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 concerning the above application. The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant legislation.

There were effectively two Applications to vary the current licence conditions

Application 1: Premises Licence No. 260078

1. To extend the hours for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment until 0100 hours daily
2. To extend the opening hours until 0130 hours daily

Application 2: Premises Licence No. 272412

1. To extend the hours for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment until 0100 hours daily
2. To extend the opening hours until 0130 hours daily
3. to remove Condition 9 at Annex 2 which reads as follows:

“Other than the event ‘The Summer of Love Festival’ there shall be no amplified music in the marquees or in any of the external licensed areas after 20:00 hours”.

And to replace with the following:

Addition to the end of Condition 7 of Annex 2 – A record shall be kept of all monitoring which takes place outside the boundary of the premises, including the date, time and location of monitoring; the name of the monitor, and any action taken. Records shall be kept for no less than six months and shall be made available upon request by a Police Officer or an Authorised Officer of Manchester City Council.

In line with the established procedure, the Applicant’s representative outlined the venue as a ‘pop-up’ type site; a two warehouse space on industrial patches of land turned into an event space. In due course this area of land was to be developed into residential properties. The landlord was a large stakeholder with the Local Authority and in the meantime, the Applicants had taken on the site in 2021 with a view to presenting different events for music, culture and corporate events pending that development. They had undertaken the lease for 2 years on a three-month rolling determination which would end in September 2024.

Two separate licences with a combination of conditions on both were submitted. The reason for the syubmission of two separate licences was because one part had been ready to come on stream before the other one. The Applicants had previously presented the ‘Summer of Love’ (SOL) Festival in 2021 which ran over two days, and it was this that had given rise to the complaints and representations.

The first licence to be granted chronologically was to Animal Crossing Music Limited and was granted in 2021 without conditions. The second, granted to Summer of Love Limited was granted in May 2022. The Applicant was now seeking a consolidation of the entire space.

The Applicant’s Representative outlined that the premises was often used for indoor corporate staff parties and promotions and the current closing time of 23:00 was not sufficient for this purpose as longer hours were often requested to facilitate the use of the premises for product launches. Emphasis was given to this being only for indoor events.

The application concerning the external variation (272412) was for no later than 2300 hours and therefore commensurate with the de-regulated hours of 0800-2300. There were no plans for a further festival event again however the Applicants were looking to operate 8 – 10 events per year. There was only one year left on the lease and since opening the premises there had been no issues or complaints received regarding the operation.

It was asserted that there would be no conflict as, the residential blocks were developed, the warehouse(s) would come down and therefore anything the Panel considered granting would be for one year only and would need to be re-applied for in planning terms. In addition, the representations from Licensing and Out of Hours (LOOH)related to future residential properties.

It was also asserted that the 2021 complaints had not been ignored, an acoustic drape had been built in, it was proposed to keep a record of all acoustic monitoring (to be kept for six-months) with a qualified engineer on site prior to and during events to assist with the monitoring of noise levels and any subsequent action required. Staff were also to direct patrons from the premises.  In addition, there had been no representations from the police and the complaints were asserted to be relatively small (23/1000).

When questioned, it was confirmed there had been approximately twenty (interior) events since the SOL 2021 event and there would always be more than 500 people at the events as this would not otherwise be commercially viable; notwithstanding this, there had been no complaints as a result of the 20 events.

Within the documentation there was what appeared to be a partial acoustic report titled: Progress Centre Noise Report 15/04/2023; the Applicant’s Representative confirmed via the Applicant (also present) that this did not relate to the premises in the Application.

The Applicant’s Representative submitted that the LOOH representations were in respect of future premises that had yet to be built and explained the residents’ complaints (which were almost identical) had been factored into Applications made for planning permission which had been granted in September 2022 with the respective Committee/panel having heard from Environmental Health, the Police, Acoustic reports, Contaminated Land reports etc and that although planning and licensing were different regimes, noise breakout was also a consideration in Planning.

Representations were received from Licensing Out Of Hours (LOOH) and 3 local residents. The Panel considered the oral and written representations which raised the same issue of noise nuisance, public safety and crime and disorder.

A resident outlined that he was seeking to prevent a repetition of what had happened at SOL festival – he accepted the year was 2021 not 2022 (a clerical error on his paperwork), and that explained in the four blocks were he lived housed some 260 people who were over 55 and a lot considerably older; they had, had an entire weekend when they had been tormented. The event finished at 2330 and then started again on Saturday and Sunday afternoon. He stated that he resided in an 11^th floor flat directly facing the venue and the level of noise was so high that his sliding glass windows on his balcony were rattling to the extent that he had to put the TV in his bedroom for weekend so that he could watch and hear it. He had made a complaint at the time on the Saturday and an officer attended from enforcement; the level went down for about an hour and then it went back up. He completely opposed extending the hours especially to the outdoor activity.

He also submitted that none of the residents were aware of the applications and the written representations did confirm this. However, the Applicant’s Representative confirmed that the statutory requirements had been adhered to.

With regard to the representations submitted by LOOH written representations confirmed they had received in excess of ten noise complaints one of which was two miles away from the venue and that granting the application would also potentially impact on the new residential properties. The LOOH Representative confirmed that they their concerns focused on the application for the external licence and that based on the complaints, the removal of Condition 9 of Annex 2 allowing amplified music until 0100 hours every day would significantly undermine the Public Nuisance Licensing Objective.

In reaching its decision the Panel considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act and the licensing objectives.

The Panel had sight of the residents’ ‘petition’ referred to but attached no weight to this. They also attached no weight to the acoustic report enclosed with the Applicant’s documentation as it was not associated with the subject premises, it appeared to be a partial report with no author and no signature.

They noted that the Applicants Representative had clearly identified that the objections related to the external operation as opposed to the internal operation of the premises and had confirmed the external licensing hours applied for were no later than 2300 hours.

The Committee in considering the Applications had regard to the paragraphs of the Statement of Licensing Policy and Manchester Standards identified below.

In respect of Premises Licence Number 272412 - the current condition allowed for only one event which had taken place in 2021 and had generated 10 complaints, one a significant distance away which had been attributed to the venue. To remove condition 9 at Annex 2 would obviously permit further events and the Committee noted that such external events would never house less than 500 persons as confirmed by the Applicant’s Representative. Given the required volume of customers, the Panel was disappointed at the lack of any policy or proposals for the management of the external area for more than 500 people in close proximity to a residential area.

The Panel noted the Applicant’s Representative submissions in respect of the planning permission having been granted, however, they noted that notwithstanding the overlap, planning was a separate regime and therefore no weight was attached to this submission. The Panel did however have regard to the fact that reference was made to an acoustic report being presented at that Application but it had not been included with the licensing Applications – whereas a partial and irrelevant one had.

Following the event in 2021 and subsequent to the representations made objecting to the variation applications, it also was apparent that the Applicant(s) had made no effort to engage with the local residents to address any of the issues arising or to provide them with any contact details. Whilst it is accepted this is not a statutory requirement Manchester City Council’s Statement of Licensing policy states:

6.4      Licensees are encouraged to consult with local residents, businesses and local councillors prior to submitting an application for a new licence or variation of an existing licence to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives and ensure that any issues that may arise in respect of the proposed operation of the premises can be addressed at the earliest possible stage.

The Panel did not consider the submissions that the premises would only be operative for another year of any relevance, the policy was clear in respect of operating as good neighbours.

The Panel considered the complaints from the sole permitted external event in 2021, the lack of detail and thought in respect of external event management and the lack of any engagement with the residents. They resolved that this was indicative as to how the Applicants operated.

The Panel was therefore of the opinion that to remove condition 9 of Annex 2 and extend the hours as requested would not only remove the restriction in respect of the number of events, but also the time limitation on the permitted amplified music as well as extending the permitted times for the sale and consumption of alcohol. They were of the opinion that this would undermine the promotion of the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Public Nuisance – the Committee therefore refused this Application.

In respect of Premises Licence No. 260078, the Panel noted that although the residents and LOOH were objecting to this application, there had not been any specific complaints in respect of the internal events held and the main thrust of the objections was in respect of the external area. Therefore, they granted this Application.

Decisions

1.    To grant the application in respect of Premises Licence No. 260078

2.    To refuse the application in respect of Premises Licence No. 272412