Contains new information from the applicant.

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.

Trading Standards had confirmed that they had reached agreements with the applicant ahead of the hearing.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that the previous “fob” access to the vending machine had been replaced with a phone app. Tis had been refined during discussions with Dr Parker from Public Health Manchester. The application was for an alcohol vending machine in the reception area of a high rise development that was currently under construction. The applicant was seeking an alcohol licence to cover the ground floor, reception area, outdoor area and 1^st floor amenity room. The development would only allow access to these areas to residents and their guests and there would be a contract stipulating house rules for all tenants. An alcohol vending machine was an unusual request and the applicant had met with GMP and LOOH for consultation. The purpose was for the convenience of residents. Conditions were confirmed and were included in the pack. The reception area was staffed and open 24/7. The staff would be trained in the sale of alcohol and would be on hand to turn the vending machine on and off at appropriate times. Entry to the complex would also be by phone app and these personal identifications would ensure that all transactions were verified as they would be verified with Vita, the developers of the complex. The residents would also have access to the 1^st floor amenity space which was a multi-purpose space for dinner parties and events etc. The premises would operate with layers of security and house rules were explained within the pack. For instance, residents’ access to the vending machine could be deactivated if they caused trouble. The remaining objection from Dr Parker at Public Health Manchester rested on the potential for children to access the vending machine. The agent and applicant had spent 14 days in contact with Dr Parker and attempted to allay her concerns. The engineers of the scheme had been engaged with and confirmed that only residents registered with Vita could access the machine. The vending machine would be very close to the reception area so easily monitored by staff and residents would not risk maltreatment of it. If there were to be no vending machine the applicant would still want to licence the reception area and they had already been extra expenditure on the development of the phone app.

The applicant addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that this was for convenience and was a new concept in Manchester. It would not cause any nuisance. This development was all 1 bed dwellings of single occupancy and no under 18s would be living there. Each resident would have to apply for the app and all terms would be listed in their tenancy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

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.

 It was confirmed at the start of the hearing that responsible authorities, GMP, Trading Standards and LOOH had all made agreements with the applicant.

The applicant addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that Challenge 25 would be adhered to at all times and no intoxicated customers would be served. Training on sale of alcohol and refusals would be provided and all logs would be dated and signed. Signage would be displayed at the till and throughout the unit. All these policies would be applied to deliveries via a third party. All information would be checked by the DPS at the end of each week. Additional conditions agreed with LOOH numbered 1 to 6 had been provided.

In responding to questions, the applicant stated that:

·         CCTV had been set up in the unit

·         They had been in place at the unit for 3 months and in the area for 6 months

·         The applicant’s driver would undergo training refresher courses every 6 months

·         The applicant would keep a log of all refusals, including those made by the driver

·         Uber would provide driver details to the applicant

Trading Standards addressed the Hearing Panel to inform them that they had refused the initial application due to a lack of details on age verification, training, third party driver training and recording of refusals. They now had these covered in conditions agreed with the applicant.

In responding to questions, Trading Standards stated that:

• The applicant could place additional CCTV around the unit
• It transpired that this was not an enforceable condition and the wording was changed from CCTV to be placed “in and around” the unit to just “in” the unit (all 3 responsible authorities agreed this change of wording for the condition attached)
• The responsible authorities would have to go to the unit complex management company for CCTV footage on the exterior of the unit
• Trading Standards would receive 6 monthly info on training for Challenge 25 but not personal details of delivery drivers

LOOH addressed the Hearing Panel and confirmed that they had agreed conditions specific to noise nuisance concerning deliveries to the unit. Also training concerns had now been addressed.

GMP addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that the initial application was sparse. The updated conditions would uphold the licensing objectives.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered that all 3 responsible authorities had agreed conditions and felt that this would assist the applicant in upholding the licensing objectives.

Decision

To grant the application subject to conditions agreed with GMP, Trading Standards and LOOH with additional conditions:

1. CCTV to be kept on file for 31 days and to be available to the responsible authorities on reasonable request
2. Signage to be placed inside the unit regarding CCTV usage

Contains new information from the applicant.

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 and stated that this was an application for a Variation of Premises Licence, currently running with permitted hours. There was a national trend for later hours and this application sought to follow this trend and it was stated that this request should be judged on its own merit. The application had taken into account and addressed all factors of the Licensing Policy, no licensing objections would be undermined. A list of conditions had been proposed to actively promote the licensing objectives. The premises may have to close if undermining the licensing objectives and subject to a review. The applicant had attracted representations from GMP and LOOH over the request to operate overnight between 23:00 and 07:00 seven days a week, and the effect this would have on the surrounding area. There had also been objections from neighbours who were not nearby and other neighbours, closer to the premises, had given their support. The proposal was to offer a night-hatch which was secure and a new member of night staff employed full-time would have the skills to cover this. Alternatively, the application would have an open door policy overnight with an SIA registered door person on duty. The applicant has a personal licence included in the pack. No single cans and no canned drinks over 6% would be sold during the overnight hours. The responsible authorities have alluded to a notional neighbour whereas the applicant has provided evidence of support from actual neighbours by way of a signed petition. Public Health had also submitted an objection and it was stated by the applicant’s agent that they were not a responsible authority. There as no evidence of the premises contributing adversely to the local area. The applicant was a hard working, experienced operator with a tight control on the business. Due to Challenge 25 being inoperable on deliveries, the applicant had withdrawn this aspect of the application. Section 182 guidance stated that problems should not be affiliated to the premises if beyond their control. A map had been provided which showed objectors lived some distance away and a campaign had been submitted with the same handwriting throughout. Speculation was not permissible and the Section 182 guidance referred to decisions being evidence based. The agent referred to the Thwaites case, noted that conditions should promote the licensing objectives and requested that the Hearing Panel grant the application as supported by effective conditions.

LOOH requested clarification on the hours of use for the night-hatch and the agent confirmed that there were two options; use of a night-hatch from 23:00 to 05:00 or an open door policy 24/7 with an SIA registered door person on duty.

Local Ward Councillor Reid questioned why the representations made by local Councillors had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.