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

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Directorof Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning the above application.  The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation.

In line with the established procedure, the Hearing Panel heard from Greater Manchester Police (GMP), who noted that this was an application for alcohol sales from a hair salon during Pride, for 3 days, 8 hours a day. GMP had concerns that the application had no details relating to how the alcohol would be dispense and how ID checks would be carried out. GMP had received extra information stating that plastic cups would be used and GMP had concerns that this would lead to street drinking, which is prohibited under the PSPO for the city centre. Whilst that PSPO is relaxed during Pride in a restricted area, the Premises falls outside that area. GMP requested that the panel issued a counter notice.

The applicant then addressed the Hearing Panel, stating they had been a small business owner since 2018. They had obtained a Licence for their previous salon in 2019, developing a relationship with officers from the Responsible Authorities in the process. The business expanded in 2022 to a new premises, on the fringe of the Village. They noted that barriers for Pride are near their salon, causing a hindrance. The applicant felt that the original explanation for objecting to their application was lacking. They would not allow customers to take alcohol onto the street and were seeking a compromise due to the barrier outside their salon. The stock would be locked away, with a Challenge 25 policy in place. The salon would have significant staffing in place for this. The applicant stated that they could put up a marquee.

GMP appreciated that the applicant sought compromise but did inform them that the barrier was an issue for Pride themselves, which the applicant was not originally aware of. GMP also informed the applicant that the marquee suggested was not something that the panel could consider, and that they could only consider what had been applied for. The applicant stated they had come with a willingness to find a compromise but would reapply if necessary.

The panel’s legal representative informed the applicant that the panel could not put conditions onto a TEN, they could only consider the application as received. They stated it would be suitable for the applicant to speak to GMP and LOOH before making a further application, should the panel issue a counter notice.

GMP summed up by stating that the proposed way forward appeared to be an amended application. As the panel could not consider anything outside the application as received, GMP requested that the panel issue a counter notice.

The applicant summed up by stating that they were glad to receive further clarity and had nothing to add regarding their application.

In their deliberations, the panel noted that they could only consider the application as received and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

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

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Directorof Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning the above application.  The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation.

In line with the established procedure, the Chair invited the applicant and their representative to make a statement. The applicant’s representative stated that, prior to submitting the application, they had investigated the Licensing Policy to see if there was a Cumulative Impact Policy or other special policy for the area. They became aware there was not one. The applicant’s representative worked for a company that assist applicant’s in making their Licence applications. They stated that their method was to keep the original application light on information and then to work with the Responsible Authorities to find compromise. The representative offered changes to the applied for times, stating the premises sought to operate until 1.00am, with a close time of 1.30am Sunday to Thursday then until 3.00am with a close time of 3.30am Friday and Saturday. The applicant’s representative informed the panel that they had further conditions to add to the application, and they were as follows:

1)    SIA staff to be employed from 16.00 every day until 15 minutes after closing, with 2 members of staff per 100 customers.

2)    A zero tolerance approach to drugs, with a workplace policy on drugs in place for staff that will be readily available.

3)    A zero tolerance approach to disorderly behaviour, with a workplace policy on violence in place for staff that will be readily available.

4)    An incident report book was to be kept and maintained at all times, and be readily available for inspection.

5)    After 01.00am, no customers would be allowed in the outside area, save for smokers.

6)    A dispersal policy will be in place to encourage patrons to leave quietly. It was felt that the 30 minutes between stopping serving and closing time would allow staggered leaving. SIA staff would also encourage patrons to leave quiety. Contact details would be readily available for local taxi companies.

7)    All windows were double glazed and internal walls had been soundproofed.

8)    SIA staff to operate Challenge 25 on entry.

9)    A refusal of entry/service log to be kept and be readily available.

The applicant’s representative was confident that with the additional conditions offered the applicant could uphold the Licensing Objectives.

The applicant then addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they also had a restaurant in Salford but with an earlier Licence time. The applicant had taken on this Premises after speaking to GMP who had stated that an application would be suitable until 04.00am in that area. The applicant stated that the application had been submitted by their representative. They were upset upon receiving GMP’s objection following their previous interactions. The applicant noted that there was other Licenced Premises in the area and could not see why their application was different. The applicant stated they had spent a lot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

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

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Directorof Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning the above application.  The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation.

In line with the established procedure, the Chair invited the applicant’s representative to make a statement. They stated that the premises had been operating, offering Middle Eastern cuisine to eat in and take away. The premises had been popular since opening and therefore the applicant had sought to increase their hours to 2.00am. There was no remaining objections from the Responsible Authorities. Two local business objections remained, but the applicant’s representative noted that no evidence was submitted to support those objections. The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant denied all allegations contained within those objections.

The panel questioned the applicant’s representative. The representative informed the panel that a security condition formed part of their agreement with GMP. Door staff would finish their shift when the premises closed. They also noted that the premises already had CCTV in operation at the site.

In summing up, the applicant’s representative stated their belief that local business objections had been made with concerns over further competition in the area.

In their deliberations, the panel considered the verbal representation of the applicant’s representative and all written information received, including that of local business objector. The panel were satisfied that the objections did not contain any evidence to support their claims. The panel noted that there was no remaining Responsible Authority objections to the application. The panel were therefore satisfied that the application would uphold the Licensing Objectives.

Decision

To grant the application, subject to the additional conditions agreed with a local business objector and GMP.

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

The panel noted that he application had been withdrawn.

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

The panel noted that the application had been withdrawn.