Agenda and minutes
Licensing and Appeals Sub Committee Hearing Panel - Tuesday, 28th February, 2023 10.00 am
Venue: Council Antechamber, Level 2, Town Hall Extension. View directions
Contact: Ian Smith
The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.
The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.
The Licensing Unit Officer addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that this was a renewal application for which no objections had been received. They stated that the hearing panel could only refuse the application on the basis that any of the mandatory or discretionary grounds had been met. The Licensing Unit Officer stated that no mandatory grounds had been met but it was a matter for the panel to decide if any discretionary grounds had.
The applicant addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that this was their fourth annual renewal application, after having opened in July 2019. They noted the entrance to the premises was discreet, with a sign outside only lit at night. Whilst the venue operates as a Sexual Entertainment Venue, there is also a focus on Whisky, and other drinks in general. The venue attempts to be inclusive to all. The applicant was unaware of any objections, noting in particular the lack of objection from the Responsible Authorities.
The panel sought clarity on the experience of the applicant. The applicant noted they had been running similar premises for at least 7 years.
The Licensing Unit Officer summed up by stating that the Hearing Panel must have regard to the Council’s policy for Sex Establishments, information submitted as part of the application, any observations submitted to it by the Chief Officer of Police and any objections received from anyone else within 28 days of the application. An application should only be refused where the Hearing Panel are satisfied it is necessary and proportionate, with any decision made on non-discriminatory grounds. The Hearing Panel could impose conditions, alongside those agreed as standard conditions for a Sex Establishment.
The applicant was invited to sum up by the Chair but had nothing to add.
In their deliberations, the panel noted the Licensing Unit Officer’s statement that no mandatory grounds for refusal had been met. The panel accepted that no discretionary grounds for refusal had been met.
To grant the renewal as applied for.
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.
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 Street Trader Consent - Monsieur Tacos, Pavement in front of All Saints Park, Oxford Road, Manchester
The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.
The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.
The Licensing Unit Officer addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that this was an application for a new Street Trader Consent on the pavement in front of All Saints Park, Oxford Road. The applicant requested trading hours of: Monday to Wednesday 11:30 – 21:00, Thursday 11:30 – 22:30, Friday 11:30 – 04:00, Saturday 11:30 – 00:30 and Sunday 17:00 – 21:00. The applicant had proposed to trade French Tacos, Crepes, Pancakes and others. The Licensing Unit had received 3 objections from Manchester Metropolitan University, Oxford Road Corridor and Licensing Out of Hours. An objection had been received from an adjacent trader, however that had been withdrawn. The Licensing Unit Officer provided a summary of the objections received.
The applicant’s agent addressed the Hearing Panel, providing background to their intentions for the business. They stated they were a recent graduate from Manchester University and through their time there, they had noticed the potential for a Street Trading business in this location. The applicant intended that their business would have good values, believing that they could serve tasty food that is healthy. The applicant intended for their business to be sustainable, for example utilising edible and/or sustainable packaging. The food served would be mostly organic and locally sourced. The applicant would serve all food options; meat, vegan, vegetarian, and halal. The applicant also stated that on a Sunday, they intended to provide free food to homeless people in the area.
The applicant moved on to address the objections that had been received. In terms of location and access, the applicant noted that there was another trader in the same location who has operated safely. The applicant had spoken to traders in the area who had offered their assistance. They noted that their trailer would be able to be moved by hand as there would be no engine. The applicant stated their belief that the location was safe. They provided images to the Hearing Panel and objectors of the location intended for their trailer. The applicant felt those images showed that their intended pitch would not cause an issue for pedestrians. The applicant had requested a pitch of 5 metres 50 centimetres but noted their flexibility on the size. The applicant addressed concerns regarding serving till 4am, noting the difficulties in getting consent and they would not risk that by serving the wrong people.
The applicant then addressed the objection that their Street Trading would be incompatible with Manchester Metropolitan University’s Public Realm Masterplan. They were unsure what it was about their business that was incompatible, noting they were a former student, and it was a business that would have good values, creating jobs for students. They felt that the business would contribute to the vibrancy of the park and contribute to the relaxing atmosphere intended for the area. The applicant felt that their business would provide a good first impression for visitors to be able to see the ... view the full minutes text for item 22.