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 Premises Licence Variation. 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 addressed the Hearing Panel, noting their understanding of the objections received. An incident had occurred outside of the Premises and the applicant had been unable to provide CCTV. This was due to an electrical issue which affected around 36 devices at the Premises, one of those being CCTV recording. It was when GMP officers arrived that the applicant had realised the recordings were not working. Other than this, there had been no issues at the Premises. The applicant had other Premises too where there had been no issues. The applicant had applied for additional hours to help the business.

GMP noted that the electrical fault had occurred in September, yet GMP officers did not attend the Premises until 6 November, so queried if the Premises had been without CCTV for two months. Queries were also raised regarding how often the applicant checked if the CCTV was recording and if any additional conditions had been proposed for the extra hours applied for. The applicant accepted that CCTV recording had not been working for two months and that they got it fixed as soon as they realised. The live CCTV feed was working in this time. As there had been no incidents prior to this, the applicant had not checked if the CCTV was recording since it was installed. They had checked around a week before but when they could not access the recordings, thought they were doing something wrong rather than the system being faulty therefore booked for the company to come and look. In terms of extra conditions, the applicant had already doubled their CCTV coverage from 16 to 32 cameras. The applicant had also employed an extra member of security staff. The applicant stated that they had wanted to work with the Responsible Authorities but felt the opportunity had not been available prior to the hearing. They thought they had provided the extra conditions to the Premises Licensing team however this was not received by GMP or LOOH.

The panel queried how often CCTV was now being checked, how the applicant would ensure any CCTV faults in the future were fixed immediately and sought clarity on the hours applied for. The applicant stated that the CCTV was now checked every day. If there was a fault with the CCTV, the applicant would receive a notification on their phone through the app. The applicant would then need to inform the company who would come out to immediately fix it.

LOOH addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that this was an application for increased hours, yet no additional conditions had been proposed. They felt there was a possibility for public nuisance to be increased in this area. There had already been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

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 DPS Variation. 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 addressed the Hearing Panel, noting the objection received from GMP. They understood the concerns. The applicant was already the Premises Licence Holder. The applicant felt they now had a good relationship with their neighbours and customers. They had resolved any complaints and did not believe any complaints had been received in the last six months.

The panel asked the applicant to confirm that no complaints had been received in the last six months. The applicant stated that they did not believe the public or neighbours of the Premises had made any complaints. They had tried to manage issues from the past. A letter had been sent to neighbours with the applicant’s phone number for those nearby to contact if there were any issues. The applicant stated that they were trying to arrange a meeting with residents every three months to discuss any issues. The applicant noted that those meetings had not yet started. The applicant stated that they had been operating since 25 October 2023.

GMP addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that the person being proposed for this DPS variation, was the current Premises Licence Holder of the premises and with this application they were seeking to install themselves as the Designated Premises Supervisor of the premises. They had already been twice refused at committee of being the DPS at previous hearings in January 2024 and November 2024, so 2 separate licensing subcommittees have already determined the applicant as unsuitable to become DPS.

The premises licence for this premises and, as such the applicant, were subject to review proceedings which were applied for by Manchester City Council Licensing and Out of Hours Team due to the following serious issues:

1. Persistent refusal from the Licence Holder to comply with the hours & multiple conditions of the licence.

2. Refusal by the Licence Holder to provide CCTV in line with conditions & in connection with allegations of unauthorised licensable activities.

3. Complaints received by members of the public relating to nuisance & licensing offences.

4. Offences being committed under the Health Act 2006 relating to smoke free legislation.

The review hearing took place on 22nd January 2024 and, as a result of this hearing, the Premises Licence was revoked. This decision was appealed by the PLH and therefore the licence was still live and able to be traded on, pending the outcome of the appeal. Since the date of the revocation and subsequent appeal application there had been more offences discovered by MCC LOOH officers. LOOH visited on 1/10/24 to make the applicant aware that their DPS had resigned, and the applicant was found to be smoking shisha with another male in the conservatory whilst it was substantially enclosed again. The applicant was obstructive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.