Agenda and minutes
Licensing Sub Committee Hearing Panel - Tuesday, 9th October, 2018 10.00 am
Venue: Room 132, Ground Floor, The Town Hall (access via Lloyd Street)
Contact: Beth Morgan
No. | Item |
---|---|
Minutes: The Committee when considering the application for a variation in hours considered the application, the representations of all parties both oral and written as well as the relevant legislation, the guidance issued under s 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Manchester City Council Statement of Licensing Policy.
The Committee heard from the applicant that discussions had taken place with the Responsible Authority and an agreement had been reached. This agreement was reached regarding waste management, CCTV and training. The Applicant gave the Committee some details of how the premises are operate including use of a refusals book, staff training and operation of CCTV. The Applicant explained that the additional hours were sought to enable shift workers who use the store to buy all products together both groceries and alcohol without the requirement to visit the shop separately to purchase alcohol. The applicant denied the allegations made in the representation from Interested persons that they were responsible for a group of males who drink in the vicinity of the premises and are regularly seen unconscious in the area.
The Applicant stated that they do not serve drunk people and they are a family run shop catering for families. In the absence of any evidence regarding the premises selling alcohol to persons who are drunk or allowing anti-social behaviour from patrons in the vicinity of the premises the Committee was not able to make a finding of fact regarding this issue and therefore this was given no weight in the decision. The Committee heard that the Responsible Authority was satisfied about the premises waste management. The Responsible Authority was seeking further conditions concerning CCTV and training. The Committee however considered the current licence conditions to be suitably robust to address the concerns of the Responsible Authority.
In all the circumstances the Committee therefore considered it appropriate to grant the variation.
Decision
To grant the application.
|
|
Minutes: The Committee considered all representations at the hearing. The Committee also considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under, the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act and the Licensing Objectives.
The Committee noted that agreement had been reached between the applicant and all parties who made a representation, so treated the matter as a determination. The Committee also noted that as a result of the agreements between the applicant, LOOH and Trading Standards, GMP had withdrawn their representation.
Decision
To grant the application subject to the following conditions.
Conditions
|
|
Application for a Premises Licence Variation for Folk Deli Bar, 169-171 Burton Road, Manchester M20 2LN Minutes: The Committee when considering the application for a variation in hours considered the application, the representations of all parties both oral and written as well as the relevant legislation, the guidance issued under s 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Manchester City Council Statement of Licensing Policy..
The Committee heard that the Applicant had been operating the premises for 14 years and he was a community minded person. The purpose of the application was to retain his existing customers in the additional hours applied for not to attract fresh customers and therefore the last entry condition was being proposed. The Committee considered all the circumstances including the location of the premises in a vibrant area of the city and the nature of the operation and the history of the premises and the Committee considered it appropriate to grant the application on these terms as it considered that the licensing objectives would not be undermined.
Decision
To grant the application subject to the following conditions.
Conditions
|
|
Minutes: In reaching its decision the Committee considered the Council’s Sexual Establishment Policy and the relevant sections of the Local Government (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
The Committee noted that no objections had been received against this application and none of the mandatory or discretionary grounds for refusal applied.
Decision
To grant the application.
|
|
Application for a Premises Licence Variation for Cask, Falt 1, Cotton Field Wharf, 4 New Union Street, Manchester M4 6FQ Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee when considering the application for a variation in hours considered the application, the representations of all parties both oral and written as well as the relevant legislation, the guidance issued under s 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Manchester City Council Statement of Licensing Policy.
The Committee noted that the hours applied for were within the hours set out within the special policy for the area and also took into account that the applicant is a responsible operator with a good track record of running another similar bar in a different part of the city. . The Committee also took into account the proposed nature of the operation and in the circumstances considered that granting the variation with the additional conditions imposed would not undermine the licensing objectives.
Decision
To grant the application subject to the following conditions.
Conditions
|
|
Application for a Premises Licence Variation for Mary & Archie, 200 Burton Road, Manchester M20 2LW Minutes: The Committee took note that the application for live music on Friday and Saturdays from 1900 -2300 was not required given the size of the premises which has a capacity under 500 which therefore means that live music is permitted between the hours applied for under the legislation.
The Committee when considering the application for a variation in hours considered the application, the representations of all parties both oral and written as well as the relevant legislation, the guidance issued under s 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Manchester City Council Statement of Licensing Policy.
The Committee heard from the applicant that he had recently taken over this restaurant and bar however he already ran another bar in the locality and that he was aware that in addition to his other bar there were several other bars in the area which had later hours than those he was applying for and he considered the hours applied for to be both reasonable and considerate towards residents. The Committee was told that the premises served food until 9 pm and thereafter. When asked about the number of representations from residents and whether any consultation had taken place the applicant confirmed his customers were predominantly local residents and he had consulted with his customers. The applicant explained that although staff had been spoken to by Licensing and Out of Hours during the Westfest event about noise coming from the bi fold doors which had been opened, this had been a one off event during their first week of trading and had been addressed straightaway by staff.
The Responsible Authorities and residents all expressed concerns about the lack of consideration given to the management of the premises if the variation was granted as no additional measures were proposed. The Committee heard that these premises which are at the end of a block adjoining Orchard Street which is a residential area are in a particularly noise sensitive location with residential premises being very close. The Committee heard that residents living on Orchard Street were particularly at risk of noise nuisance from the premises. Particular concerns were raised about the lack of a smoking policy, lack of a proposed last entry policy, no provision for door staff and lack of a dispersal policy.
The Committee considered that the applicant had not properly taken into account the additional risks associated with patrons drinking for an additional hour and had not put forward any safeguards or management controls to ensure that residents would not suffer noise nuisance from patrons in the later noise sensitive hours. In particular the Committee was concerned about noise from patrons smoking outside the premises and noise from dispersal of patrons. Given the lack of detail regarding management controls the Committee considered that granting the variation would undermine the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance. The Committee considered that had proper consultation taken place with Responsible Authorities and with residents appropriate management controls could have been could have been considered and ... view the full minutes text for item 154. |
|
Exclusion of the Public The officers consider that the following item or items contains exempt information as provided for in the Local Government Access to Information Act and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Committee is recommended to agree the necessary resolutions excluding the public from the meeting during consideration of these items. At the time this agenda is published no representations have been that this part of the meeting should be open to the public. Minutes: A recommendation was made that the public is excluded during consideration of the items of business.
Decision
To exclude the public during consideration of the following items which involved consideration of exempt information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons, and public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
|
|
Application for a Personal Licence (AB) Minutes: The Committee considered the written application and representation including the additional information provided by GMP as well as the oral representations of both parties. The Applicant told the Committee he wanted to hold the licence so that he could apply for a premises licence for the cafe he currently runs as a business in the Trafford area. He told Committee he had a difficult childhood and that the offences were committed when he was young. He told the Committee that the use of 22 aliases was not intended to deceive anybody but was simply as a result of living in foster care and changing his name to fit in with the families he was being fostered by. He also told the Committee that he was now a changed man and played an active role in the community. He told the Committee that since his release from prison he had not even been stopped by the police for anything.
The representative from GMP questioned the defendant about an ongoing investigation by DWP. The applicant denied that he was currently under investigation for any offences and told the Committee that although he had been under investigation for an offence he had not been charged and it had been confirmed to him that there would be no further action taken by GMP. The representative from GMP informed the Committee that a charging decision in respect of a DWP investigation would not be taken by GMP. The Applicant also denied that he had any encounters with GMP officers as set out in the documentation provided by GMP .
The Committee considered the relevant unspent offence to be a serious matter and noted that the Applicant was in fact 28 at the time. The Committee did not accept the explanation for the numerous aliases to be a credible explanation for the use of 22 aliases Tyhe Committee also considered that the applicant had provided conflicting statements in relation to his dealings with GMP since his release from prison. Therefore the Committee considered it appropriate to refuse the application on the ground of the prevention of crime and disorder.
Decision
To refuse to grant the application on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder.
|