Agenda item

Agenda item

Application for a New Premises Licence - Apna Thikana, Basement, M1 Building, 50 Princess Street, Manchester, M1 6HR

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.


The applicant’s agent addressed the Hearing Panel, stating the applicant had over 11 years of restaurant experience. In forming their application, the applicant took note of Manchester’s Licensing Policy and the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act to ensure their application upheld the Licensing Objectives. The restaurant would be situated in a basement that previously had a similar premises in until that ceased trading 10 years ago. The premises was in a poor state of repair and the applicant had taken time to get it up and running again. The applicant had fit silencers on the extractor to alleviate resident concerns regarding noise emanation.


The applicant’s agent noted that health and safety, and fire risk assessments had been completed, alongside a noise assessment. The applicant had agreed additional conditions with LOOH to strengthen their application. The applicant’s agent stated that the venue was not a nightclub and that any entertainment at the venue would be cultural. They noted that the absence of a representation from GMP highlighted that the Licensing Objectives would be upheld as they are the experts. It was stated that a condition had been put forward that customers can only be served alcohol with a meal to stop the premises becoming a bar.


The applicant’s agent moved on to address objector concerns relating to crime, noise and takeaways. They re-stated the absence of a representation from GMP showed that crime was not seen as a problem. Door supervisors were also to be employed from 22.00 on any night that the restaurant was open post-midnight. It was noted that would not be every night, but the applicant sought flexibility in their Licence to allow for it when necessary. In terms of noise, a noise impact assessment had been completed and there was no Cumulative Impact Zone in place. Door supervisors would also assist in managing noise levels. All takeaways were suggested to be completed via the back door. The applicant wanted to work with responsible authority’s and residents to ensure the premises did not have a negative impact.


The applicant’s agent noted that the premises had ran for three weeks utilising temporary licenses and there had been no issues reported to the premises, LOOH or GMP.


Under questioning from the resident objector, the applicant’s agent noted that as per legislation, they were not required to consult residents regarding the application. They met the requirements of legislation but placing notices on the front and back door, and in the newspaper. The applicant’s agent noted they had proposed a condition to limit the smoking area capacity to reduce noise for residents. They stated that as the smoking area would be on a public highway, it would be difficult to manage. They felt that realistically it would not be an issue, however stated that a phone number would be available for residents to contact the premises with any issues. It was noted that the noise impact assessment was completed to mirror the everyday use of a restaurant and the report found no escape of noise. The applicant’s agent stated that the premises would operate as a restaurant and would not be anything else.


Under questioning from the panel, the applicant’s agent stated that the smoking area would be on ground level to the right of the entrance, as suggested by LOOH. Entertainment would only take place indoors, any reference to outdoors was in relation to the delivery of food which would be collected from the back door. The applicant had requested opening times until 4am only on Sundays before bank holidays and New Years Eve, however the applicant indicated they were willing for this to be removed from the application. The applicant’s agent was unsure why the opening hours in the noise report differed from those applied for.


The resident objector addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that the area had changed in recent years, becoming more residential. They raised concerns that there had been no consultation with residents regarding the application. They noted that most restaurants in the area close at midnight, and felt it was difficult to see how this application was only for a restaurant with the opening hours applied for. The resident objector felt that the premises would increase public nuisance, raising particular concerns regarding the smoking area. They felt that the noise report did not adequately address their concerns.


Under questioning from the applicant’s agent, the objector stated they had made reports during the period the restaurant had operated with temporary licences, particularly regarding the extractor fans. The objector accepted they had not seen that silencers had been fitted on the extractor. The objector accepted that the applicant had offered conditions relating to the smoking area that may satisfy their concerns.


Under questioning from the panel, the objector accepted that it was a suitable location for a restaurant, if done appropriately. The objector accepted that some of their concerns were being addressed by the applicant and the conditions being proposed.


The resident objector summed up by stating that they accepted the application was becoming more acceptable with the additional conditions being proposed.


The applicant’s agent summed up by stating that the operating schedule would uphold the Licensing Objectives. GMP and LOOH are the experts, with GMP making no representation and LOOH agreeing conditions with the applicant. The noise emanation from the extractor had been dealt with and there had been no issues whilst operating on a temporary license. They noted the objector had not supplied any evidence.


In their deliberations, the Hearing 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 took regard of the information provided to them from the resident objector. The panel noted that the applicant was an experienced restaurant operator. The panel accepted that the applicant had a noise impact assessment completed and had fitted silencers to the extractor, however they had concerns regarding internal noise and vibrations. The panel had concerns regarding the use of the back door, which was a fire door, to complete takeaway collections. The panel was satisfied that the applicant was to employ door supervisors from 22.00 on nights that they operated post-midnight. The panel, whilst noting the applicant did what they were legally required to do, had concerns that residents had not been consulted. The panel noted that conditions had been agreed with LOOH and there had been no representation from GMP.





To grant the application subject to the additional conditions agreed with LOOH, and the following conditions put forward by the panel:


1.All collections for take-away food be through the main entrance of the venue.

2.No noise shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises that gives rise to a nuisance.

3.A direct telephone number for the manager of the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises are open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents in the building.

4.A smoking policy being agreed by LOOH.

5.The kitchen to close at 00.30, including for deliveries.

6.An additional two operating hours allowed for New Years Eve.

Supporting documents: