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

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Directorof Planning, Building Control and Licensing. The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties submitted and the oral representations of the parties who attended as well as the relevant legislation.

The agent acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that this was a request for a new premises licence for a food led café style premises. Admas Café was an East African community hub for the locality on a parade of shops. A set of recent photographs of the café and surroundings were distributed and showed the new shop front and blue signage notifications of this application. The premises were seeking to include alcohol sales to their offering for the hours of 11:00 until 22:00 with a closing time of 22:30. Conditions had been proposed by the applicant and were included in the printed report and these sought to address any potential issues in the area and also to address the concerns of the Licensing and Out Of Hours Team (LOOH).

The Hearing Panel asked the agent if the next door café had an alcohol licence and the agent was not certain that they did and added that there was an off licence next door.

LOOH addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that they had assessed the likely impacts of granting an alcohol licence, which were concerning waste, criminal activity, drunkenness and the effect this would have on neighbouring properties would be detrimental to their amenity. LOOH noted that, whilst the premises was on a main road, neighbouring residential streets were merely yards away and gave mention of criminal activity in the area. The premises had submitted an application for an alcohol licence in March 2022 and LOOH had recommended a decision to refuse at this time also. 11 residents had objected to the application and this previous application was subsequently withdrawn. LOOH had been informed that the premises had been selling alcohol without a licence and staying open beyond their terminal hour, until 03:30 on one occasion. LOOH and GMP attended the premises to follow up on these claims and found males smoking shisha pipes and others clearly hiding bottles of alcohol under the table when the authorities entered the premises. This, LOOH considered, told of an organised response in case of any official visits. Cases of alcohol were uncovered in a cupboard on the premises and the DPS as cautioned by GMP. LOOH had serious concerns that this blasé attitude would persist at the premises with them staying open later than their licence allowed and causing noise and nuisance for local residents with further potential for associated criminal activity. LOOH concluded by requesting the Hearing Panel to consider the residential setting of this premises and refuse the application.

The agent asked LOOH if they had any supporting witness statements. LOOH stated that this was a joint operation with GMP who were there as back up incase of any disturbance and had not provided witness statements.

The agent asked LOOH if they had checked identification to support their claim that the DPS was on the premises during their visit with GMP. The agent stated that the DPS was not on the premises that day. The LOOH representative stated that they were not there on the day but that the LOOH member who made the visit would have taken names.

The agent asked if there was any supporting paperwork available from the visit. LOOH stated that they did not have any paperwork. The agent then expressed that this had been raised previously and the LOOH representative again confirmed that, as he was not there during the visit, he could not comment.

The Hearing Panel sought clarity on whether the DPS should have been present and LOOH confirmed that he would not be required to be on site as the premises did not have an alcohol licence.

The Hearing Panel asked if there had been any report from GMP on the matter and LOOH stated that there was not.

In summing up their case, LOOH stated that, based on the evidence in their representations, they had no confidence in the premises upholding the licensing objectives and requested that the Hearing Panel refuse the application.

In summing up their case, the agent for the applicant stated that the application had been made in good faith, acknowledged that the previous application had been poor and added that this was a much more reasonable request. The application now confirmed that this was a food led premises and that alcohol was to be served with meals. The agent expressed that conditions had been added which dealt with LOOH’s concerns, in that there would be a Challenge 25 scheme operational, no unsupervised younger staff alone on the premises, signage on leaving quietly, CCTV, refusal log, acceptable delivery time plus noise and vibration mitigation. What was evident was that there had been only one representation, from LOOH, and that this had been written in anticipation of further objections which had not transpired. This showed that this latest application had addressed all other concerns. Regarding the incident whereby LOOH and GMP had made the visit and found shisha and alcohol being consumed, the agent stated that the DPS was not on the premises. This was his brother who had been holding a party on the day and no alcohol had been for sale. The agent noted that there had been no supporting evidence on the contrary but accepted that shisha pipes had been imbibed and this was an error of judgement as the DPS’s brother did not know that this was against the law, even with an extractor fan running. The agent stated that the DPS wished to run the premises properly and be a place for the community who are under-represented in Manchester. The premises would not be the cause of any anti social behaviour and alcohol would be for on-premises consumption only. It was more likely that anti social behaviour would be caused by off licences and not food led venues.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered that this was a stronger application than the version submitted in 2022, that this was a food led venture and alcohol would be served with a meal and up to a reasonable terminal hour. The Hearing Panel felt that a further condition should be added for alcohol also to be consumed while seated and noted that there were no outdoor tables so no alcohol consumed on the street.

Decision

To grant the licence subject to conditions provided by the applicant and subject to a further condition for alcohol to be consumed while seated.