Agenda and minutes
Licensing and Appeals Sub Committee Hearing Panel - Friday, 30th June, 2023 10.00 am
Venue: Council Antechamber, Level 2, Town Hall Extension. View directions
Contact: Ian Smith
To allow Members an opportunity to [a] declare any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they might have in any items which appear on this agenda; and [b] record any items from which they are precluded from voting as a result of Council Tax/Council rent arrears; [c] the existence and nature of party whipping arrangements in respect of any item to be considered at this meeting. Members with a personal interest should declare that at the start of the item under consideration. If Members also have a prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interest they must withdraw from the meeting during the consideration of the item.
Councillor Grimshaw declared that they knew the applicant due to them being a constituent in his ward. Councillor Grimshaw stated that he had no pecuniary or personal interest in the application and sought approval from all parties that they were willing to continue.
All parties were content to proceed.
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 - Peppers, Junction with Briscoe Lane, Riverpark 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 Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties and the oral representations of the parties who attended as well as the relevant legislation.
The Licensing Unit officer addressed the Hearing Panel, noting this was an application for a new Street Trader Consent, with the proposed hours of Monday to Sunday 7.00 till 22.00. The Licensing Unit officer provided a summary of the intended refreshments to be sold from the trader. The applicant had previously held consent for the same site, however that expired in 2020 and a renewal was not given due to a mistake by the Licensing team. It was thought that the location was prohibited for Street Trader Consent but was later discovered to not be. The applicant had been compensated for this mistake. The Licensing Unit officer stated there was still issues with the proposed location relating to parking and access to the site. The application had attracted two objections, one from LOOH and one from a local resident. The Licensing Unit officer provided a summary of those to the panel.
The panel questioned if the Licensing Unit were aware of any complaints, if planning permission had been granted for the newly installed bike racks, if the site was recognised as a consented street and if the parking restrictions had been in place when the applicant was previously trading. The Licensing Unit was not aware of any complaints received regarding the trader when they previously held consent. The Licensing Unit only became aware of the installation of the bike rack after the application was made, they did not know if planning permission was required for this. The Licensing Unit did recognise this as a consented street and reiterated the applicant had been compensated for the mistake of refusing their application previously. The Licensing Unit believed the parking restrictions were there before consent was previously given.
The applicant then addressed the Hearing Panel, noting they had traded at the location for several years prior to the refusal of consent in 2020. They stated there had been no issues previously. In their experience, no one parked on the double yellow lines near the location as people would park on a street nearby. The applicant felt the pavement was wide enough for their vehicle, even with the added bike rack. The applicant would stop trading if roadworks were taking place in the area. The applicant would only trade until 22.00 when a concert is taking place at the Etihad stadium. The applicant stated that they do not trade that often.
The panel sought clarity on what the applicant meant by not trading that often, if anyone had contacted them regarding the added bike rack, the vehicle that would be used, if the bike rack when in use would cause issues for space and if their tow vehicle could be parked elsewhere when trading. The applicant referred to the fact that on most ... view the full minutes text for item 65.