felt that granting the licence would add to the negative cumulative impact in the area, and as such did not find the application exceptional. After considering all the relevant information, the Sub Committee resolved to REFUSE the application.
Present: Applicant: Matthew Varghese Bill Freeman Interested Others: George Vince Alfred Neil Muscott Sian Bundy The Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from Chrysalis Foods Ltd in respect of Chrysalis Foods Ltd, 72-74 Whitchurch Road, Cardiff, CF14 3LX. The applicant had applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (ii) The sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises (ii) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors and outdoors) (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “The premises is two ground floor units in a busy commercial area. The premises was previously used as a restaurant. The premises is intended to be used as a restaurant and will also utilise the garden for consumption of food and alcohol”. (3) Unless otherwise indicated the premises may be open to the public during the following hours and for any hours consequential to the non-standard timings: Monday to Sunday: 09:00 to 00:00 hours New Years Eve: 09:00 to 02:00 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 11:00 to 23:30 hours New Years Eve: 11:00 to 02:00 hours (ii) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors and outdoors): Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 00:00 hours New Years Eve: 23:00 to 02:00 hours Applicant Representations Bill Freeman addressed the Sub Committee on behalf of the applicant, explaining that Mr Varghese was a property developer whose wife was a consultant, and they had dreamed of opening their own restaurant. There had been no objections to the granting of the licence of the restaurant, but rather the contentious issue was the use of the garden. The police had made representations, as had Pollution Control, but these were withdrawn upon agreement of the proposed conditions including the closure of the garden at 9pm. Mr Varghese did not want to clash with residents and hoped they could come to some agreement, and had offered to close the garden at 8pm, an hour earlier than originally agreed. Addressing the Sub Committee, Mr Varghese added that he had worked in PR and communications for a long time and loved people, which had made him want to open a restaurant. The premises would be very much centred on the interior but he wanted to give patrons the option to sit outside, especially during the nice weather in the summer. He didn’t intend to cause any grievance for neighbours and was willing to amend the conditions if necessary. Members asked for more information about the garden. Mr Varghese explained that it could fit about 15 to 20 people. It was a simple garden which would largely be used during the summer, so he didn’t plan to add any heaters. The outside area was surrounded by a wall which was roughly 6 feet tall. Inside the restaurant there would be space for 50 to 60 diners. Interested Other Representations Addressing the Sub Committee as a local resident, George Vince explained that he had no issue with the restaurant itself, but the garden backed directly onto his and as a result was very loud. The noise pollution was a significant issue for those living nearby, and this was even the case in the past when it was just a small café. Mr Varghese suggested that there would always be noise in this area as Whitchurch Road was very busy. Mr Vince disagreed, suggesting that Talygarn Street was generally a lot quieter as it was off the main road. Addressing the Sub Committee as a local resident, Alfred Muscott explained that his wife had epilepsy and so the noise had a real impact on them. The last thing they wanted was a loud venue open in the evening so close to their house. Summing Up Mr Vince summarised that he did not see any way that the restaurant could regularly use its garden without having a major impact on the local residents’ quality of life. Mr Muscott agreed and emphasised the lack of privacy in their gardens caused by the close proximity of the restaurant. Mr Varghese reiterated that he did not intend to cause any negative impact, and he wanted to work with residents and make his restaurant part of the local community. On a nice sunny day, it was right that patrons should be able to go out into the garden. He was happy to reduce the hours to mitigate any issues and had offered 8pm as a closing time for the garden. Decision The Sub Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and local residents during the hearing. The Sub Committee noted that Environmental Health and Pollution Control initially objected but withdrew this upon agreement of their proposed conditions. The applicant had also offered to reduce the terminal hour of use of the rear garden to 8pm. The Sub Committee felt that this application would not undermine the licensing objectives. After considering all the relevant information, the Sub Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the agreed conditions with Environmental Health and with use of the rear garden ceasing at 8pm.
This application had been withdrawn and did not need to be considered by the Sub Committee.
There were none.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.