Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. One is written once the council publishes the minutes. The agenda and papers are below.
There were no declarations of interest.
Present: Applicant: Gwion Iwan (Operations Director, Popeyes) Mark Browning (Solicitor) Responsible Authorities: PC Will Tapper (South Wales Police) Rhys Morgan (Licensing) The Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from PLK Chicken UK Ltd in respect of Popeyes, 6-7 St John Street, Cardiff, CF10 1GJ. The applicant applied for the following: (1) In respect of the following licensable activities: (i) The provision of late night refreshment (indoors and outdoors). (2) Description of Premises (as stated by applicant): “Popeyes is a Louisiana chicken restaurant serving nationwide in the UK. Popeyes DOES NOT SERVE ALCOHOL. This application is for the supply of hot food and drink only (Late Night Refreshment “LNR”). Popeyes is requesting LNR until 2am daily” (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: 07:00 to 02:30 hours (4) To provide licensable activities during the following hours: The provision of late night refreshment (indoors and outdoors): Monday to Saturday: 23:00 to 02:00 hours Applicant Representations Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr Browning acknowledged that the premises sat within the red category of the Cardiff cumulative impact zone. Popeyes already operated a number of premises within these policy areas across the country, were conscious of the issues that needed to be mitigated and had agreed a number of conditions with the police. They aimed to provide a safe and family-friendly environment with no alcohol or glassware, and SIA door staff would be in place later in the evening to control the volume of people coming in. In recent weeks they had run a number of temporary events until 2am and had experienced no issues. The premises used a Staff Safe security system that provided an immediate response to any incidents from a central control room linked directly to South Wales Police. The premises also has a comprehensive CCTV system covering all areas, and there were a multitude of security cameras. He acknowledged the licensing policy considerations but hoped the applicant would be considered a responsible and suitable operator considering the conditions agreed. Mr Iwan added that the chain was familiar with operating within cumulative impact zones, including Brighton, Nottingham and Manchester. This premises was different to the other quick service restaurants in the area as it offered fresh produce hand-made to order, with the average meal costing £11-£12. Their overall trade was split evenly between takeaway and sit-in orders, but late at night it was almost entirely deliveries. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, Mr Iwan explained that they had been operating using temporary event notices which allowed them to stay open until 2am for several months now, and there had been no incidents. Members queried how the security system worked and heard that it used a private company as an intermediary. It was a fully monitored system with a security office that had access to the CCTV, relayed what was happening and called the police if needed. Staff had the option of using either a silent or ‘loud’ alarm, and the same system was in place at all their branches. There were a lot of cameras and they were able to add more in specific places within 24 hours if the police were to request this. The Sub Committee discussed how the trade changed throughout the day and whether the family-oriented aspect still applied late at night, and heard that the price point meant that they did not see a huge volume of customers late at night, and it was not somewhere people went to sober up. There were no queues and there had not been any incidents even on busy nights, such as after concerts or football matches. Mr Iwan estimated that after midnight around 80% of sales were deliveries, with the remainder split evenly between sit-in and takeaway orders. This equated to 80 to 100 people entering the premises between midnight and 2am on a normal night. Responding to questions from Members, he confirmed that about half of the seating inside was fixed while the other half was movable. Responsible Authority Representations Will Tapper of South Wales Police outlined his representation, which objected to the application in line with the cumulative impact policy. This site fell within the red category and so applications had to be deemed exceptional to be permitted. The nature of the business and the similarity to other premises in close proximity meant that he did not feel it met that standard. Additionally, the late night timings were likely to have an impact on policing demand. He acknowledged that during the consultation period, the applicant had engaged with SWP and agreed a number of conditions that promoted the licensing objectives. If the Sub Committee did deem it to be an exceptional application, he asked that those conditions be applied. Members discussed the applicant’s statement that around 80% of sales after midnight were deliveries. PC Tapper acknowledged that this would reduce the pressure on the premises and surrounding area at that time. The conditions agreed alleviated the majority of SWP’s concerns. Speaking on behalf of the licensing authority, Rhys Morgan reiterated the considerations of the cumulative impact policy with regard to alcohol-related crime and disorder. As a fast food premises this site was in a red zone, meaning that the onus was on the operator to provide an operating schedule which promoted the licensing objectives. A fast food or takeaway restaurant needed to be exceptional to be permitted in line with the policy, in order to overcome the rebuttable presumption that all applications for new licences would be refused. Members asked whether he felt more comfortable with the application having heard the applicant’s statement. The licensing officer acknowledged that the applicants saw a clear distinction between the way Popeyes operated and other fast food restaurants, and the information they had provided today went some way towards demonstrating that. Summing Up The representatives from the responsible authorities both emphasised the considerations of the cumulative impact policy but welcomed the additional information provided by the applicant and the conditions which had been agreed. Mr Browning summarised that the operator was acutely aware of the cumulative impact policy and the stresses and strains of managing the city centre at night. There would be a comparatively low number of customers late at night, and SIA staff and a robust management team would be in place to manage them. The premises would offer something different to other fast food options, and overall he felt it was an exceptional application. 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. The Sub Committee felt it was a robust application and were persuaded by the additional information presented at the meeting. They were impressed with the security system in use and found it encouraging that a number of temporary events had taken place at the premises without issue. After considering all the relevant information, the Sub Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police.
Present: Applicant: Matteo Cutrupi The Application An application for the grant of a Premises Licence had been received from Nine Yards S. Wales Limited in respect of Six Feet Under, Basement, 93 St Mary Street, Cardiff, CF10 1DX. The applicant had applied for the following: 1. To vary the layout of the premises in accordance with the submitted plan. 2. Due to the nature of the venue changing from a sexual entertainment venue to a basic nightclub, all conditions that support the venue being a sexual entertainment venue can be removed. The following conditions from Annex 2 can be removed from the licence: Condition 1 - At least fourteen days’ notice will be given in writing to South Wales Police Licensing and Cardiff City Council Licensing teams prior to the premises operating as a sexual entertainment Venue (SEV). The premises will not be permitted to trade as an SEV premises without a valid SEV licence granted by Cardiff City Council for the premises. Condition 4 - Water/waitress service will be available throughout the premises at all times the premises is open to the public. Condition 5 - With the exception of the dance floor area/stage area and bar as marked on the plan, the premises will be fully laid out to tables and chairs. Condition 27 - When the Sexual Entertainment Venue Licence is in operation, there will be at least one SIA door staff at the front door of the premises to monitor guests in and out, and prohibit access to the upper floors of the building. 3. Amend Condition 10 as follows: 'Suitably qualified SIA door supervisors will be employed at the premises. Should the premises operate beyond midnight there will be a minimum of 4 SIA guards and they shall be employed from 22:00 hours and thereafter on a ratio of 1 to 50 customers until close. If the venue closes prior to midnight and does not employ any SIA door supervisors while open, the nightclub will conduct a risk assessment outlining how they will effectively manage the venue. This risk assessment will be made available to South Wales Police on request. On days where the nightclub is not being used for an event or other services consistent with a nightclub, the premises may be used as a music studio, practice space and workspace and a written risk assessment will be carried out to determine if/how SIA will be employed. This risk assessment will be made available to South Wales Police on request'. 4. To add the following conditions: i) The premises will share its smoking area with the ground floor venue on St. Mary's St; the smoking area will be separated using barriers down the middle to prevent the crowd from each venue being able to mix with each other freely and prevent unauthorised entry into either venue. ii) The premises will implement a Dispersal Policy at the time of closing to ensure that the crowd is controlled upon exit. The premises will observe any incidents that occur and report them immediately to police. The Dispersal Policy will be shared and agreed with South Wales Police and will be readily available for inspection upon request. Applicant Representations Addressing the Sub Committee, Mr Cutrupi explained that the venue was changing from a late-night sexual entertainment venue to a nightclub, and currently had a licence until 6am. So far, they had had two temporary events which had run until about 5am without any incidents. It was an independent family business run by a small core team, and they ran another venue nearby with no issue. He had opened up a dialogue with the police some time ago to discuss possible conditions. He noted that the main concern raised was the removal of fixed seating and the move towards vertical drinking. This was in keeping with the setup of a normal nightclub, and this premises would be mostly aimed at DJ events with standing audiences. The current licence allowed the last entry at 4am and no alcohol sales after 5:15am, so the nights wound down well before 6am. The capacity of the venue was 150 but so far it had been nowhere near full. He added that there would be a minimum of four (up to six) door staff ushering the crowd out at the end of the night, observing and reporting any incidents if they did occur. This dispersal policy was the main mitigation in place for managing the crowd. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he clarified that he and his team also operated the Bunkhouse on the ground floor, which used to be a pizzeria and was now a drum and bass bar. Members queried what else the premises would be used for when a DJ night wasn’t taking place. Mr Cutrupi explained that it would be used as a music studio and as a work space. Other income streams were needed as they only planned to have DJ nights twice a month, as well as an international students’ night every Thursday. Members asked if he had any intention to significantly increase the frequency of the DJ nights, which he did not because they only had a small core team. The Licensing Officer queried one condition suggested by SWP which had not been agreed, requiring SIA staff from 10pm. Mr Cutrupi explained that he agreed with this condition in principle but felt that 11pm was more appropriate as there would be four door staff there anyway. Summing Up In summary, Mr Cutrupi was grateful to South Wales Police for liaising with him throughout the process and enabling him to craft a licence for his business’ specific needs. He was happy to operate according to the agreed conditions and noted that the events so far had gone very smoothly. He was aware of the risks inherent to venues like this but was confident that the conditions would help him and his team to manage them. 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. The Sub Committee noted the positive dialogue with South Wales Police throughout the application process, leading to the agreement of a number of conditions and the police withdrawing their representation. After considering all the relevant information, the Sub Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police.
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.