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 regarding the above application.  The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The panel were informed that the applicant was unable to attend the hearing due to being abroad. As there was no available date for the application to be deferred to before the event was due to take place, the panel considered the Temporary Event Notice in the absence of the applicant.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) addressed the Hearing Panel, noting the event was for a food truck to sell alcohol from 7.00pm to 3.00am. GMP did not believe there was sufficient evidence in the application to show how the Licensing Objectives of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and the Prevention of Public Nuisance would be upheld. GMP noted the application was to serve alcohol to up to 50 people at a time. GMP had concerns regarding the location of the event, noting that the application was to serve alcohol, but that people would need to drive to the location, believing that would increase the possibility of drink driving.

The panel’s legal representative sought clarity on where the truck would be situated. GMP stated they had not seen a plan of this, simply seeing the image of the car park submitted in the report.

GMP had nothing to add when invited to sum up.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act and the licensing objectives. The panel had to consider whether they were satisfied that the event would uphold the Licensing Objectives, and if they were not then it is policy to issue a counter notice. The panel were satisfied with GMP’s evidence that stated the Licensing Objectives would not be upheld if the event went ahead. The panel felt the applicant had provided a lack of detail with insufficient evidence of their knowledge of, or how to uphold, the Licensing Objectives.

Decision

To issue a counter-notice to the application.

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 regarding the above application.  The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that the notice was for three consecutive dates, Friday 25 to Sunday 27 August, 12.00 to 00.00. GMP reminded the panel that the Premises Licence for the Queens Hotel had been revoked on 6 April 2023, however that decision had been appealed by the applicant. GMP asked that the Temporary Event Notice was subject to the same scrutiny as the events that led to the revocation of the Premises Licence. GMP requested that, in the interests of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety, the panel issue a counter notice.

The Chair invited the applicant and their representative to ask GMP questions of their statement. Their representative questioned why GMP had asked for refusal when the premises had recently run 11 charity events without issue. GMP noted that they were unlicensed events that bared no relevance to this Temporary Event Notice. GMP still believed there was a possibility of crime and disorder at the venue, following the events that led to the revocation of the Premises Licence.

The applicant’s representative re-asked why GMP felt crime and disorder was possible. GMP reiterated that the events leading to revocation had left them with no confidence in their ability to prevent crime and disorder.

The applicant’s representative noted this was a different event to what had gone before so asked why GMP thought crime and disorder was still possible. GMP noted that the applicant’s representative was an active suspect, on bail and that both the applicant and their representative had received threats to life. The applicant’s representative stated they were not on bail. GMP corrected their statement, retracting the reference to the representative being on bail.

The applicant’s representative asked for GMP to present the information showing that theirs and the applicants’ lives would be in danger. GMP noted that they had both received threats to life.

The Hearing Panel’s legal representative noted that the questions being asked by the applicant’s representative had become repetitive, feeling that GMP had provided answers to the questions. The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to continue with any different questions they may have had. They had no further questions.

Licensing Out of Hours (LOOH), in their capacity as Environmental Health, addressed the Hearing Panel, noting their belief that the Temporary Event Notice was a way for the applicant to circumvent the Licensing system following their revocation. LOOH did not have confidence that the applicant could uphold the Licensing Objectives.

The applicant’s representative questioned why LOOH were concerned about the events when they were not taking place out of hours. LOOH noted their concern related to the events that led to the revocation of the Premises Licence and their lack of confidence in the Licensing Objectives being upheld.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

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 regarding the above application.  The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The Hearing Panel were informed that no contact could be made with the applicant regarding their attendance. As the event was due to take place the same week as the hearing, the panel had no option than to hear the application in the applicant’s absence.

Licensing Out of Hours (LOOH) addressed the Hearing Panel, noting the application was to sell alcohol for consumption inside and outside the premises. Due to the Public Spaces Protection Order in place, drinking outside the premises was not possible. They noted the event was not ticketed but the premises would take donations for charity. LOOH had put forward a set of conditions, that if agreed by the panel, would satisfy them that the event would uphold the Licensing Objectives.

The panel queried how music being played outside of the premises would be managed. LOOH stated that would be policed on the day.

LOOH had nothing to add when invited to sum up.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act and the licensing objectives.

Decision

Not to serve a Counter Notice but subject to the following conditions being imposed:-

1. The event takes place indoors only, (As there was a Public Space protection Order in place).

2. The venue did not exceed its capacity.

3. Polycarbonate glasses only were to be used.

4. Speakers shall not be located/operated in the entrance lobby or outside the premises.

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

The Hearing Panel were informed that the applicant’s agent had requested a deferral due to being unavailable.

Decision

To defer the hearing until 11 September 2023.

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 regarding the above application.  The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Hearing Panel, stating the applicant had over 11 years of restaurant experience. In forming their application, the applicant took note of Manchester’s Licensing Policy and the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act to ensure their application upheld the Licensing Objectives. The restaurant would be situated in a basement that previously had a similar premises in until that ceased trading 10 years ago. The premises was in a poor state of repair and the applicant had taken time to get it up and running again. The applicant had fit silencers on the extractor to alleviate resident concerns regarding noise emanation.

The applicant’s agent noted that health and safety, and fire risk assessments had been completed, alongside a noise assessment. The applicant had agreed additional conditions with LOOH to strengthen their application. The applicant’s agent stated that the venue was not a nightclub and that any entertainment at the venue would be cultural. They noted that the absence of a representation from GMP highlighted that the Licensing Objectives would be upheld as they are the experts. It was stated that a condition had been put forward that customers can only be served alcohol with a meal to stop the premises becoming a bar.

The applicant’s agent moved on to address objector concerns relating to crime, noise and takeaways. They re-stated the absence of a representation from GMP showed that crime was not seen as a problem. Door supervisors were also to be employed from 22.00 on any night that the restaurant was open post-midnight. It was noted that would not be every night, but the applicant sought flexibility in their Licence to allow for it when necessary. In terms of noise, a noise impact assessment had been completed and there was no Cumulative Impact Zone in place. Door supervisors would also assist in managing noise levels. All takeaways were suggested to be completed via the back door. The applicant wanted to work with responsible authority’s and residents to ensure the premises did not have a negative impact.

The applicant’s agent noted that the premises had ran for three weeks utilising temporary licenses and there had been no issues reported to the premises, LOOH or GMP.

Under questioning from the resident objector, the applicant’s agent noted that as per legislation, they were not required to consult residents regarding the application. They met the requirements of legislation but placing notices on the front and back door, and in the newspaper. The applicant’s agent noted they had proposed a condition to limit the smoking area capacity to reduce noise for residents. They stated that as the smoking area would be on a public highway,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

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

The Hearing Panel were informed that all representations had been agreed and withdrawn, and therefore no decision was necessary.