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 Hearing Panel heard from the Applicant’s Representative with regard to the outcome of an earlier request for a significant variation in hours (24hr alcohol licence), which had resulted in a compromise being reached following the outcome of an appeal. This had resulted in the premises currently operating with terminal hours of 1am weekdays and 2am weekends.  The Applicant’s Representative also made reference to the intention to seek to progressively acquire the hours originally applied for using a staged approach, because of a wide range of local customers who wished to access the store during later hours, and who would seek to purchase a full range of products which included alcohol.  She also stated that not all customers who purchased alcohol from the store, did so for immediate consumption.

In addressing the Hearing Panel, the Applicant’s Representative invited the Panel to note the Applicant’s reputation as a good quality operator who had complied with all of the conditions on the licence. In respect of the representation submitted by GMP in relation to concerns about street drinking, the Applicant’s Representative made reference to the absence of supporting evidence to indicate a direct connection with the premises.  In response to the submission regarding CCTV footage, clarification was provided in respect of the circumstances leading to the matter.

With regard to the representations submitted by the Licensing Out Of Hours (LOOH) team, the Applicant’s Representative again gave emphasis to the absence of evidence to suggest there were issues that were directly associated with the premises.  This in the context of the significant period of time that had elapsed since the earlier extension to operating hours. She also questioned the justification for offering a compromise of operating until 4am at the weekend describing it as ‘not logical’.

The Applicant’s Representative then addressed the Hearing Panel with regard to representations received from a number of local residents, which she described as having ‘common themes’. She urged the Hearing Panel to note that that “need” is not a consideration when considering such an application and commented that a ‘template format’ appeared to have been used to possibly trigger responses to the application.  She again highlighted the absence of supporting evidence to attribute any antisocial behaviour or illegal sales to the premises. 

The Hearing Panel then heard from GMP in respect of their representation. The officer who attended the hearing explained that, on the application being submitted, he had spoken with the local policing team in the area who had expressed concerns that street drinking in the area would be exacerbated, however he also confirmed that none of the problems were specifically associated with the premises.  He however invited the Hearing Panel to refuse the application.

The Hearing Panel then heard from LOOH in respect of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.