Agenda and minutes

There were apologies from Councillor Seacome, Councillor Harman attended as a substitute.

There were none.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6^th July 2022 were approved as a true record..

The Promenade, Cheltenham

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report as published.

The application was for a food van to be situated on the promenade.  The applicant was not present at the meeting.

The matter when to Member questions and the responses were as follows:

·         There had been no further photographs from the applicant (which had been requested by the Licensing department)

·         The applicant had not provided the environmental statement that had been requested.

·         There was confirmation that there was no further information available with regards to a similar van elsewhere.

·         There is not a clear image of where the servery will be.

·         There were no provisions for litter collection in the application.

·         It is not a licensing concern as to what generators will be used.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

·         Due to where the van will be placed and the lack of substantial information with the application the Member could not support the application.

·         There are many new restaurants in the area so this does not seem appropriate.  The vehicle will not enhance the street scene in any way.

·         There were also concerns with regard to the smell that would be generated as well as the emissions from the van.

·         There was concern that the van would be in too close a proximity of the food outlets in the Promenade. 

·         There was confirmation that the applicant had been asked to attend the meeting and that he hadn’t answered the questions that had been asked by the Licensing Team.

Prior to the vote the Legal Officer made the committee aware that there was the option to defer as the applicant hadn’t attended the meeting.  It was decided that the committee would not do that.

The matter went to the vote on 1.6.3 – to refuse the application. 

For refusal – 5 – UNANIMOUS

Refused.

There were none,

Meeting ended 18.40.