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

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing in respect of the above application. The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The Chair used the agreed procedure to conduct the hearing.

The Licensing Officer set out the application and advised the Panel that none of the mandatory grounds for refusal had been met, therefore the Panel was invited to consider matter on discretionary grounds. The Panel was advised that two objectors had been received which need to be considered. Neither of the objectors attended the hearing.

The Applicant’s representative advised the Panel that the Operator was in attendance at the hearing and had provided a statement that clearly set out how the premises operates and addressed the relevant issues that had been raised by the objectors for this application. The Panel confirmed they had seen and read that statement.

The Panel was told that the premises had been operating since 2009 in a very busy area of the city. The Panel was advised that the business had an excellent track record, and this was supported by the granting of the renewal each year.  The Applicant’s representative submitted that the Objectors had misrepresented what took place at the premises. The Panel was told that no sexual activity took place at the premises and that the performers were very upset with accusation of selling sex. The Panel was reminded that the current licence had an array of conditions placed upon it. The Applicant’s representative went through some of the conditions with the Panel.  The Panel was referred to the Operator’s statement which confirmed that they are a professional operation who fully support their staff. Further, it was explained they have updated their policies and procedures at the venue. The Applicant’s representative confirmed that the Responsible Authorities had not made any representations against this renewal, and that they are the experts who enforce compliance and safeguarding. The Applicant’s representative went through in detail the Objector’s representations and whilst they raised some very serious issues it was submitted that they were very general objections. The Panel was reminded that Sex Establishment Venues (SEVs) are legitimate and legal businesses. The Panel was taken through the objector’s representations and the Applicant’s representative emphasised that the representations were very general about lap dancing bars and did not directly relate to  the premises. Furthermore, the reviews about the premises itself should have no weight attached to them. The Applicant’s representative submitted that the people who made the reviews could not be verified and questioned. Those reviews were not accepted by the premises. With regard to the use of the term ‘girl’ whilst this had been previously used by the premises this was no longer the case. It was submitted that no offence was meant by it. It was also submitted that the issues raised by the objectors were not within the scope of this hearing today  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

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.

Decision

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.

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

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing in respect of the above application. The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The Chair used the agreed procedure to conduct the hearing.

The Applicant, Licensing and Out of Hours (LOOH), Greater Manchester Police (GMP), a Ward Councillor and the Neighbourhood Officer attended the hearing.

After hearing all of the evidence from the objectors, the Panel agreed that the proposed site is a totally unsuitable location for a street trader. The suggested location for this street trader would be situated in a residential area. The Committee accepted that noise would be created by the operation of the unit by customers queuing, delivery drivers coming and going from the site affecting local residents. 

The two main grounds for refusal were:

Ground 1

3.1.1.  That there is not enough space in the street for the applicant to engage in the trading in which he desires to engage without causing undue interference or inconvenience to persons using the street.

Following careful consideration of the evidence, the Panel concluded that the suggested site was so narrow that it would force customers on to the pavements, restricting access and causing inconvenience to persons using the street. Further the Panel was concerned that the proposed trailer would not fit on the proposed site as outlined by the LOOH’s team.

Ground 2

3.1.2.  That there are already enough traders trading in the street from shops or otherwise in the goods in which the applicant desires to trade.

The Panel could not be satisfied that the products to be sold were unique as stated by the Applicant. The Panel heard evidence from the objectors that the products were readily available in shops and restaurants in close proximity to the proposed site.

The Committee remind themselves of the aim of the policy which states at section 3.7:

•         Ensure that street trading is properly regulated and only takes place in appropriate locations, at appropriate times and in appropriate ways

 •        Ensure that traders and people that they employ are suitable to undertake the activities applied for and do not pose a threat to the public

•         Ensure that trading does not cause an unreasonable disturbance to residents and businesses

•         Ensure that trading is carried out in a manner that protects public health

The Panel was advised by the Objectors of the current problems with waste in the area and that granting this application would only exacerbate these problems. The Panel welcomed that the Applicant had attempted to clear the site from rubbish but there were still issues in the area with waste. 

In reaching its decision the Panel considered the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 Schedule 4 and The Manchester City Council’s Street Trading Policy For all the reasons stated above the Panel do not see fit to grant this application.

Decision

The Panel refused to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.