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

The Hearing Panel were informed that the sole representation from Licensing Out of Hours had been withdrawn and therefore the TEN was granted prior to the hearing. No decision was necessary.

Contains additional information from the Licensing Unit of Manchester City Council.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning an application for a New Premises Licence. The Hearing Panel considered the written papers of the parties submitted and the oral representations of the parties who attended, as well as the relevant legislation.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Hearing Panel, discussing the changes to the application that had been made in consultation with Greater Manchester Police (GMP), Trading Standards (TS) and Public Health (PH), which had led to them withdrawing their representations. Conditions had been agreed to restrict alcohol advertising to inside the premises. Agreements had been reached regarding a refusal register, staff training for Challenge 25 to be updated every 6 months, incident registers to be kept, staff training certificates to be kept and the outside area of the shop to be monitored. The applicant’s agent noted that the fact GMP, TS and PH had withdrawn their representations highlighted that the new conditions showed that the Licensing Objectives would be upheld. The applicant had experience in selling age-restricted products. The applicant’s agent asked for the application to be granted with the changes that had been agreed with the Responsible Authorities.

In questions from Licensing Out of Hours (LOOH), the applicant’s agent confirmed that no alcohol promotions would be displayed on the outside of the premises, only inside. They felt that being able to see alcohol through glass windows did not breach the ban on A Boards and Window Advertising. The outside area would be monitored every 30-minutes with a record kept of the check. The checks would be for litter and people loitering outside the shop’s frontage.

In questions from residents, the applicant’s agent stated that window displays would have promotions on other products that were not alcohol. Only 20% of the products available would be alcohol, with the other 80% being everyday household items, cigarettes, vapes and others. The applicant owned the premises next door to this location so understood the demography of the area. The target customers were anyone who needed something that was stocked at the shop.

In questions from the panel, the applicant’s agent noted that the proposed DPS holds a personal licence. They stated that an external company would provide staff training, with certificates kept for inspection upon request. There would be three members of staff on-site at any time. When monitoring the outside area, if a staff member asked someone to move along and they become aggressive, staff will be told to not engage and call the police.

In questions from a ward Councillor, the applicant’s agent noted that it was not the shop owner’s responsibility what someone did with their alcohol once purchased, provided that the sale took place legally.

LOOH addressed the panel, noting that the premises was situated in a special policy area. The area already has significant challenges, hence the policy. There were issues with litter and rats in the vicinity of the premises that had not been addressed by the applicant. LOOH  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Contains new information from Licensing Out of Hours.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning an application for a New Premises Licence. The Hearing Panel considered the written papers of the parties submitted and the oral representations of the parties who attended, as well as the relevant legislation.

The Hearing Panel were informed that the applicant had requested a deferral due to a confidential health issue via their representative on Saturday 26 October 2024. The applicant’s legal representative could also not attend the hearing. The applicant’s legal representative had submitted that no one would be prejudiced by the deferral and requested that the panel consider a date after 25 November 2024. The applicant’s representative had stated that Licensing Out of Hours had attempted to persuade their client to withdraw their application.

The panel sought representations from parties present on their view of a deferral of the application. In attendance were Licensing Out of Hours (LOOH), Greater Manchester Police (GMP), two ward Councillors, a local business representative and two residents.

LOOH stated there had been confusion over whether the applicant had wanted to withdraw their application. The applicant had informed LOOH in person that they would withdraw on 18 October. LOOH emailed on 23 October to see if that was still the case but received no confirmation. Regulation 11 of the Hearing Regulations were referred to regarding public interest. LOOH felt that all parties formed part of the public interest considerations, not just the applicant. They stated that residents had taken time off work to attend the hearing and may not be able to do so again.

GMP stated that they had not been informed prior to the hearing that a deferral had been requested, however they supported the grounds submitted by LOOH.

A ward Councillor accepted the reason given for the request but noted that residents had taken leave from work to be here and that they would not necessarily be available again at a later date.

The local business representative, resident group representative and resident echoed the issues raised by the Responsible Authority’s and the ward Councillor.

The Hearing Panel asked all parties to the hearing to leave whilst the panel deliberated on deferring the application. The panel had concerns about the lateness of the application for deferral being submitted. They also had concerns that the application to defer contained minimal detail and would have expected more specifics about the reasons for the request. The panel noted that no evidence had been submitted to them regarding the health issue. The panel heard from LOOH that they believed the applicant wanted to withdraw the application, but the panel had seen no evidence to support that and attached no weight to that. The panel were aware that the applicant and their representative had been made aware that the deferral request would need to be put before the panel on the day of the hearing, and that remote access could be possible upon request, yet still chose not to attend.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.