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

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Headof 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.

In line with the established procedure, the Hearing Panel heard from Greater Manchester Police (GMP), who informed the panel of the incident that brought an interim steps hearing before them previously. The incident took place on Sunday 4 June 2023 and involved a firearm being produced on the premises, with a suggestion of a stabbing taking place. As GMP felt the premises to be associated with serious crime and serious disorder, they requested a suspension of the Licence pending the full hearing. Since then, meetings had taken place between GMP and the premises. Additional conditions had been discussed and produced by the premises, that had been submitted to the panel for consideration.

The applicant’s agent then addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that there had been no contest to the suspension requested by GMP at the original interim steps hearing. They noted that the applicant had made this representation as they believed it safe, appropriate and proportionate to do so. The agent noted that GMP were in support of the additional conditions proposed, and that the representation would not have been made without that. The agent was asking the panel to modify the interim steps decisions by lifting the suspension subject to the additional conditions they had put forward.

The applicant’s agent noted that the incident was out of character for the premises and that there had been no licensing breaches prior to this. The original Licence did not require door staff to be employed by the premises but they were, highlighting the premises going above and beyond their original licence conditions.

The applicant’s agent then took the Hearing Panel through the additional conditions as laid out in the information submitted. They also noted that Licensing Out of Hours had been involved in the meetings to formulate the conditions, alongside GMP. The agent felt that a random search policy was sufficient and that full searches would change the style and atmosphere of the Premises. There was CCTV at the venue already, although not a condition on the Licence, and the applicant had added further CCTV to the premises. It was noted that all CCTV available was provided to GMP when requested following the incident. Additional staff training in conflict management and crime scene preservation formed part of the conditions too. The applicant’s agent believed that the conditions put forward would bolster the Licence and increase safety.

The premises was ready to implement the conditions immediately and were confident of there being no ongoing risk according to the applicant’s agent. It was noted that the Section 182 guidance, paragraph 9.12 referenced that Responsible Authorities should be considered the experts in providing advice to the panel when deciding what, if any, steps should be taken. In this instance, both GMP and LOOH supported the conditions proposed and had made no objections to them. The applicant’s agent noted that this was not a premises that undermines the crime prevention Licensing Objective.

During questioning, the panel raised concerns that the search policy suggested was only random searches and not full searches, and questioned if female staff would be employed to search female customers. It was noted that a random search policy would be based on various factors around risk management. All searches would take place in front of CCTV. The premises felt that a full search policy would change the type of premises operated. During the day, the premises is a restaurant, becoming more of a bar at night. The applicant’s agent noted that the premises had a perfect track record, with no breaches of the Licence.

The panel then raised questions for clarity on the incident. On the night of the incident, there was two duty managers, around 25 staff and 5 SIA staff working. The premises did not believe that staff had intervened slowly, they noted how quickly the incident escalated. Their team had called GMP instantly, who arrived within four minutes with their armed response team. They stated that they would not expect any member of staff to challenge someone with a gun. The premises felt that their staff acted as expected, by clearing and closing the venue safely and informing GMP.

The panel then sought further clarity on some conditions as suggested by the premises. It was noted that staff would receive conflict management training. The premises felt that a weapon would be easier to challenge when discovered during searches. All SIA staff employed would have a bodycam. The premises had committed to not work with an external promoter again, including on Temporary Event Notices. The premises had only attempted to use an external promoter to increase revenue on a Sunday, but were clear about the failings of this event.

The applicant’s agent summed up by stating the premises had taken time investigating what had happened and how they could improve. It was noted that the premises are responsible operators and there had been no prior incidents. The applicant’s agent felt that the conditions were appropriate and proportionate to uphold the crime prevention Licensing Objective. They re-stated that GMP were the experts in this case and that GMP had no objections to the suggested conditions.

GMP summed up by stating that it was fair to say that the premises was not on their radar prior to the incident due to their good track record. GMP’s position was to agree that the conditions put forward were appropriate.

In reaching its decision the Committee also considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made thereunder, and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act and the Licensing Objectives. The panel considered that the premises had a previous perfect track record and such an incident was out of character. The panel were satisfied that the premises had committed to no external events. The panel also noted that the premises had committed to complying with Martyn’s Law as part of the conditions. The panel were satisfied that the conditions put forward, therefore, were appropriate and proportionate to ensure the premises could operate safely and uphold the Licensing Objectives, particularly the prevention of crime and disorder.

Decision

To withdraw the suspension imposed on 7 June 2023, adding those conditions proposed by the Premises, incorporating the search policy, to the Premises Licence pursuant to Section 53B (8) of the Licensing Act 2003.