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 in attendance as well as the relevant legislation.  The Panel was informed that the applicant would not be attending and decided to proceed with the hearing in their absence.

A representative from the Neighbourhoods Team addressed the Panel about the detrimental impact she believed that granting this application would have on the area, including noise nuisance and attracting street drinking and anti-social behaviour.  She highlighted the problems with littering and waste in the local area, which her service had allocated additional resources to address, and advised that this premises could add to the existing problems, commenting that the application did not include information on the cleaning arrangements which would be put in place.  In response to a question from a Panel Member, she reported that this was a well-known area for counterfeit activities, that there were no other premises with the proposed opening hours in the area and that this would increase anti-social behaviour.  She recommended that the application be refused.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) informed the Panel that the application was poor, lacked detail and showed limited understanding of the licensing objectives and asked that it be refused.

The Panel then heard from a representative from the Licensing and Out of Hours (LOOH) team who highlighted their concerns about the application, as outlined in the document they had submitted.  In particular, they highlighted that the two main concerns of public nuisance and littering had not been addressed in the application, with no evidence of how this would be managed, and that the application showed limited understanding of the licensing objectives.  The representative recommended that the application be refused.  In response to a question from the Panel, the representative confirmed that the premise had been identified as operating illegally on two occasions and that this was first identified about a month ago.

The representative from the Neighbourhoods Team summed up her concerns, highlighting the challenges in this area of the city which she felt this premises would add to.

The representatives from GMP and the LOOH Team stated that they had nothing further to add to their previous comments.

The Panel was of the view that the application and the operating schedule did not adequately demonstrate what steps would be taken to uphold the licensing objectives. Whilst it noted that the premises had CCTV installed that covered the interior and exterior of the premises with a 24-hour emergency security response on standby if required to deter crime and disorder, this was the only condition that had been identified to assist in upholding the licensing objectives.

The Panel recognised the concerns of GMP that there was an absence of conditions that had been applied to provide reassurance that the licensing objectives would be upheld. 

The Panel noted that the Premises was located on a main arterial route out of the City Centre and agreed that the premises could act as a magnet for persons who had been drinking which could create noise nuisance and be disturbing for residents.

The Panel noted that the area suffered from littering issues and agreed that to grant the licence could significantly exacerbate the problem. It felt that the applicant had failed to address this issue in its application and were supportive of the concerns expressed by the Neighbourhoods Team. Indeed, no information had been provided as to how the applicant could ensure that the area was kept clean and free of litter.

The Panel also noted the comments of the LOOH Team that the application had only been made following a proactive monitoring exercise which identified that the premises had been found to be illegally trading on two separate occasions without having the correct premises licence in place.

It was felt that by the Panel that, given that the premises was situated on a major busy road, with no obvious parking facilities nearby this could lead to vehicles stopping on double yellow lines with the potential to cause a public nuisance.

The Panel further agreed that if the licence was granted this could exacerbate ongoing issues in the area resulting in a failure by the premises to uphold the licensing objectives.

In reaching its decision, the Panel considered the licensing objectives, Licensing Act 2003, s182 guidance and Manchester City Council’s Licensing Policy.

Decision

To refuse the application.