Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual WEBEX video conference via the Council’s YouTube Channel: View directions

Contact: Claire Morris, Democratic Services  01242 264130

No. Item


Election of Chair


Councillor McCloskey was elected as chair of the meeting.


Declarations of interest


There were no declarations of interest.


131 The Promenade pdf icon PDF 459 KB

131 The Promenade, Cheltenham

Additional documents:


The Licensing Team Leader, Louis Krog, introduced the report.


131 Promenade Ltd had applied to vary their licence in relation to the hours permitted for the provision of recorded music, late night refreshment and alcohol in the outdoor front, outdoor rear and indoor areas of their premises situated at 129-131 Promenade.


Ten objections had been received which were attached as Appendix C to the report, however no representations were received from any responsible authority. 


The Licensing Team Leader clarified to members the variations in the licensing hours requested, reminded them of the licensing objectives and outlined the options available to members in determining the application.


Two objectors were present and invited to speak.


Jon McGugan, speaking in objection as a local resident, stated that he was often unable to sleep because of the noise of the bar late at night. This was especially bad in the summer when his windows were open, as they directly faced the building.

Leo Charalambides, Barrister speaking in objection on behalf of the Queens Hotel, stressed that the idea that the application needed to be determined on its own merits was not true. Competing considerations had to be taken into account, along with the context of the wider location. He suggested that the applicant had failed to carry out a full risk assessment of the local area, despite the report making it clear that it was their responsibility, while the council’s main statement of licensing policy referred to the need to take wider considerations into account. The Legal Officer agreed that although each case should be taken on its own merit, it needed to take into account the surrounding locality of the premises.

Mr Charalambides emphasised several areas of non-compliance.   Firstly the notice was white rather than the required blue.  The main issue of non-compliance pertained to the content of the public notice. He stressed it was a requirement to describe and clearly display the varying hours and he contended that this had not been the case and it was not clear for the general public.  The poorly filled out application form was further heightened as the Licensing Officer had had to verify what exactly the new hours would be. In effect, the application intended to create two outdoor late-night bars with varying conditions sat adjacent to the Queens Hotel and other residences, so the hours in question were crucial to the local area.

He stressed that the applicant’s failure to follow the Section 182 guidance on this and the council’s failure to impose conditions on the application meant it was unlawful, and he asked Members to refuse the application on the basis of substantial non-compliance with procedural requirements.

The Chair remarked that any decision today was not necessarily urgent, as from this evening all hospitality venues had to shut at 10pm due to Covid-19 restrictions possibly for 6 months. 

Mr David Mason, Solicitor representing the applicant, was invited to address the committee.  He stressed that there were already conditions in place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.


Any other items the Chairman determines to be urgent and which requires a decision


There were no urgent items to be discussed.