Agenda item
Application for a DPS Variation - Sky Lounge, 241 Barlow Moor Road, Manchester, M21 7QL
The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.
Minutes:
The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning an application for a DPS Variation. The Hearing Panel considered the written papers of the parties submitted and the oral representations of the parties who attended, as well as the relevant legislation.
The applicant addressed the Hearing Panel, noting the objection received from GMP. They understood the concerns. The applicant was already the Premises Licence Holder. The applicant felt they now had a good relationship with their neighbours and customers. They had resolved any complaints and did not believe any complaints had been received in the last six months.
The panel asked the applicant to confirm that no complaints had been received in the last six months. The applicant stated that they did not believe the public or neighbours of the Premises had made any complaints. They had tried to manage issues from the past. A letter had been sent to neighbours with the applicant’s phone number for those nearby to contact if there were any issues. The applicant stated that they were trying to arrange a meeting with residents every three months to discuss any issues. The applicant noted that those meetings had not yet started. The applicant stated that they had been operating since 25 October 2023.
GMP addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that the person being proposed for this DPS variation, was the current Premises Licence Holder of the premises and with this application they were seeking to install themselves as the Designated Premises Supervisor of the premises. They had already been twice refused at committee of being the DPS at previous hearings in January 2024 and November 2024, so 2 separate licensing subcommittees have already determined the applicant as unsuitable to become DPS.
The premises licence for this premises and, as such the applicant, were subject to review proceedings which were applied for by Manchester City Council Licensing and Out of Hours Team due to the following serious issues:
1. Persistent refusal from the Licence Holder to comply with the hours & multiple conditions of the licence.
2. Refusal by the Licence Holder to provide CCTV in line with conditions & in connection with allegations of unauthorised licensable activities.
3. Complaints received by members of the public relating to nuisance & licensing offences.
4. Offences being committed under the Health
Act 2006 relating to smoke free legislation.
The review hearing took place on 22nd January 2024 and, as a result of this hearing, the Premises Licence was revoked. This decision was appealed by the PLH and therefore the licence was still live and able to be traded on, pending the outcome of the appeal. Since the date of the revocation and subsequent appeal application there had been more offences discovered by MCC LOOH officers. LOOH visited on 1/10/24 to make the applicant aware that their DPS had resigned, and the applicant was found to be smoking shisha with another male in the conservatory whilst it was substantially enclosed again. The applicant was obstructive when spoken to and repeatedly told the LOOH officer that there was no tobacco or coal in the pipe, and that it was electronic. When the officer went to seize the pipe, the applicant admitted there was coal in it. The pipe was not seized as it was too hot to touch.
The previous DPS who had resigned, had been spoken to by LOOH and told them that they didn’t know they were still DPS. They told LOOH they had not worked there since before Christmas 2023. Therefore, the premises have been operating without a DPS present for 10 months. This meant that any sales of alcohol during this time would have been unlawful, and the applicant should have been fully aware of this. LOOH and GMP visited Sky Lounge just after 7pm on Friday 18th October 2024 and completed a check of a couple of conditions, which were both in breach.
1) A member of staff who came to speak with them but was unable to communicate with them in English. The PLH and proposed new DPS, was not on site. A female staff member tried to translate. The applicant and the member of staff continuously telephoned each other which obstructed them trying to communicate with the applicant.
2) They checked condition 12 Annex 2 of the premises licence which stipulates a personal licence holder must be on site. No PLH was on site. The applicant was spoke to on the phone and confirmed they were the only personal licence holder. It was explained that a PLH must be on site at all times, the applicant responded that they cannot work 7 days per week and has trained all the staff. They said that they had told the committee they could not work every day, it’s too much. They then asked the staff member if they could view the CCTV (Condition 1 Annexe 3). The staff member said only the applicant had access to it.
3) Staff confirmed they were currently selling alcohol, and inside customers could be seen drinking what appeared to be pints of lager.
Therefore, GMP had serious concerns as to the applicant’s suitability to become the Designated Premises Supervisor due to the issues that have already occurred at the premises and their failure to address them and cooperate with MCC Licensing and Out of Hours officers. The fact that the applicant has been found to be committing further offences whilst their licence has been revoked and was currently under appeal proceedings was also a cause for serious concern.
Manchester City Council’s own Licensing Policy states:
“Where, following an objection by the police, the Licensing Authority are satisfied that the appointment of a person as a Designated Premises Supervisor would undermine the crime prevention licensing objective, the policy is to refuse the appointment or to remove them as the DPS in circumstances where they are already in post.”
GMP therefore asked that the DPS variation was refused.
The applicant questioned if GMP had received any complaints from the public. GMP noted that complaints from the public regarding noise would go to LOOH. GMP had received complaints from LOOH and had stated what they were in their statement.
GMP summed up by stating that they believed the applicant to be unsuitable to be DPS. Whilst they can trade due to the revocation of the licence going through the appeals process, the applicant continued to commit offences.
The applicant summed up by stating that they had not received information pertaining to previous hearings which explained their absence from them. They had been trying to resolve all issues at the Premises over the last six months. They are always on site so felt there was no point in getting a different person to be DPS. All staff had received training and two were in the process of getting a personal licence.
In reaching its decision, the Panel has also 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 as well as the licensing objectives. The panel noted that the applicant had stated meetings would take place with neighbours to raise any issues, but they had not yet happened. The panel accepted the evidence of GMP that the applicant had been seen smoking a shisha pipe containing coal on-site and this was a breach of the Health Act 2006. The panel were satisfied by the evidence of GMP that to appoint the applicant as DPS would undermine the Prevention of Crime and Disorder Licensing Objective. The panel concluded that the applicant had a total disregard for the licensing regime and was not a suitable candidate to be a DPS of a licensed premises.
Decision
To refuse the application for a DPS variation.
Supporting documents:
-
Sky Lounge - report, item 79.
PDF 83 KB
-
Appendix 1 - Location plan and photo (Publish), item 79.
PDF 4 MB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 79./3 is restricted
-
Appendix 2 - Application (Publish), item 79.
PDF 7 KB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 79./5 is restricted
-
Appendix 3 - Representation (Publish), item 79.
PDF 230 KB
-
FOR INFORMATION - existing licence, item 79.
PDF 1 MB