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

A Temporary Event Notice (TEN) had been received regarding an on licence to supply/sell alcohol from 1900 hours on 11 August 2023 until 0400 hours on the 12 August 2023. No further details were provided on the Notice except for the fact this was to be a fundraising event.

Objections were received from relevant authorities, namely Greater Manchester Police, (GMP) and Environmental Health (EHO) on the basis that the event was scheduled to take place during the Manchester Caribbean Carnival weekend, a huge two-day event. Claremont Road was within the parameters of the event and the area was subject to impromptu street parties, copious amounts of on-street drinking and outbreaks of violence placing extra pressure on resources and an additional event would or could exacerbate those issues. GMP accepted that the Church had, had several TENs and stated that whilst they were not suggesting that the Applicant was a bad operator – and gave emphasis to the timing and location of the event being of concern as well as the Applicant’s ability to control dispersal of patrons or manage unexpected ingress of crowds.

EHO objected to the TEN on the basis Claremont Road was a key road with the potential for people who had been drinking for several hours causing problems at the venue; in addition, EHO questioned the ability to control the event as the Applicant was not a personal licence holder, (PLH), however they also stated the inclusion of a PLH would not lessen their concerns.

The Applicant explained the following: -

1.    The event was for one of their foundation members who is ill, and the Church wanted to raise funds to assist medically. The member was in a wheelchair and was to perform at the event with supporting acts.

2.    The event was being organised by a promoter as a ‘tribute’ event and they had put the whole package together; the event was open to the public not just members of the church and there had been various advertising mechanisms to promote the event by different parties.

3.    It was an event was likely to attract an age group of the over 40’s; there was not an intention to drink until 0400 and they would guarantee a PLH would be on the premises at all times.

4.    The numbers expected were not 499 but approximately 250 - 300 (previous events had been 300 – 350 but people came and went throughout the day) – the Applicant was unable to confirm how many tickets had been sold at the time of the hearing  because as a promoter was organising the event and therefore, they had no control of the numbers until the day of the event.

5.    On questioning the Applicant confirmed that they had their own SIA security described as a minimum of 6 outside and 3 on bag security. Furthermore up to 14 of their members would act as security inside

6.    The Applicant was unable to provide details regarding dispersal other than to confirm the Church did invite the community in and would politely disperse patrons

7.    When questioned, the Applicant was unable to confirm any knowledge regarding the licensing objectives other than to say there should be no alcohol sales to persons under 16 and no drunk and disorderly behaviour.

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

The Panel expressed concern that the Applicant was not aware of the Licensing Objectives and concluded that, as a result, they would be unable to promote them or prevent them being undermined.

The Panel was also concerned that notwithstanding the history of TENs at the premises, on this occasion, the Applicant submitted details about the event that was not comprehensive on the basis that it was being run by an external promoter who was organising the ‘whole package’.  The Panel could not be satisfied that the Applicant had provided a sufficient level of knowledge about how the event would be operated.

The Panel also took into consideration that the Applicant was not able to provide a sufficiwent level of detail  about the number of people the premises anticipated, (albeit limited to 499), nor a sufficient level of information about staff training in relation to any age checks regarding the sale of alcohol, dispersal of a large number of people at the conclusion of the event or the possible influx of unwanted people.

The fact the Applicant was not a PLH was not an issue and although there was discussion regarding the hours applied for and the Applicant amended the terminal hour to midnight, in view of the above, the Panel was not satisfied that  the Applicant had sufficient knowledge of how the event would operate, their lack of knowledge of the controls in place to ensure the safety of patrons attending the venue, the location and timing of the event i.e. its proximity to the Carnival. In their opinion, the event would undermine the licensing objectives of, the prevention of Crime and Disorder and the prevention of Public Nuisance and should therefore not take place.

Decision

The serve a counter-notice to the application.