Application for a New Premises Licence for Kids Palace Ltd, 3 Keymer Street, Manchester, M11 3FY.
The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.
The Committee was advised that the Application was made with a view to providing a venue to support and enhance community activities and one that was affordable to hire for such purposes.
The Committee was advised that a TEN had taken place in December 2018 and that there had been no complaints arising out of the event.
As a consequence, the Applicant stated that they wished to apply for a licence which would allow for licensable activities to be provided all year round without the need to resort to applying each time for a TEN to support an event.
The DPS indicated that she had received licensing training and that she would be responsible for personally providing training to three other members of staff.
An indication was given to the Committee that, should the licence be granted, security at the venue would be overseen by communities / organisations responsible for hiring the premises.
Whilst the premises did encourage family participation at such events the committee was advised that children would not be allowed into areas where alcohol was being served.
It also stated that noise levels would be kept to a minimum to respect residents peace and enjoyment of their neighbourhood .
Furthermore, the DPS indicated that the premises would look to avoid holding events at times when there was a clash with other attractions in the locality eg football matches at the Etihad Stadium.
In addition, the premises offered to amend the terminal hour for all licensable activities to 1am.
Summary of GMP evidence
GMP stated that the Application was vague and did not instil confidence that the premises would be capable of upholding the licensing objectives.
It was suggested that the DPS did not possess the experience to manage the premises effectively and concerns were expressed about who would be running the premises in the absence of the DPS and whether such staff had received appropriate training.
Whilst the premises indicated an intention to provide CCTV footage if requested, GMP stated that, in their view, this may not always be possible given that it was controlled by the landlord.
Concern was also expressed that, if the licence was granted, the premises could be sold on without appropriate safeguards in place to uphold the licensing objectives.
Trading Standards were concerned about the Protection of Children licensing objective at the premises without suitable conditions being added to the licence.
There appeared to be no age challenge policy in place or any evidence to suggest that the premises would keep a refusals log to monitor persons who were refused sales of alcohol.
Summary of Licensing Authority’s Evidence
Committee was advised that there appeared to be a lack of direction as to how the premises would be managed and controlled.
The Committee was referred to its own Licensing Policy and reminded of the operating standards that were to be expected of licensable establishments within the City.
An isolated TEN event without complaint should not be taken to assume that the premises would be capable of upholding the licensing objectives, if a licence was granted.
It was stated that no contingencies had been put in place to uphold the licensing objectives in the event that major attractions were taking place in the locality at the same time.
Summary of Ward Councillor Evidence
Particular concern was expressed about dispersal of patrons after an event had taken place at the premises and how this would be managed.
It was suggested to the Committee that there was very little road space available for taxis in the surrounding areas and that this could result in noise nuisance for neighbouring residents.
In addition, the regeneration of the area could exacerbate problems for the premises in upholding the licensing objectives, unless managed and controlled effectively.
The Committee was not satisfied that the Applicant would be capable of upholding the licensing objectives.
It had not demonstrated in its application how it proposed to take the necessary steps to meet such objectives.
In addition, the Committee felt that the Applicant /DPS did not have the necessary experience or be able to guarantee that staff were trained appropriately to safeguard the Committee’s concerns that the premises would be well run .
The Committee was concerned that the DPS / Premises appeared to absolve its responsibility for ensuring that the premises would provide accredited doorstaff when functions were to be held at the premises.
It also noted its own licensing policy and was not satisfied that the premises would be capable of adhering to the standards identified in the policy.
In arriving at its decision the Committee also took into account the licensing objectives, Licensing Act 2003 and the s182 guidance relevant to such matters.
To refuse to grant the application.
- Kids Palace report, item 86. PDF 417 KB
- Appendix 1 - LOCATION - PUBLISH, item 86. PDF 257 KB
- Appendix 2 - APPLICATION - PUBLISH, item 86. PDF 454 KB
- Appendix 3 -REPRESENTATIONS - PUBLISH, item 86. PDF 519 KB
- Appendix 4 - SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS, item 86. PDF 12 KB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 86./6 is restricted