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 applications.The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The Chair used the agreed procedure to conduct the hearing.

The applicant addressed the Hearing Panel, noting they were an experienced operator. They apologised for the error on their application form that stated there would be external music. They confirmed this was incorrect. The applicant noted they had addressed and agreed conditions with both Greater Manchester Police and Licensing Out of Hours.

A ward Councillor, acting as an Interested Party, asked questions of the applicant. From those questions, the applicant stated that in their agreements, bifold doors would be closed at 10.00pm to stop noise emanating from the Premises. They noted that any music in the Premises would only be background music and would not be loud. The applicant was willing to amend their application to stop serving alcohol at 10.30pm to allow customers 30 minutes to finish their drinks before the Premises closed at 11.00pm.

The ward Councillor addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they were happy that the applicant was willing to amend their application to allow for drinking up time. They still, however, had concerns regarding noise emanation from the bifold doors. The ward Councillor requested that the Panel considered an earlier closing time for the doors, such as 9.00pm.

The ward Councillor summed up by noting that they appreciated the reduction to 10.30pm for the sale of alcohol but still felt that the bifold doors should have an earlier closing time to reduce noise emanation.

The applicant summed up by stating that music would never be played loud and was only to be in the background. The applicant planned to remain at the site for a long-time. They noted that most staff had been made partners in the business.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel 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 and the licensing objectives. The panel noted that no representations remained from the responsible authorities, following agreement and subsequent withdrawal of the representations of GMP and LOOH. The panel were satisfied that the applicant had offered to reduce the hours for the sale of alcohol to end at 10.30pm. The panel did not see it necessary to reduce the time that the bifold doors could remain open until and were satisfied for that to remain as 10.00pm.

Decision

To grant the application with the additional conditions agreed with GMP and LOOH, and the last sale of alcohol to be at 10.30pm.

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 applications.The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The Chair used the agreed procedure to conduct the hearing.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that McDonald’s was an established business, looking to apply for the hours of 23.00 to 05.00 Monday to Sunday, for which Planning Permission had previously been granted. The applicant’s agent noted that paragraph 9.12 of the Section 182 guidance states that responsible authorities are to be deemed as experts on upholding the Licensing Objectives. They noted that no responsible authority representations remained, with Licensing Out of Hours the only one to have a representation but that was subsequently withdrawn following the agreement of an additional six conditions. The application was made with a full Operating Schedule, drawing attention to CCTV and the Staff Safe system, along with staff training in conflict management. The applicant’s agent was aware that litter was an issue for fast food establishments, informing the panel that the packaging used now encouraged customers to recycle their litter. The staff at the premises also complete regular litter patrols, with the frequency kept under review and late-night litter picks being risk assessed. On those patrols, all litter is collected and not just that from McDonald’s. The applicant’s agent noted there had been no reported issues in the last twelve months. The applicant’s agent was confident that the existing procedures, operating schedule, and additional conditions should alleviate resident concerns.

Under questioning from an interested party, the applicant’s agent noted that the risk assessments for litter picking were completed for staff safety. They were confident that the conflict management training provided was sufficient, noting there had not been a review for a McDonald’s they represented so it was clear their procedures worked. They noted that litter picking took place in a roughly 150 metre radius from the premises, at least 3 times a day. The applicant’s agent offered to amend the litter picking condition to make particular reference to Signet Walk but did note that once a customer has left the premises, the section 182 guidance accepts that customers take personal responsibility for dealing with their own litter. Any noise from the Staff Safe system would be entirely internal. The applicant’s agent noted that signage was an important Licensing tool but accepted that the level of impact does vary on each person.

An interested party addressed the Hearing Panel, requesting to show the Panel some additional images. The applicant’s agent was happy for the images to be shared with the Panel. The interested party continued that they had reservations when a McDonald’s was originally proposed for this site due to issues with a different McDonald’s in the area. The noted that they had objected to the Planning application, with the application unsuccessful at Committee but that decision was overturned on appeal. The interested party  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.