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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Directorof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for such hearings.

The Applicant’s Representative advised the Panel that the premises is situated in a commercial area therefore local residents would not be affected by the premises. The aim was for the local community to use the premises. The Hearing Panel was told that the objections to the application from the Licensing Out Of Hours (LOOH) team and GMP were mainly concerned with the charity which is next door to the premises. Furthermore, the Hearing Panel heard that blue notices had been displayed at the premises and the charity had not submitted representations against this application and in fact welcomed the business. The Hearing Panel was told that the Consultant who had submitted this application had recently spoken to the Manager about the application and the sole concern was about parking which the Applicant’s representative acknowledged was instead a planning consideration. The charity had stated they did not however feel that the issue was of significant concern and the Panel was referred to the email in the Applicant’s bundle referring to that matter.

The Hearing Panel was told that the premises would not interfere with the operation of the charity, highlighting that 4pm was the latest time that the Charity opened. Further the Hearing Panel was advised that the premises, subject to this application, is currently unoccupied. The Applicant’s Representative told the Hearing Panel that the Applicant had previously lived in Manchester and as such is familiar with the area in which the premises is located. Furthermore, the Panel was invited to note that the Applicant is currently involved in a pub in Birmingham, holds a personal licence and the level of investment that the Applicant intended for the renovation of the premises was outlined.

Regarding the representations submitted by the LOOH team, the Panel heard that the Applicant’s Representative had worked with LOOH to address any risk and had agreed what she described as a comprehensive set of conditions. There were conditions set out in the operating schedules and further conditions which had been agreed with LOOH. The Hearing Panel was referred to the document in the Applicant’s bundle which initially confirmed the agreement. However, a later communication was received from LOOH indicating that the application had been reviewed and that it had been subsequently resolved that it was not a suitable location and as such LOOH would be seeking refusal of the application, despite the matter having formerly being agreed and without any comment on the suggested conditions or an explanation of why they were not now considered appropriate.

Turning to the representation that had been received from GMP, the Applicant’s Representative highlighted that the only objections they had raised centred on the proximity to the charity next  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Directorof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application.The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for the hearing.

The Applicant’s representative advised the Panel that Hydes Brewery (the premises licence holder) had applied to change the conditions on the licence following a meeting with a representative of the Licensing and Out of Hours team (LOOH). It was subsequently agreed by both parties that the existing conditions (85 conditions in total) were out of date and un-enforceable in the current format. The Panel was told this was a voluntary application to “tidy up the licence” and should not to be confused with a review of the existing licence. The Panel was advised that local residents had misunderstood the focus of the application. The Applicant’s representative reminded the Panel where there are other statutory provisions which regulate matters such as The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (in relation to the capacity) the Panel shouldn’t condition such matters on the licence. It was explained to the Panel that the existing conditions on the licence were no longer appropriate and had been put on the licence when the 1964 Act was in force.

The Panel was told that the Licensing Out Of Hours (LOOH) team had agreed a new set of conditions to be placed on the licence and that this had been done mainly for the benefit of the licensing authority.

A local resident and member of the Fallowfield Community Guardians’ Group explained to the Panel that there are residents who live close to this licensed premises and that as recent as last week, there had been constant issues with noise nuisance in the Fallowfield area. Since Hydes Brewery had taken over the premises the Panel was told they had created a beer garden which contained large TV screens and outdoor heaters. The resident explained to the Panel there had been a DJ event at the premises during the day with amplified music which disturbed residences. She explained to the Panel that residents were significantly affected by the number of licensed premises in the area and that this noise affects their quality of life. Furthermore, members of the community had been disturbed by licensed premises activity whilst attending church services. The resident then asked the Panel not to remove condition 1 of Annex 3 regarding playing music at the premises.

Another local resident, in addition to her written representation, referred to extremely difficult circumstances as a local resident and asked the Panel not to deregulate matters and to agree suitable conditions.

In reaching its decision the Hearing Panel carefully considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act as well as the licensing objectives.

The Application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Directorof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for the hearing.

The Premises Licence holder advised the Panel he had run the shop for 6½ years without any complaints or issues. He advised the Panel that he had a great relationship with his neighbours and customers. The reasons for the application for longer hours were attributed to financial pressures (which were outlined in the hearing) as well as a request from customers/the local community for longer opening hours. He indicated that he was willing to negotiate on the hours and days applied for and expressed a desire for parity with other premises within a 2-mile radius who operate during the hours applied for.

The Panel was informed that the Licensing Out Of Hours (LOOH) team had objected to the variation application due to concerns that should the hours be granted it would exacerbate existing problems in the area and the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance would be undermined. The Panel was informed told that LOOH took issue with the terminal hour applied for by the Applicant as a result of concerns that operating beyond midnight would lead to the occurrence of issues. Residences would be disturbed who will normally be sleeping and anti-social behaviour will increase. LOOH confirmed on questioning however that there had been no previous issues with this premises.

GMP also objected to the application for a variation, expressing concern that the premises would be open for 19 hours a day. They submitted that during the later hours applied for local residents become less tolerant. Whilst it is on a main road and there is noise from transient traffic in the early hours, the likelihood of increased noise by people slamming car doors would result in public nuisance. GMP accepted however that the premises was a well run establishment and that there were no concerns about the premises with the current hours. During questioning from a panel member, GMP confirmed that the majority of issues in the area were attributable to unlicensed premises.

In reaching its decision the Hearing Panel took into consideration 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 Panel took into consideration the past record of the Operator. It was agreed by both Responsible Authorities’ that there had been no problems with this premises at all during the time that the Applicant had operated the premises. Furthermore, the Panel took into account the location of the premises and accepted that whilst there are residential properties within the vicinity, it is situated on a very busy dual carriage way. The Panel noted that the Applicant was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.