The Committee considered all representations at the hearing. The Committee also considered the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made there under, the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act and the Licensing Objectives.

The Applicant was in attendance and represented by Ms Rebecca Ingram of Kuits Solicitors.

Ms Ingram presented the Applicant had been in the licensing trade for thirty years trading in both on and off premises sales and had traded from this site since 1998.

There was no history of police or Licensing Compliance call-outs, no noise complaints and in fact had an exemplary record.

The premises was a dedicated wine and craft beer shop trading in fine wines and located on a busy road in the Chorlton area. The Applicant did not want any negative impact on the local community and he was in fact, a member of that community.

There were numerous premises located nearby including a McDonalds, a garage, a Shisha bar and furthermore, there were a number of shops/commercial premises across the road.

The Applicant was not seeking to vary the layout or the nature of the premises but wished to offer a few seats internally to seat around a central ‘shelf’ in the store, and a few externally when the weather permitted. These would be for sampling high quality products and asserted the small number of seats would not impact in any way in respect of any drunk and/or disorderly behaviour. The Applicant it was said, promoted responsible drinking.

In relation to the representations made by the local residents from Norbreck Avenue, Ms Ingram addressed them as follows: -

1. Littering – The Applicant was upset in relation to this as he not only ensures the front of his premises was kept clear and clean but also regularly cleared litter from other premises to ensure his shop frontage is maintained. In addition, it was difficult to see how ‘on sales’ would contribute to this; had the Application been vice-versa, the concern in this regard would be more understandable;
2. Noise – There had never been any complaints in relation to noise and notwithstanding the representation from the two residents, there had not been any complaints during or subsequent to Temporary Event Notice/event;
3. Public Safety – It was accepted this road was a busy road, but this was not a new application so there was no change in the existing circumstances;
4. Children/underage sales – Again, this was not a new application; there had been no issue to date and there were therefore clearly adequate provisions within the operating schedule;
5. Dispersal – the vast majority of customers did not disperse via Norbreck Avenue; there was an alleyway that ran down the side of the premises which then went onto Norbreck Avenue. In the event that any customers did disperse via that route, the Applicant was of the belief that his clientele would not behave in an anti-social or disorderly manner.

It was accepted the area was a mixed area although the Applicant confirmed he had four parking spaces which he paid rates for and attention was drawn/paralleled to the Ancoats policy and that this premises licence was until 2300 hours.

The written representations were read out in the hearing. Those making the representations did not attend.

The Committee paid regard to the representations made by the two local residents.

However, they noted the premises had been operating with an ‘off-sales’ licence without complaint or issue since 1998. This was not a new application but one for a variation and one for ‘on sales’. Given the nature of the establishment and clientele along with the representations from Ms Ingram the Committee was satisfied none of the licensing objectives would be undermined. 

Decision

To grant the application as applied for.