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 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 was unavailable to attend the hearing and had confirmed to the Premises Licensing team that they did not wish for the hearing to be deferred.

The Hearing Panel determined that they had enough information within the written report to be able to consider the matter in the applicant’s absence.

The Chair conducted the hearing in accordance with the agreed procedure.

3 resident objectors attended the hearing and addressed the Hearing Panel with their verbal representations.

Objector 1 stated that they lived very close to the premises and had seen the proposed licencing policy for the application. She had concerns that there would be associated Crime & Disorder and Public Nuisance as a result of granting this application. In her experience of living in this area for 38 years, objector 1 stated that she had seen crime, disruption and damage to cars and property on her street. This was a narrow, Victorian street with no driveways which was a short distance from Didsbury Village where there were numerous bars and restaurants. Licensing premises should remain in the Village area and not encroach on more residential neighbourhoods. The premises in question has been a food led take away for over 100 years and was a fish and chip shop for much of this time.  There were serious reservations about the granting of an alcohol licence as it would change the nature of School Lane. Objector 1 could hear people in the takeaway late at night already, noting that there was noise coming from there at 23:26 hours due to people talking loudly. Furthermore, there were no toilets at the premises as it was a typical take-away style build. Objector 1 had spoken to a city council officer about the issue of toilets who stated that there is no legal requirement to have a toilet however the Council can serve a notice requiring them to provide one. In closing their statement, objector 1 stated that this was an unsuitable location and the granting of an alcohol licence would add to noise and nuisance in this residential area.

In responding to questions from the Hearing Panel, objector 1 stated that:

• Patrons can remain outside the premises until 23:00hours but this normally depended on the weather
• The damage and anti-social behaviour had not increased since the premises opened their outdoor area but this was the concern over the proposed addition of alcohol sales, that there was an increased likelihood
• Previously, the premises was a fish and chip shop for over 100 years and was closed by 21:00hours
• It had never been a restaurant and was not still a typical restaurant, being more like a take-away with no table service, no knives, forks or glasses on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

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

The Hearing Panel were informed that the item had been withdrawn and no decision was necessary.