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 Applicant did not attend the hearing and the Panel agreed to proceed in their absence, noting that no communication had been received in respect of their reasons for absence. The Chair used the agreed procedure to conduct the hearing.

The Panel was told that the premises licence had only been granted in November 2023 and was already subject to a full review due to held on 22 January 2024.

The Panel took into consideration Section 182 guidance which states in respect of a Designated Premises Supervisor (at 4.69) that:

“The police may object to the designation of a new DPS where, in exceptional circumstances, they believe that the appointment would undermine the crime prevention objective.

The Panel accepted the evidence put forward by GMP that the crime prevention objective would be undermined if this DPS was appointed. The proposed DPS was currently the Premises Licence Holder and so was heavily involved with the premises. It was clear from listening to the officer from GMP’s representation, that the crime prevention licensing objective had been undermined by the Premises Licence Holder who now wished to become the DPS.

GMP set out the current serious issues taking place at the premises which were:

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

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

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

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

In reaching its decision the 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 concluded that the appointment of this DPS would undermine the crime prevention objective.

Decision

To refuse the application for a variation

Now contains additional information as submitted by the applicant’s agent.

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 Panel was advised by the Applicant’s representative that only a small part of the building is to be used for this licence application and the building would be mainly co-working office space. The Panel was shown the plans, and it was explained where the desk space was and the proposed licensable area. Further it was explained that the café/restaurant would be mainly used by the general office, but members of the public would also be able to use it. It was explained that the proposed model is used in all of their developments and that they find that their main users are tenants. The Panel was told that this business would create 1600 new jobs. The Applicant’s representative went on to explain that the location was previously operated by the Science and Industry Museum and her client was aware of the previous issues with this premises.  The premises is in close proximity to residential premises which the Applicant is fully aware of, and this has been taken into account when applying for the licence. That is why there was no application for regulated entertainment. There is limitation to what can be done with the building in view of its Grade 2 listed status. The Applicant’s representative advised the Panel that her client had consulted with the residents regarding this application. The Panel was told that a residents meeting took place where 20/30 residents attended along with ward councillors. Following the meeting, feedback was taken on board and as a result only later hours were applied for on a Friday and Saturday until Midnight. The Panel was referred to the proposed conditions put forward by the Applicant which had taken into account the issues residents had raised.  The Applicant had agreed to such conditions so that safeguards were in place for the residents. The Applicant’s representative advised the Panel that there were other licensed premises in this area that have similar hours and the hours and activities applied for were appropriate for this area.  With regard to concerns by residents of noise, the Panel was advised of the conditions that would address the noise issues, namely:

a) Noise - condition 23,24, 25, 36 and 37

b) Access and egress - condition 39 and 40

c) Max capacity is 140 - condition 41

The Panel was reminded that no objections had been received from the Responsible Authorities who are the experts in their fields as confirmed by Section 182 guidance which states at 9.12:

Each responsible authority will be an expert in their respective field, and in some cases it is likely that a particular responsible authority will be the licensing authority’s main source of advice in relation to a particular licensing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.