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

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.  The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties and the oral representations of the parties in attendance as well as the relevant legislation. 

GMP addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that the TEN applied for a terminal hour of 4.00am. There had been previous TENs held at this venue with a similar description, and the last one drew complaints regarding noise, litter and patrons drinking alcohol on the street. GMP felt that there was no detail within the TEN application on how the number of people at the event would be managed, how security would be utilised and a dispersal policy. GMP felt that the event would be a pop-up night club rather than an art event.

The panel sought clarity on the complaints regarding alcohol, noting the application did not seek to supply alcohol. GMP stated that reports had been received of people drinking in the street and they had seen photographs of bin containing empty alcohol containers. GMP noted that the events could operate a bring your own alcohol policy.

LOOH then addressed the Hearing Panel, noting their concerns that the event could cause a public nuisance in a highly residential area. LOOH referenced the photographs provided as part of their representation, stating to the panel that they felt this showed an inability of the applicants to manage the external area of the premises. LOOH attended a previous TEN held by the venue, citing concerns the event appeared unmanaged and pedestrian access to the highway was being restricted by patrons using the front of the premises as a smoking area. LOOH noted at that event there appeared to be no SIA or management in place to manage the external space. LOOH themselves had not witnessed a noise nuisance from the premises but had received complaints regarding this. Other complaints included public urination and drug use. LOOH did not feel that the Licensing Objectives could be upheld by the applicant and therefore requested for the TEN to be denied.

The panel sought clarity on whether alcohol was being sold by the premises at previous events and the type of event being held. LOOH confirmed that the application did not request alcohol sales, but previous complaints had referenced alcohol consumption. LOOH believed the events to be an art event/gallery until 23.00, when the event becomes a music event. LOOH noted they had not witnessed alcohol being sold but had witness intoxicated patrons. LOOH had also witnessed around 30 to 40 customers in the rear external area of the premises smoking and drinking.

The applicant then addressed the Hearing Panel, aiming to demonstrate the community values of the gallery and address the concerns raised. The applicant stated that whilst the application referenced 499 customers, their intention was not for this many. They had never had more than 250 at an event and had received information from the Fire Brigade stating the space was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.