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

The Committee decided to commence the hearing in the absence of the Applicant at 10:50 am.  Telephone calls had been made to the Applicant to ascertain his whereabouts, the first message received shortly after 10 am was that the Applicant was looking for a place to park and would be in attendance in 5 minutes.  After two further such messages the Committee asked that the Applicant be informed that the Hearing would commence at 10:50 am.  A message was received that the Applicant would not attend the hearing as he had not been able to find a parking space.

The Committee considered the written application and also the oral and written representations of the objectors.  The Committee took into account the fact that the premises was situated in the Fallowfield and Wilmslow Road special policy area and that the applicant was not proposing to take any additional measures if the variation was granted.  The Committee heard that the premises was situated close to both Manchester University Halls of Residence at Owens Park and residential accommodation and that there was a high level of antisocial behaviour, crime and public nuisance caused by alcohol consumption in the area.  The Committee was also told that the premises is a source of litter in the immediate vicinity and that the operator does not clean up the litter around the premises caused by his operation.  After considering the concerns of local residents, Manchester University and the Responsible Authorities the Committee considered that it was appropriate to refuse the application on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.  The Committee considered the special policy under section 5 of  Manchester City Councils  Statement of Licensing Policy , the effect of the Special Policy is that the Council will refuse applications for a new Premises Licence or Club Premises Certificate, or variation of an existing licence or certificate, whenever it receives relevant representation, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.  The Committee considered that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate in the application why the premises would not add to the cumulative impact.  The Committee was concerned that the Applicant had not considered that any additional steps would be required and the Committee considered that the licensing objectives would be undermined if the variation was granted. Therefore, the Committee was satisfied that in all the circumstances it was appropriate to refuse the application.

Decision

Refuse to grant the License Variation Application.