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 all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, APPROVED the application. The Sub Committee heard from the applicant, listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003 the Section 182 Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee have also considered all written representations. It was noted that prior to the meeting the applicants accepted the proposed conditions of South Wales Police and their representation was subsequently withdrawn. In light of the above and the representations received, the Sub Committee considered that the applicants had successfully demonstrated that the application did not negatively impact on the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee therefore resolve to grant the application, subject to the additional conditions agreed set out at Appendix C of the report.
None received.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, APPROVED the application. The Sub Committee heard from the applicant, listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003 the Section 182 Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee have also considered all written representations. It was noted that prior to the meeting the applicants accepted the proposed conditions of South Wales Police and their representation was subsequently withdrawn. In light of the above and the representations received, the Sub Committee considered that the applicants had successfully demonstrated that the application did not negatively impact on the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee therefore resolve to grant the application, subject to the additional conditions agreed set out at Appendix C of the report.
Present: Applicants: Lee Ramskill and Rowan Dunn of Adventure Bar Group Represented by: James Anderson and Tobias Jackson of Poppleston Allen. Other Persons: Ms Kate Smith and Mr Yan White representing Ms Kate Bowen The Application An application for the Grant of a Premises Licence was been received from Venture Battersea Limited in respect of Blame Gloria, 39-41 St Mary Street, Cardiff. The applicant applied for the following: In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises. (ii) The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of films (indoors), live music (indoors) and recorded music (indoors). (iii) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “Licensed premises” 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 03:00 On the commencement of British Summertime: 10:00 to 04:00 To provide licensable activities during the following hours: (i) The sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises: Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 02:30 On the commencement of British Summertime: 10:00 to 03:30 (iv) The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of films (indoors), live music (indoors) and recorded music (indoors). Monday to Sunday: 10:00 to 03:00 On the commencement of British Summertime: 10:00 to 04:00 (ii) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors and outdoors): Monday to Sunday: 23:00 to 03:00 On the commencement of British Summertime: 23:00 to 04:00 Applicants Representation James Anderson of Poppleston Allen presented the Application. He advised the Sub Committee that all of the information had been provided in the evidence pack with the papers and provided some background to Blame Gloria and Adventure Bar to set minds at ease about the operation. Members were advised that he respectfully disagreed with the objections made. Mr Anderson stated that the venue would be a premium cocktail bar, with a target market of 25 plus years old clientele; it would be a smart venue with interesting décor, designed colourfully for people to enjoy themselves. He added that more than 50% of the clients would be women, with the marketing, décor and entertainment being woman focussed. There would be no draft beer on sale, 40% of drinks would be cocktails, lots of seating, no designated dancefloor and although the premises is over three floors, it was a fairly small venue. The Sub Committee were advised that over 50% of the clients will pre-book their table or booth online in advance. Members were advised that there was 2 premises licences in place at these premises both with later opening hours than applied for in this application. Both licences would be surrendered if the application was granted. The company also operate Tonight Josephine in the City Centre, which is a larger venue and no issues have been experienced there since opening six weeks ago. The Sub Committee were advised that Adventure Bar group operate high standards and have satisfied the Police that they are good operators. They take the safety and wellbeing of staff and customers very seriously, operating the Ask Angela safety mechanism; they have door staff with body worn cameras and operate a dispersal policy. The granting of the license and the surrendering of the current 2 licences would mean a reduction in licences in the cumulative impact zone. Members were advised that the business does not promote excessive drinking, they do not want to encourage any anti-social behaviour or disturb neighbouring premises. Mr Anderson referred to the objections mentioning Bottomless Brunch, adding this was only offered on a Saturday, for 90 minutes with food and entertainment, the business was primarily premium cocktails. Mr Anderson added that the venue was very kitsch with drag queen led entertainment and it was not designed for people to drink as much possible. Mr Anderson referred to Queer Emporium and the LGBTQ+ community and explained that members of their staff were part of the community, they are inclusive and welcome the community into their venues. He stated that they don’t see themselves as a threat to Queer Emporium, they respect what they do and they think they could work well side by side. The Chairperson invited questions from Members of the Sub Committee. Members asked when food was served and were advised that food is served during the Bottomless Brunches and occasionally other times but not all the time. Members asked about the pre-booking system and were advised that a third-party company is used via a website. Customers details are recorded so it would be possible to for patrons to be contacted after their visit. Objectors Representations Kate Smith addressed the Sub Committee and stated that her objections had been provided to members, and that information she had heard at Committee had not allayed her concerns. She states that as a queer woman she is aware of the issues faced in the City Centre, particularly at weekends and in the evenings. She explained that Queer Emporium is a Shop and Café, but also a safe space for young and underrepresented people to meet up. She stressed the importance of such places in relation to mental health concerns of the LGBTQ+ community, and was concerned about a proposed bar next door to it. She considered that daytime drinking and behaviour outside in this area was already an issue. She stated that the website showed there would be 2 for1 drinks offers as well as Bottomless Brunch and this would promote daytime drinking when there are already plenty of other venues within a 50 metre radius. Mr Yan White addressed the Sub Committee on behalf Ms Kate Bowen. Mr White outlined Ms Bowen’s concerns about extended happy hour offers at other Blame Gloria sites; Bottomless Brunch encouraging excessive drinking; How the dispersal policy could be enforced; opening hours and the impact on Queer Emporium; the amount of venues already in the area and asked for clarity on Ms Rowan Duns relationship with Queer Emporium. He added that all venues should be LGBTQ+ friendly and inclusive for staff and clients. The Chairperson invited questions from Members of the Sub Committee: Members asked what was considered daytime drinking and Mr White explained this would be before 5pm. Ms Rowan Dunn addressed the subcommittee to answer Mr White’s concerns and stated that her relationship with Queer Emporium was that she shops there, she is represented there as a queer woman and she recognised and values the safe space it provides for her community. She added that they are very conscious of the venues around them and employ a security firm that is specially trained in dealing with the LGBTQ+ community. She reiterated the importance of having a safe space, and that this was also important for the performers/entertainment, and the security team are well versed in enforcing the dispersal policy. Mr Anderson addressed the Sub Committee in relation to opening hours and explained that they are closed in the daytime during the week, opening at 4.30/5.00pm, but they do open from lunchtime on Saturdays. He added that the Queer Emporium would likely be closed when customers are dispersing from the venue. He acknowledged that a dispersal policy was only as good as the management and staff who operate it but reiterated that they are very experienced with their other venues. He stressed that they are very different from venues such as Pop World, with a different market and offer. He added that they take the mental health and wellbeing concerns very seriously but doesn’t consider the venue would be at odds with this, and he referenced Mary’s which was opposite and an award-winning LGBTQ+ venue. Making reference to Happy Hour Offers, he explained that these are designed for the quieter times of day and most venues in Cardiff have them, however the prices would still be a premium price. He noted that lots of the representations were around granting a licence and he stressed that there are already 2 licences in force at the premises and that it would be better to have a good operator in them for the hours proposed than a bad operator in them until 4am, he considered this would be a risk to Queer Emporium. Summing Up Mr White summed up by saying that the Happy Hour Offers are on a separate listing on Google which would indicate that it is a key part of the offer. He added that Saturday afternoon was a key time for younger people to visit Queer Emporium as they are on school/college all week. He noted that Mary’s only opens in the evenings, so the comparison doesn’t align. Mr Anderson summed up by saying that he doesn’t see the venue as a threat to Queer Emporium. The company already operates in Cardiff, in a bigger venue in a more challenging area with longer hours and have experienced no issues. He stressed that the premises was already licenced and that the Police are satisfied with them as a business operator. He acknowledged that as a business they do occasionally have drinks offers, but they are still at premium prices with a target market of 25+ years professional people. He reiterated that they would mostly be closed when Queer Emporium is open and he was confident that the venue could support the LGBTQ+ community. RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, APPROVED the application. The Sub Committee heard from the applicant, listened to all the evidence and submissions and considered the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003 the Section 182 Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee have also considered all written representations. It was noted that prior to the meeting the applicants accepted the proposed conditions of South Wales Police and their representation was subsequently withdrawn. In light of the above and the representations received, the Sub Committee considered that the applicants had successfully demonstrated that the application did not negatively impact on the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee therefore resolve to grant the application, subject to the additional conditions agreed set out at Appendix C of the report.
Application Withdrawn.
None Received.
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.