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.

In line with the established procedure, the Hearing Panel heard from Greater Manchester Police (GMP), who noted that this was an application for alcohol sales from a hair salon during Pride, for 3 days, 8 hours a day. GMP had concerns that the application had no details relating to how the alcohol would be dispense and how ID checks would be carried out. GMP had received extra information stating that plastic cups would be used and GMP had concerns that this would lead to street drinking, which is prohibited under the PSPO for the city centre. Whilst that PSPO is relaxed during Pride in a restricted area, the Premises falls outside that area. GMP requested that the panel issued a counter notice.

The applicant then addressed the Hearing Panel, stating they had been a small business owner since 2018. They had obtained a Licence for their previous salon in 2019, developing a relationship with officers from the Responsible Authorities in the process. The business expanded in 2022 to a new premises, on the fringe of the Village. They noted that barriers for Pride are near their salon, causing a hindrance. The applicant felt that the original explanation for objecting to their application was lacking. They would not allow customers to take alcohol onto the street and were seeking a compromise due to the barrier outside their salon. The stock would be locked away, with a Challenge 25 policy in place. The salon would have significant staffing in place for this. The applicant stated that they could put up a marquee.

GMP appreciated that the applicant sought compromise but did inform them that the barrier was an issue for Pride themselves, which the applicant was not originally aware of. GMP also informed the applicant that the marquee suggested was not something that the panel could consider, and that they could only consider what had been applied for. The applicant stated they had come with a willingness to find a compromise but would reapply if necessary.

The panel’s legal representative informed the applicant that the panel could not put conditions onto a TEN, they could only consider the application as received. They stated it would be suitable for the applicant to speak to GMP and LOOH before making a further application, should the panel issue a counter notice.

GMP summed up by stating that the proposed way forward appeared to be an amended application. As the panel could not consider anything outside the application as received, GMP requested that the panel issue a counter notice.

The applicant summed up by stating that they were glad to receive further clarity and had nothing to add regarding their application.

In their deliberations, the panel noted that they could only consider the application as received and could not amend the application. The panel were therefore not satisfied that the application as received could uphold the Licensing Objectives.

Decision

To issue a counter notice.