Agenda item

Agenda item

Urgent Business - Temporary Event Notice - Queens Hotel, Sedgeford Road, Manchester, M40 8Q

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.


Greater Manchester Police (GMP) addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that the notice was for three consecutive dates, Friday 25 to Sunday 27 August, 12.00 to 00.00. GMP reminded the panel that the Premises Licence for the Queens Hotel had been revoked on 6 April 2023, however that decision had been appealed by the applicant. GMP asked that the Temporary Event Notice was subject to the same scrutiny as the events that led to the revocation of the Premises Licence. GMP requested that, in the interests of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety, the panel issue a counter notice.


The Chair invited the applicant and their representative to ask GMP questions of their statement. Their representative questioned why GMP had asked for refusal when the premises had recently run 11 charity events without issue. GMP noted that they were unlicensed events that bared no relevance to this Temporary Event Notice. GMP still believed there was a possibility of crime and disorder at the venue, following the events that led to the revocation of the Premises Licence.


The applicant’s representative re-asked why GMP felt crime and disorder was possible. GMP reiterated that the events leading to revocation had left them with no confidence in their ability to prevent crime and disorder.


The applicant’s representative noted this was a different event to what had gone before so asked why GMP thought crime and disorder was still possible. GMP noted that the applicant’s representative was an active suspect, on bail and that both the applicant and their representative had received threats to life. The applicant’s representative stated they were not on bail. GMP corrected their statement, retracting the reference to the representative being on bail.


The applicant’s representative asked for GMP to present the information showing that theirs and the applicants’ lives would be in danger. GMP noted that they had both received threats to life.


The Hearing Panel’s legal representative noted that the questions being asked by the applicant’s representative had become repetitive, feeling that GMP had provided answers to the questions. The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to continue with any different questions they may have had. They had no further questions.


Licensing Out of Hours (LOOH), in their capacity as Environmental Health, addressed the Hearing Panel, noting their belief that the Temporary Event Notice was a way for the applicant to circumvent the Licensing system following their revocation. LOOH did not have confidence that the applicant could uphold the Licensing Objectives.


The applicant’s representative questioned why LOOH were concerned about the events when they were not taking place out of hours. LOOH noted their concern related to the events that led to the revocation of the Premises Licence and their lack of confidence in the Licensing Objectives being upheld.


The Hearing Panel’s legal representative informed the applicant’s representative the LOOH had made their representation in their capacity as Environmental Health.


The applicant’s representative addressed the Hearing Panel, noting they had owned the premises for over 40 years, feeling they had operated with an unblemished record until the revocation. They felt the Licence had been revoked due to GMP stating that their lives and their customers lives were in danger. The applicant’s representative believed that to be false information and that the information did not exist. The applicant’s representative informed the panel that the application was for a charity event, and they had no alternative motive. They believed that the same people who had attended the previous 11 charity events would attend for this event, and there had been no issues at the other events. The applicant’s representative noted that they had alcohol left over since the revocation and had been supplying that at charity events in exchange for donations from customers. The applicant’s representative stated that would continue whether the Temporary Event Notice was granted or not. They noted that neither themselves nor the applicant had been found guilty of anything and they were not criminals as they felt had been suggested by GMP. The applicant’s representative did not understand how they could be deemed as running the pub for 40 years without issue then become unfit to hold a licence overnight.


The Chair invited questions from GMP and LOOH regarding the applicant’s representative’s statement, but none were forthcoming.


The Chair then invited questions from the Hearing Panel. A member of the Panel referenced that they had just searched the internet to check the applicant’s representative’s claim of having an unblemished record. The Chair and the Hearing Panel’s legal representative stopped this question, informing the panel and the applicant that only information before the panel could be considered and that the information seen online would not form part of any decision made by the panel.


A member of the panel then requested to hear from the applicant rather than their representative. The Chair again interjected to remind the panel that the applicant could be represented by whoever they choose and they themselves did not have to address the panel, as per the Licensing Act 2003.


A member of the panel noted that the applicant’s representative had stated that GMP had referred to them as criminals and asked the representative where that had been referenced in the report. The applicant’s representative continued to state that GMP had referenced them being a criminal and that they had said they were unfit to run a Licensed Premises. The Hearing Panel’s legal representative clarified that GMP had referred to the applicant’s representative as still being an active suspect in an ongoing investigation.


When invited to sum up, GMP had nothing to add.


When invited to sum up, LOOH had nothing to add.


The applicant’s representative summed up by stating that they had never been charged or prosecuted. They felt there was a ‘sour taste’ now that a panel member had searched the internet for stories regarding themselves and the applicant, feeling that the panel member would have had a tarnished view. The applicant’s representative felt their business had been destroyed. They reiterated that the event would go ahead regardless of the outcome.


The Chair reminded the applicant’s representative that the Hearing Panel could only consider the evidence in front of them, and that the information found on the internet would be discounted from any decision made.


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. Due to the concern of the applicant regarding bias of a panel member following an internet search, that panel member took no part in the decision-making process, abstaining from the decision made. The remaining panel members considered that the Premises Licence had been revoked in April 2023, noting they did not want to undermine a decision made by a previous panel but still considering this notice on its own merits. The panel had to consider whether they were satisfied that the event would uphold the Licensing Objectives, and if they were not then it is policy to issue a counter notice. The panel noted that the applicant’s representative was still an active suspect in the GMP investigation into the events that led to revocation. The panel raised concerns regarding the 11 previous charity events ran by the applicant, as their representative had admitted that alcohol was supplied at them without a Licence or Temporary Event Notice in place. This added to the panel’s concerns that the applicant’s representative had stated the events would go ahead with or without the granting of this Temporary Event Notice. In considering this, the panel accepted the representations of GMP and LOOH that the Licensing Objectives would not be upheld. The panel had particular concerns relating to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, and the Prevention of Public Nuisance.




The serve a counter-notice to the application.

Supporting documents: