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 Officer addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that two objections had been received to the renewal application. A summary of the objections was provided. Any decision to refuse the application should only be done within the grounds of the legislation. No mandatory conditions for refusal had been met, and it was noted as down to the Hearing Panel to decide if any discretionary conditions for refusal had been met.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Hearing Panel, setting out the statutory framework under Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and reminded the panel that the application should not be refused unless one of the statutory grounds applies and accepted the panel should give due regard to its public sector equality duty when making its decision. They noted that this was a longstanding Sex Establishment Licence, situated in a well-established night-time economy area of Manchester. The objection did not provide a true reflection of Long Legs. They noted that 30-35% of their customers are female. The interaction between customers and performers was heavily regulated, with the safety and welfare of performers of paramount concern to the Premises. The Premises has extensive CCTV with experienced door staff employed. The applicant’s representative noted that there had been no representations received from the Responsible Authorities. Whilst it was noted that the issues raised by the objector was important, they had no relevance to the renewal application. The applicant’s representative felt that the objector had not shown an understanding of how Long Legs operated and had been selective in the evidence they had put forward. They noted that there were no mandatory grounds for refusal, also stating their belief that there were no discretionary grounds either. The Licence had been held since 2011, being renewed each year. The Premises was well run by experienced operators, according to the applicant’s representative. The applicant’s representative noted that Manchester’s policy does not set a number of venues that are permitted.

The objector queried what the customer base was for the venue and if the Premises had a conflict-of-interest policy. Full statistics were not kept on the exact customer base, but it was noted that the venue had a good degree of regulars due to having been open for a long time. There was some confusion over what the objector meant by the Premises having a conflict-of-interest policy, however it was stated that there was not a specific policy in place.

The objector addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they understood this was people’s livelihoods and had no objection to the late-night economy, however, did object to such venues. The objector accepted that they had been selective in the evidence put forward as they chose what they felt was most relevant. They felt that dancers at the venue had a financial incentive to dance for as many people as possible and that this restricted their ability to refuse to dance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

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.

A recommendation was made that the public be excluded during consideration of the following items of business.

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 Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding an application for street trader licence at the above location. The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation. The hearing was conducted in line with the established procedure for such hearings.

The Licensing officer noted that the application was for a renewal of a Street Trader Consent. The applicant had another Street Trader Consent for a different location for the hours of 7am to 2.30pm. This application was for an alternative unit from 3pm. Three objections had been received and the main concerns raised related to highway safety.

The applicant addressed the panel, stating that their opening hours were 3pm – 10pm. They operate a coned area to stop traffic. 12 cars can fit into the layby for food and the applicant manages the area. They have had no issues.

Under questions from LOOH, the applicant stated that there are always two people at the unit who manage the flow of traffic. There had been no issues. When there is no available space in the layby, the applicant diverts customers to alternative spaces. There are no toilets at the unit, but customers are not there for long enough for that to be an issue. It was thought that there had been issues but there was no evidence to suggest it had.

LOOH addressed the panel, stating that they had considered sections of the council’s street trading policy in making their representation which states:

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.

3.8. Ensuring that street trading is properly regulated and only takes place in appropriate locations, at appropriate times and in appropriate ways.

3.8.1. The Council is concerned to minimise the impact of street trading on the immediate vicinity of a street trading site, and as such applications for licences or consents will usually be refused where:

• road safety may be compromised either by the location of the trading activity itself, or from customers visiting or leaving the site

• there is insufficient space in the street for street trading to be engaged without causing undue interference or inconvenience or risk to persons using the street • there would be a significant loss of amenity caused by additional traffic, disturbance (e.g. noise, odour or fumes, etc.).

LOOH had completed visits to the site where they had witnessed the layby packed with taxis and other vehicles. LOOH felt that the location was not appropriate.

In summing up, LOOH requested that the panel carefully consider the Council’s Street Trading Policy.

The Licensing Officer summed up by stating that the panel should consider the policy and that the panel have full discretion. The panel could add conditions to the consent if they saw fit.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.