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

The Hearing Panel considered the 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 matter was considered in line with the established procedure for such hearings.

 

The Applicant’s Representative advised the Panel that the premises is situated in a commercial area therefore local residents would not be affected by the premises. The aim was for the local community to use the premises. The Hearing Panel was told that the objections to the application from the Licensing Out Of Hours (LOOH) team and GMP were mainly concerned with the charity which is next door to the premises. Furthermore, the Hearing Panel heard that blue notices had been displayed at the premises and the charity had not submitted representations against this application and in fact welcomed the business. The Hearing Panel was told that the Consultant who had submitted this application had recently spoken to the Manager about the application and the sole concern was about parking which the Applicant’s representative acknowledged was instead a planning consideration. The charity had stated they did not however feel that the issue was of significant concern and the Panel was referred to the email in the Applicant’s bundle referring to that matter.

 

The Hearing Panel was told that the premises would not interfere with the operation of the charity, highlighting that 4pm was the latest time that the Charity opened. Further the Hearing Panel was advised that the premises, subject to this application, is currently unoccupied. The Applicant’s Representative told the Hearing Panel that the Applicant had previously lived in Manchester and as such is familiar with the area in which the premises is located. Furthermore, the Panel was invited to note that the Applicant is currently involved in a pub in Birmingham, holds a personal licence and the level of investment that the Applicant intended for the renovation of the premises was outlined.

 

Regarding the representations submitted by the LOOH team, the Panel heard that the Applicant’s Representative had worked with LOOH to address any risk and had agreed what she described as a comprehensive set of conditions. There were conditions set out in the operating schedules and further conditions which had been agreed with LOOH. The Hearing Panel was referred to the document in the Applicant’s bundle which initially confirmed the agreement. However, a later communication was received from LOOH indicating that the application had been reviewed and that it had been subsequently resolved that it was not a suitable location and as such LOOH would be seeking refusal of the application, despite the matter having formerly being agreed and without any comment on the suggested conditions or an explanation of why they were not now considered appropriate.

 

Turning to the representation that had been received from GMP, the Applicant’s Representative highlighted that the only objections they had raised centred on the proximity to the charity next door; that the premises was not in a suitable location and that as a result this potentially would cause noise issues. She referred to Section 182 guidance in respect of a lack of supporting evidence to suggest that the licensing objectives would be undermined should the licence be granted; that the consideration of any application should be on a case by case basis, be evidence based and proportionate and that standardised conditions which ignore a premises’ individual aspects should be avoided. In respect of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy the Applicant’s Representative also referred to the commitment to the promotion of an ‘inclusive’ evening and night-time economythroughout the city to ensure that people of all ages can participate in and enjoy a range of activities through a diverse array of licensed premises, not simply focused on the consumption of alcohol.

 

The Hearing Panel then heard from the LOOH representative, who acknowledged that there had been a change in view regarding this application. It was explained that a more junior member of staff had considered the application and had responded by agreeing further conditions, however when the application was looked at by a more senior member of the team the position had changed. It was therefore subsequently resolved by the team that it was not appropriate for those conditions to be agreed.

 

The Panel heard that LOOH did not believe that the location was suitable for a licensed premises, with emphasis on there being a charity that is next door to the proposed premises. The officer referred to case law (R (on application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral Magistrates’ Court and Others (2008) EWHC 838 (Admin)) reminding the Panel that the case highlighted the crucial roles Responsible Authorities play in such applications.

 

The officer then highlighted that the premises did not have planning permission and referred the Panel to the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy which states at paragraph 3.47:

 

“The licensing process is separate from planning and building control regimes and shall be properly separated to avoid duplication and inefficiency. The planning and licensing regimes involve consideration of different (albeit related) matters and, as such, licensing applications shall not be a rerun of the planning application. Where the hours granted by planning are different to the licensing hours, the licensee must observe the earlier closing time. Likewise, the granting of a Premises Licence or Club Premises Certificate (or a variation) does not negate the requirement for the licensee to ensure that relevant planning permission (or building control approval) is in place prior to the premises operating.”

 

Furthermore, the officer referred to the transport infrastructure and submitted to the Panel that serious consideration should be taken of this, highlighting in particular Section 7.37 of the Statement of Licensing policy regarding the availability of transport and/or public transport that ensures customers are able to get home safely and without causing disturbance. The officer submitted that a 5am licence in the City Centre with good robust transport networks is wholly different to this application in Cheetham Hill, which does not have the same transport network.

 

The LOOH Representative questioned the Applicant who confirmed he would be playing classical music in the day and offering the space to the charity for meeting. When asked about the operation at 3/4/5am in the morning he advised the Panel that he would be putting on music and this would take place inside the bar. He stated the capacity for the bar is around 50/80 persons. He confirmed that he did not have planning permission as he hadn’t applied for it and was seeking to secure a premises licence first.

 

With regard to GMP’s representation, it was confirmed that their sole focus is the location of the premises with specific reference to it being  next door to a charity which provides assistance to people with learning difficulties. GMP advised the Panel that if this premises opens with potentially up to 80 people at the premises, with people vaping, smoking and drinking at the location, this would be quite alarming in a quiet location and could have a detrimental impact on the mental health of persons using the charity. It was submitted that the location was not therefore suitable and on that basis the application should be refused.

 

During questioning by the Applicant, it was confirmed that GMP had not contacted the charity to seek their views because the persons most affected by the proposed premises were the users of the charity and that it was not appropriate to contact those users.

 

GMP then questioned the Applicant about his involvement regarding other licensed premises currently and how he intends to run the premises in Manchester. The Applicant confirmed he worked in a shop and restaurant in Birmingham, and he wants to run his own bar if the licence is granted. Whilst unsure when questioned about the Designated Premises Supervisor role, he responded to three out of four of the licensing objectives, confirmed he would have three staff members working at the premises and that he would be oversee staff training. In summing up. GMP stated that they did not believe the Applicant had the required level of experience to run such a premises.

 

In summing up, the Applicants Representative advised that she was fully aware of the caselaw that had been cited as she had been involved with the case and stressed the importance of the inclusion of robust evidence, with emphasis given that in this case no evidence had been put forward to refuse this application.

 

In reaching its decision the Hearing Panel gave careful consideration to 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 as well as the licensing objectives.

 

During the hearing the Panel was referred to many sections of the section 182 guidance and the Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Panel took into consideration, paragraph 9.42 of the policy which states:

 

9.42 “Licensing authorities are best placed to determine what actions are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives in their areas. All licensing determinations should be considered on a case-by-case basis (emphasis added). They should take into account any representations or objections that have been received from responsible authorities or other persons, and representations made by the applicant or premises user as the case may be.”

 

9.43 “The authority’s determination should be evidence-based, (emphasis added) justified as being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and proportionate to what it is intended to achieve.”

 

On careful assessment of the representations made and the evidence given at the hearing, the Panel concluded that there is no evidence whatsoever to refuse this application outright. The Panel agreed that the conditions put forward by the Applicant and previously agreed with the LOOH’s team were robust, appropriate, and proportionate to uphold the licensing objectives. In respect of paragraph 9.12 of the Statement of Licensing Policy which states:

 

9.12 “Each responsible authority will be an expert in their respective field, and in some cases it is likely that a particular responsible authority will be the licensing authority’s main source of advice in relation to a particular licensing objective…”

 

The Panel was mindful that the Responsible Authorities are experts in their field and the main source of advice however, the agreed with the Applicant’s Representative that this can only be the case when sufficient evidence is presented, and that this had not been presented in this case.

 

The Panel took into consideration that the Responsible Authorities themselves had not contacted the charity to discuss this application bearing in mind the charity was the main issue raised in their representations. The Panel noted that the Applicant had clearly been in communication with the charity and the evidence provided by the Applicant’s Representative that the charity supported the application. This evidence was accepted and was not challenged by the Responsible Authorities. The Panel accepted that the final decision for any application rests with them, however they expressed real concerns that the LOOH team had made an agreement in writing with the Applicant and then subsequently withdrew that agreement and objected to the application. Before any representation is submitted by a Responsible Authority the nature of the application must be scrutinised. The Panel was satisfied based upon the information provided that the premises is situated in a suitable location.

 

In respect of GMP’s submission regarding the Applicant’s suitability to hold a Premises Licence, the Panel took into consideration that the Applicant is a personal licence holder (a professional qualification) and that coupled with his current experience, they were satisfied that he is suitable to hold a premises licence.

 

Turning to the submission made by the LOOH team regarding the absence of planning permission at the time of consideration, the Panel gave emphasis to this being a separate application which will need to be made by the Applicant. The Panel wish to remind the Applicant that this licensed premises can not operate without planning permission being granted, in line with paragraph 3.48 of the Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy which states:

 

“Premises operating in breach of their planning permission may be liable to prosecution or other enforcement under planning law. Any applicant who chooses to apply for the relevant licence prior to obtaining planning permission is advised to be aware of the relevant planning policy for the locality.

 

Decision

 

To grant the application for the hours applied for with the following conditions attached to the licence:

 

1.    A CCTV camera system capable of providing good quality images in all lighting conditions shall be used. Images will be retained for a period of at least 28 days and made available at the reasonable request of a Police Officer or an authorised officer of Manchester City Council.

2.    The CCTV recording equipment shall be kept in a secure environment under the control of the premises licence holder (PLH) and/or another named responsible individual.

3.    A staff member who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be present on the premises at all times when they are open to the public and must be able to produce/download/burn CCTV images upon request by a Police Officer or an authorised officer of Manchester City Council.

4.    Any person who appears to be intoxicated or who is behaving in a disorderly manner shall not be allowed entry to the premises.

5.    28 days’ notice shall be given to Greater Manchester Police and Manchester City Council of any events held that are organised by an external promoter, including full details of the nature of the event and of the promoter.

6.    All staff shall be trained in relevant age restrictions in respect of products, recognising signs of drunkenness, how to refuse service, the premises’ duty of care, company policies and reporting procedures, action to be taken in the event of an emergency and the conditions in force under this licence. Documented records of training completed shall be kept for each member of staff.

7.    Training shall be regularly refreshed and at no greater than 6 monthly intervals. The training records shall be made available for inspection upon request by a Police Officer or an authorised officer of Manchester City Council.

8.    The premises shall have a documented Duty of Care policy for managing intoxicated and vulnerable customers at the premises. The policy shall also include provision for persons refused entry to the premises who are considered vulnerable by staff.

9.    There shall be documented dispersal policy, as agreed with the relevant responsible authorities, implemented at the premises and a copy lodged with Manchester City Council’s Licensing Unit.

10.  There shall be a lockable “drugs box” at the premises to which no member of staff, except the DPS, shall have access.

11.  All controlled drugs (or items suspected to be or containing controlled drugs) found at the premises must be placed into this box as soon as practicable. Whenever this box is emptied, all its contents must be given to Greater Manchester Police for appropriate disposal.

12.  Speakers shall not be located or operated outside of the premises.

13.  The premises and immediate surrounding area shall be kept clean and free from litter at all times the premises are open to the public.

14.  An incident log (which may be electronically recorded) shall be kept at the premises for at least six months, and made available on request to the Police or an authorised officer of the licensing authority, which will record the following incidents including pertinent details: (a) any crimes reported to the premises; (b) all ejections of patrons (c) any incidents of disorder (d) any faults in the CCTV system (f) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service

15.  The DPS shall ensure that a written notice of authority is kept at the premises for all staff who are involved in alcohol sales. The notice shall be made available for inspection upon request of the police or an authorised officer of the licensing authority.

16.  The PLH/DPS will aim to develop and maintain good working relationships with Responsible Authorities, in particular with the Police.

17.  No alcoholic drinks in open containers will be allowed to be taken outside.

18.  The premises shall employ SIA registered doorman at a ratio of 1-100 on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays from 10pm until closing time. The use of doormen on other days will be considered on a risk assessed basis.

19.  When using doorstaff, they shall be clearly identifiable as door supervisors when on duty, wearing a high visibility armband, and the PLH/DPS shall ensure that the following details for each door supervisor are entered in a register; Full name; SIA Certificate number and/or badge number; The time they began and completed their duty; The full details of any agency through which they have been allocated to work at the premises if appropriate.

20.  The register shall be kept on the premises and made available at all reasonable times to an authorised officer of the Licensing Authority or the Police.

21.  A staff training scheme shall be used for all staff authorised to sell alcohol. The training will emphasise the importance of responsible alcohol retailing. Refresher training will be provided annually, records will be kept and be made available to responsible authorities.

22.  The premises has a zero tolerance to drugs - staff shall be vigilant, including checking the toilets, with the aim of ensuring that no drugs are being used on the premises.

23.  A first aid kit shall be kept on site an available for use by customers.

24.  Deliveries to the premises will be arranged so as not to cause public nuisance.

25.  The disposal of empty bottles/waste will be carried out at times that do not to cause any public nuisance.

26.  A prominent, clear and legible notice(s) shall be displayed at the exit asking customers to leave the premises quickly and quietly.

27.  The DPS or another nominated manager shall be in control of the sound levels of the music/entertainment to ensure that there is no nuisance.

28.  Challenge 25 shall be adopted. Anyone who appears to be under 25 years old who attempts to buy alcohol will be asked to prove their age by producing an acceptable form of photo ID such as a passport, photo driving licence, or PASS accredited proof of age cards.

29.  The premises shall display clear and prominent signage advising customers of Challenge 25.

30.  An alcohol refusals register will be kept and maintained. The register will include details of the date of the refusal, the time, and the reason(s) for refusing the sale. The register will be checked on a regular basis by the DPS and be made available for inspection.