Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and oral representations made on behalf of the applicant and by local residents, GRANTED the application.
There were none.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and oral representations made on behalf of the applicant and by local residents, GRANTED the application.
Present: Applicant: Ian Fowler (General Manager) Tony Bowley (Agent) Other Persons: Celine Chew Liz Hawkins Emily Sadler The Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from Margaret Studt in respect of Charlie’s Traditional Fish & Chips, yard at the rear of 5 Bute Crescent, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, CF10 5AN. The applicant applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “A ground floor stand alone unit with a cooking range, bar and seating for sixteen customers”. (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 23:30 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: 10:00 to 23:00 hours Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of the applicant, Tony Bowley emphasised that it was a simple application to enable the premises to offer alcohol in addition to hot food. It was a newly established fish and chips restaurant in Cardiff Bay, the first of its kind since Top Gun had closed in 2016. The applicant, Margaret Studt, had been granted the very first licence in Mermaid Quay for Demiro’s in 1999, and this premises was still running. She had other licences in Porthcawl and Penarth among others, and there was no adverse history in relation to any of the premises she operated. He noted that the application sought permission for the sale of alcohol for consumption together with a substantial meal, and offered a raft of conditions in agreement with the responsible authorities. It was not their intention to sell large quantities of alcohol, but rather to offer a high-end meal package. Regarding the objections received, Mr Bowley noted that many of these related to saturation, which did not apply to the Bay as there was no saturation policy. The premises would close at 11pm, which was the earliest of any venue in the area. He noted that several objections mentioned Demiro’s, but emphasised that there was no evidence of incorrect operating at the applicant’s other venues. This premises had sold alcohol last weekend using a temporary event notice for the Wales vs England match, with no complaints or incidents. He added that there were a wide range of restaurants across Cardiff where customers could sit down, order hot food and purchase alcohol, with no problems caused as a result. The only difference here was that it was fish and chips, and they had imposed a significantly limiting condition stating that alcohol could only be bought with a substantial meal. The closing time was relatively early and the applicant was experienced and lived nearby. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, Mr Bowley explained that while the plan referred to male and female toilets, there was only one shared toilet on the premises. He also explained that off-sales of alcohol would be permitted, but customers have to buy a substantial meal as well just like if they wanted to drink alcohol in the restaurant. One of the local residents queried whether the premises would be able to change the conditions of their licence in the future. The Legal Officer clarified that they would not as the conditions were binding, and any variation would require a further application to the licensing authority. Other Persons Representations Addressing the Sub Committee, Liz Hawkins explained that she was a resident of Quayside apartments close to the premises. Her main concern was that it was a very confined area that people hung around, mostly because of taxis blocking their cul-de-sac. The premises had an outdoor seating area and she was concerned that if they were given an alcohol licence, this would attract more people to congregate there. There were a number of premises nearby that served alcohol, like the Eli Jenkins and the Packet, and she noted that the Packet’s outdoor seating had been removed, possibly due to antisocial behaviour. Emily Sadler also spoke as a local resident, noting that while Cardiff Bay had lacked a fish and chip shop for some time, Charlie’s was mostly used by families or people who had already been drinking, so there did not seem to be any need for them to sell alcohol. She suggested that Demiro’s was known for breaking its licensing conditions, with loud music frequently beyond the terminal hour. Off-sales of alcohol would make the issues around the taxi rank worse, and it already felt dangerous to walk around that area with children and pets. Mr Bowley disputed the suggestion that Demiro’s was known for breaching the conditions of its licence, noting that the police had withdrawn their representation and had not expressed any concerns about the applicant’s record. Summing Up Mr Bowley summarised that it was a simple and modest application to sell alcohol to be enjoyed alongside a meal of fish and chips. Numerous other premises in Cardiff had this facility on their licence, and there was a very limiting condition that alcohol could only be sold ancillary to a substantial meal. The closing hour was relatively early and there was an experienced Designated Premises Supervisor who would live almost on the premises. He felt that the premises had demonstrated last weekend that it could sell alcohol without any issues. He acknowledged the objections from local residents but did not feel they had presented enough evidence that the application would damage the licensing objectives. He hoped that his representation had allayed their concerns, and felt that overall the application would promote the licensing objectives. The local residents did not have any further comments. Decision The Sub Committee noted that South Wales Police had withdrawn their objection following agreement to the conditions. Members had carefully considered the representations from local residents but did not feel that there was evidence that the licence, if granted, would undermine the licensing objectives. RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and oral representations made on behalf of the applicant and by local residents, GRANTED the application.
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.