Agenda and minutes

Councillor Diggory Seacome was duly elected as Chairman.

None received. 

None declared.

The Daffodil, 18-20 Suffolk Parade, Cheltenham, Glos

The Chairman took the opportunity to introduce the various parties, members of the committee, applicants and those that had made representations or were attending on behalf of those that had made representations. 

Louis Krog, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  He explained that the applicant, Mark Edward Stephens, sought to vary the premises licence as outlined in 1.2 of the report.  No representations had been received from the responsible authorities and there had been representations 40 from Interested Parties, 26 supporting the application, with 14 objecting.  

Those that had written in support of the application had commented that, were the application granted, they did not feel that it would have an adverse effect on the licensing objectives and felt that it would enhance the already well run premises and provide an additional facility to residents.

Those that had objected to the application had done so on the grounds of crime and disorder, public safety and public nuisance.  The specific concerns were set out in 4.3 of the report. 

Members were asked to disregard the comments regarding the Zizzi application and future operations as they were not relevant to this particular application.  Mr Krog noted that an application to review a licence could be made at any time and the fact that this option had not been used in the past did not imply that it could not be used in the future, were members to consider it necessary.

In response to a question from Mr Mason (attending on behalf of Mr Dey), the Senior Licensing Officer advised that there was no evidence that the applicant had any intention of selling the business and reiterated that any licence could be subject to review in the future if concerns were raised about the licence.

Following a question from a member, the Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that the maximum capacity of the premises was 150 in total. 

The Chairman invited the applicant and his legal representative to address the committee.  

The applicant’s Solicitor, Ms Laura Nelson referred members to the bundle which had been circulated prior to the meeting. 

Ms Nelson displayed photographs of the exterior and interior of the premises and stressed that the application related purely to the first floor area, not the entire building. 

The building had been lovingly restored at a cost of around £1 million, for which a Civic Award was received.  The building also formed part of the Town Heritage Trail. 

The applicant was not only the licence holder for the premises, but also the Managing Director of the lease-holding company and freeholder and as such had definitive control over the business. 

The premises were primarily famous as a restaurant and were highly profitable as such.  68% of total sales were dry (food), with only 28% wet (drinks), and of this 28% the vast majority of sales were wine, followed by spirits and then bottled beers.  No draught beer was offered.  The average price of a bottle of wine was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.