To consider any items which the Chair has agreed to have submitted as urgent.

The Panel agreed to accept two items of urgent business relating to a Temporary Event Notice for NIAMOS and a Summary Review (Interim Steps) for Burnage Cricket and Social Club.  The Panel noted that a Temporary Event Notice for Gibbs Grocery Store, 163 Princess Road, Manchester, M14 4RL had been withdrawn.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.  The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties and the oral representations of the parties in attendance as well as the relevant legislation.  The Panel was informed that the applicant would not be attending and decided to proceed with the hearing in their absence.

A representative from the Neighbourhoods Team addressed the Panel about the detrimental impact she believed that granting this application would have on the area, including noise nuisance and attracting street drinking and anti-social behaviour.  She highlighted the problems with littering and waste in the local area, which her service had allocated additional resources to address, and advised that this premises could add to the existing problems, commenting that the application did not include information on the cleaning arrangements which would be put in place.  In response to a question from a Panel Member, she reported that this was a well-known area for counterfeit activities, that there were no other premises with the proposed opening hours in the area and that this would increase anti-social behaviour.  She recommended that the application be refused.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) informed the Panel that the application was poor, lacked detail and showed limited understanding of the licensing objectives and asked that it be refused.

The Panel then heard from a representative from the Licensing and Out of Hours (LOOH) team who highlighted their concerns about the application, as outlined in the document they had submitted.  In particular, they highlighted that the two main concerns of public nuisance and littering had not been addressed in the application, with no evidence of how this would be managed, and that the application showed limited understanding of the licensing objectives.  The representative recommended that the application be refused.  In response to a question from the Panel, the representative confirmed that the premise had been identified as operating illegally on two occasions and that this was first identified about a month ago.

The representative from the Neighbourhoods Team summed up her concerns, highlighting the challenges in this area of the city which she felt this premises would add to.

The representatives from GMP and the LOOH Team stated that they had nothing further to add to their previous comments.

The Panel was of the view that the application and the operating schedule did not adequately demonstrate what steps would be taken to uphold the licensing objectives. Whilst it noted that the premises had CCTV installed that covered the interior and exterior of the premises with a 24-hour emergency security response on standby if required to deter crime and disorder, this was the only condition that had been identified to assist in upholding the licensing objectives.

The Panel recognised the concerns of GMP that there was an absence of conditions that had been applied to provide reassurance that the licensing objectives would be upheld. 

The Panel noted that the Premises was located on a main arterial route out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control & Licensing is attached.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.  The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties and the oral representations of the parties in attendance as well as the relevant legislation. 

The representative from GMP addressed the Panel, stating that this event was for the weekend of the Caribbean Carnival, which was one of GMP’s busiest weekends, and was billed as a Carnival event so people attending the Carnival in Alexandra Park would then go onto this event.  He stated that the application lacked detail, including in relation to how the numbers attending would be restricted, security arrangements and welfare provision.  He stated that no further information had been provided from the applicant since the application was received and that, if anything further was received now, there would not be sufficient time to scrutinise new information.

The applicant stated that he had submitted the same application as he had done for a previous event he had put on for the Jubilee, which had been approved.  He apologised that no further contact had been made, stating that he was still learning the procedures for submitting these applications and wanted to build a relationship with the Licensing Team and GMP.  He also stated that his organisation was volunteer-led and that he had been away.   He stated that he had an Event Management Plan which he wanted to present to the Panel at today’s meeting which provided the necessary information, including the dispersion policy, security, welfare and event management.  He informed the Panel that it would be a ticketed event and that the capacity would be 300, not 475 as stated in the application.  In response to a question from the Panel, he confirmed that the hours of the event were the same as for the approved Jubilee event.  In response to a question from the Panel, he outlined how they would prevent non-ticketed people from gaining entry, using an accredited security firm and a wristband system.  In response to a Panel Member’s concerns about disorder outside the venue, which was on a residential road, the applicant highlighted that the entrance was on a different road, away from the residential area and that security guards would move people on.  In response to a question about any previous incidents, the applicant reported that he had had to call an ambulance for someone early on at the Jubilee event at his premises but, after that, it had been a successful event.

The Panel discussed the document submitted today, noting that the decision could not be deferred to a later date, due to the proximity of the event, but that the representative from GMP had stated that he would need to take this to his senior officers and that they would need time to consider it.

GMP summed up saying that most Jubilee parties had been peaceful and that this additional information had not been required for those events but that thousands of people would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.  The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties and the oral representations of the parties in attendance, including the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) who was attending virtually via Zoom, as well as the relevant legislation. 

The representative from GMP informed the Panel that GMP had obtained a search warrant and on 4 August 2022 searched the premises and grounds where they had discovered stolen vehicles, keys, documents, numberplates, class A and class B drugs, weapons, a harvested cannabis farm and a dog on the banned breeds list.  He stated that GMP believed that the premises was being used as a base for organised crime.  He stated that children attended functions at the venue and could come into contact with these items.  He stated that in the past 12 months there had been other incidents at the premises including fighting, stolen vehicles, noise complaints and violent disorder.  He asked that the licence be suspended pending a full summary review.

The PLH disputed information from GMP about the items that had been discovered in the search.  He stated that items had been discovered at a separate property - 247a Kingsway – on adjoining land, not inside the premises itself.  He also stated that his club had been working to try to reduce crime and gang activity in the area.  In response to questions from the PLH, the representative from GMP stated that he knew the information he had presented about the search because he had been provided with this information by GMP colleagues and that he was seeking a licence suspension in relation to items found at 247a Kingsway because the PLH owned the property and it was next door to the premises, which was attended by children and families.  The PLH disputed that he could be held responsible for activities at a tenanted property and stated that his separate businesses should not be linked in this way. 

In response to questions from the Panel, the representative from GMP stated that the search was carried out on Burnage Cricket Club, its outbuildings and field following intelligence that it was a place where stolen vehicles were taken and that stolen vehicles and the other items referred to were found in outbuildings and on the adjacent land.  He stated that he would have expected the PLH to be aware of what was going on, for example, the cannabis farm and that the vehicles were in plain view.  In response to a further question, he stated that staff at the premises had not been co-operative with GMP, for example, not being forthcoming with CCTV footage.  He confirmed that three people had been arrested on the day of the search.

The PLH stated that he did co-operate with the police and had contacted them about criminal activity in the area.  He stated that the club could not prevent criminal activity on the field and had taken the decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.